PwC, a prominent financial services firm better known as PricewaterhouseCoopers, has published a report on the future of the global economy, which is projected to more than double between now and 2050. In the span of just 14 years, today’s 32 largest economies — which together comprise 85 percent of global GDP — will experience highly divergent fortunes, as current heavyweights will cede ground to up and coming powers. Continue reading
Having been one of the first countries to test out a guaranteed basic income back in the 1970s, Canada is once again planning to experiment with this idea, via a proposed pilot program wherein low income participants will receive an average of $1,320 monthly without conditions.
The project, which is to be launched in Canada’s largest province, Ontario, in fall of 2017, is laid out in a paper authored by Hugh Segal, a former senator and now special adviser to the province. According to the official proposal, the program’s aim will be to answer the most common questions and concerns regarding a basic income, including:
- Can basic income policies provide a more efficient, less intrusive, and less stigmatizing way of delivering income support for those now living in poverty?
- Can those policies also encourage work, relieve financial and time poverty, and reduce economic marginalization?
- Can a basic income reduce cost pressures in other areas of government spending, such as healthcare?
- Can a basic income strengthen the incentive to work, by responsibly helping those who are working but still living below the poverty line?
STEM — short for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics — is all the rage these days, as economies across the world become more knowledge-based, and as humanity faces threats like climate change and resource depletion that will require creative, technological solutions.
That’s why so many nations, especially in the developing world, are trying to gain a competitive advantage by investing in STEM education and seeking to attract STEM graduates from abroad. According to Forbes, which cites a report from the World Economic Forum, these are the countries leading the way:
Unsurprisingly, with their large and youthful populations, India and China have the most graduates overall at 78 million and 77.7 million, respectively. The U.S. is in third place with 67.4 million graduates, although the quality of its degrees may be greater than that of its competitors, whose education infrastructure is younger, less developed, and less prestigious (for now).
Japan’s high ranking is not surprising given that is a well established scientific and economic powerhouse, although its aging population and low rate of immigration likely explains why it doesn’t rank higher despite a population of 126 million. Russia, Iran, and Indonesia are rarely touted as academic leaders, but each is fairly populous — at 147 million, 75 million, and 260 million respectively — and Russia and Iran in particular have a long history of scientific achievement.
However, China may soon close this gap as it continues to improve its institutions and education standards:
Some estimates see the number of Chinese graduates aged between 25 and 34 rising 300 percent up to 2030 compared to just 30 percent in the U.S. and Europe. According to the World Economic Forum, STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) has become a pretty big deal in China’s flourishing universities. In 2013, 40 percent of Chinese graduates finished a degree in STEM, over twice the share in American third level institutions
In an increasingly globalized world, the ability to draw and retain students and graduates from around the world will likely become a bigger consideration for more countries. For all the complexities of its visa and customs systems, the U.S. has long enjoyed an edge in this regard — for example, all six of its 2016 Nobel Prize winners were foreign-born.
But a wave of nativism and xenophobia may undercut its attractiveness as a research and academic hub, and other countries — including neighboring Canada — have begun to step up as alternative options, dangling such incentives as a path to citizenship upon graduation.
One thing is for certain. The future of a nation’s success and survival will depend on its command of technology and science. How it goes about advancing those intellectual resources is a different matter altogether. But any country’s increasing education is humanity’s gain.
Following the now-official proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — and to force Mexico to pay for it — Foreign Policy reminds us not to undervalue our relationship with our southern neighbor.
Among other considerations, Mexico’s economy is the 11th or 15th largest in the world, depending on the metric. It is our third largest trading partner, accounting for 6 million U.S. jobs and $1.5 billion worth of commerce daily, and anywhere between 2-4 percent of U.S. GDP. More American citizens live in Mexico than anywhere else in the world, and it is the most popular tourist destination.
To save some time, I’ll also reiterate my own post from 2015 about Mexico’s probable was a major economic power in its own right:
Mexico is actually doing far better than most people realize, despite its many pressing social and political problems. Following the recession, the Mexican economy has grown twice as fast as America’s, and was among the fastest growing in the world in some years (albeit from a much lower base) … [It] is predicted by groups like Goldman Sachs and the World Bank to become the fifth to seventh largest economy by 2050 – around the level that France, Germany, and the U.K. are at today.
A few analysts have gone even further by suggesting that Mexico could become an influential global power in its own right. This is not as far fetched as it may initially sound: in many areas, such as infrastructure and business climate, the country is at least comparable, if superior, to Brazil, China, India, Russia, and other identified emerging powers; it has even earned coveted classification as one of several economic powerhouses to look out for — see the MINT group or the Next Eleven.
These accolades are well deserved. Since the mid-1990s, the majority of Mexicans have joined a rapidly growing middle-class, warranting the county’s official classification as a newly industrialized nation (NIC), a distinction only a handful of developing countries have achieved. Mexico’s average life expectancy and poverty rate is comparable to the U.S. (thanks in part to its universal healthcare system), while one-third of Mexican states have a violent crime rate equal to or even less than that of many U.S. states.
Mexico does of course have its problems, and its power dynamic with the U.S. makes it by far the junior partner in this bilateral relationship. But contrary to popular perception (at least among Americans) Mexico is far from a failed state. In spite of all its struggles, it has managed to become one of the world’s most robust economies, and has the potential to be a significant player in international affairs.
While the U.S. can still do a lot of damage to the country (far more than the other way around, to be sure) it is still insensible — not to mention immoral — to disrupt our relations with one of only two neighbors, a country whose interests and people are deeply intertwined with our own. As it is, the proposed 20 percent tax on Mexican imports to fund the border wall (since Mexico stands firmly opposed to funding it) will only end up transferring the costs onto American consumers — to the tune of $15 billion.
Many Americans believe U.S. foreign aid is ineffective and fails o reach the people that need it most. Unfortunately, the following map from HowMuch.net, courtesy of Vox.com, validates this criticism by revealing that the vast majority of government aid largely bypasses the world’s neediest countries:
Note that while this is based on 2014 data, official aid policy hasn’t really changed.
Israel is clearly the biggest recipient by a large margin, despite being one of the world’s wealthiest countries, followed by Egypt and Jordan, which, while middle income countries, have their aid mostly contingent on their peace treaties with Israel. Many of the top recipients are not among the poorest countries in the world, and although Afghanistan and Pakistan are impoverished, their aid is also mostly tied up with foreign policy objectives (e.g. the War on Terror).
It goes without saying that 2016 has been a rough year for a lot of folks. People can be forgiven for thinking that the world is going to hell in one way or another, but as economist Max Roser of Our World in Data points out in Vox.com, there has never been a time more worth celebrating in terms of moral progress. From poverty to literacy, the world is improving in so many areas, even if there is still quite a way to go. Continue reading
In an achievement as symbolic as it was substantive, India’s economy has overtaken that of the United Kingdom, its former colonial master, to become the sixth largest in the world by GDP, after the United States, China, Japan, Germany, and France. The last time its economy was larger than the U.K.’s was 150 years ago, when it was the second largest in the world after China. (Indeed, the two Asian giants were for centuries the biggest economies in the world prior to the age of European exploration and colonialism.) Continue reading
The Economist has put together an interesting map, based on data from the World Economic Forum, a Swiss think tank, showing the number of years each country has a had a female head of state or government. You might find the results surprising:
As with any data set, there are some caveats:
During that time period, just under two-fifths of the countries surveyed had a female head of state or government at some point for at least a year (excluding monarchs). In half of those countries, the total time served by female leaders falls short of five years, a common length of a single full term in office.
Like Hillary Clinton, who is the wife of a former American president, many female heads of state have hailed from political dynasties. At least a dozen are the wives or daughters of former presidents or prime ministers. They include the two women who, between them, have held the prime minister’s post in Bangladesh for 23 of the past 50 years—the longest any country has had women at the helm.
Moreover, the mixed bag of high ranking countries — ranging from developed democracies like Iceland and New Zealand, to more flawed democracies like the Philippines and Bangladesh — shows that greater representation for women in the upper echelons of power does not necessarily reflect, or translate to, more female empowerment and gender parity overall. (Especially if the women in power got there through proximity or political connections with men.)
The Economist recently featured a new book that aims to present a more nuanced and encouraging picture of the history of Islam and its innumerable, if now often understated, intellectual and cultural achievements. Chase Robinson’s Islamic Civilisation in Thirty Lives: The First 1,000 Years encapsulates Islamic history through the perspectives and experiences of thirty figures, who represent a cross section of Muslim society. Continue reading
While too many people still struggle with deprivation and abject poverty worldwide, it is crucial to acknowledge just how far humanity has come in this regard. Over at OurWorldInData.org, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Max Roser have put together an extensive, data-rich report on world poverty, and the results are outstanding to behold: in less than 200 years, our species has halved the rate of overall poverty while reducing the most extreme forms of it to a fourth of what it once was.
Poverty has declined not only proportionally, but in absolute numbers: in 1820, the world’s population was just under 1.1 billion, of which more than 1 billion lived in extreme poverty — defined by the World Bank as living on less than $1.90 a day.
As of 2015, there were more than 7.3 billion people on Earth, of which 705 million live in extreme poverty. In other words, despite a seven-fold growth in population, there are fewer poor people now than two centuries ago, when the world was much smaller.
The rate of decline in poverty began to accelerate as we approached the 21st century. From 1990 onward, the number of people living in extreme poverty declined by 47 million annually — or 130,000 a day. It is sobering to imagine that as of my writing of this post, tens of thousands of people have climbed out of poverty since the previous morning. (I know it is not evenly distributed day to day, but you get the idea.)
Granted, progress in poverty reduction remains highly uneven: while Asia is no longer home to the most abjectly poor people, Africa has taken its place with the largest number and percentage of people in extreme poverty, at 383 million (although this is far fewer than the over 1.4 billion people living in extreme poverty in Asia and the Pacific in 1990). And the Asia-Pacific region is still close behind with 327 million people struggling with dire poverty.
Here’s the breakdown along national lines:
Nevertheless, most of the countries still struggling with high rates of poverty have still seen some progress over the years, even if it has been slow and at times sporadic. The gains may be tenuous, but they’re still there, and there are more than enough encouraging examples of previously poor nations making incredible strides over the last several decades (South Korea, Singapore, Ghana, etc.).
Indeed, if we assume that the current rate of poverty decline continues, the number of extremely poor people will decline by more than half by 2030.
What a time to be alive, no?