The World Order in 2100

[Rii]

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, drawing and expanding upon projections by Goldman Sachs, recently produced a fascinating document exploring the evolution of the world order through 2050. The broad strokes are unsurprising:

The world’s economic balance of power is shifting rapidly. China remains on a path to overtake the United States as the world’s largest economic power within a generation, and India will join both as a global leader by mid-century.

Traditional Western powers will remain the wealthiest nations in terms of per capita income, but will be overtaken as the predominant world economies by much poorer countries. Given the sheer magnitude of the challenge of lower-wage competition, protectionist pressures in advanced economies may escalate.

The global economic transformation will shift international relations in unpredictable ways. To retain their historic influence, European nations will be pressed to conduct foreign policy jointly—an objective implied by their recently ratified constitution—and will need to reach out to emerging powers. Japan and Russia will seek new frameworks of alliances. The largest emerging nations may come to see each other as rivals.

Absolute poverty will be confined to small pockets in sub-Saharan Africa and India, though relative poverty will persist, and may even become more acute. Carbon emissions are also on a path toward climate catastrophe, and by mid-century may constitute a serious risk to the global growth forecast.

International organizations such as the IMF will be compelled to reform their governance structures to become more representative of the new economic landscape. Those that fail to do so will become marginalized.

Looking beyond the large players though, the broader trend is clear: the gulf between rich and poor is flattening out. In future, national power will be far more strongly associated with population than it is today.

2050 is probably about the limit of responsible forecasting, but who's interested in being responsible? Let's look a little further ahead ... to the world in 2100! *cue ominous music*

My thoughts:

We'll see four primary power blocs of rough equivalence: China, India, the European Union and the United States.

Of those four blocs, the European Union offers the greatest uncertainty: at one extreme, it could be little more effectual than it is today; at the other, it could emerge as 'first amongst equals'. One thing is certain: lacking further integration, the disparate European nations will dwindle to near irrelevance on the world stage by 2100.

Beyond the 'big four' will lie the following second-tier powers: Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, Turkey.

The last nation on that list, of course, is a current candidate for the European Union. If it were admitted, by 2100 it would certainly emerge as the most powerful member thereof.

Russia is a (rather more distant) possibility for future EU inclusion also. The aforementioned possibility of the EU emerging as the most powerful global entity assumes the accession of both Russia and Turkey.

If either and/or both of these nations are not admitted to the EU, they will likely emerge as fulcrums of their own regional power blocs.

The rise of Indonesia is of particular interest with respect to my own nation: Indonesia's GDP is expected to surpass that of Australia sometime around 2040; with per-capita equivalence lagging a generation or two behind. To say that this represents a fundamental shift in Australia's relationship with its regional environment is something of an understatement. Australia is one of the only western nations expected to experience significant population growth over the next century, but it's nothing against Indonesia's pace of development.

Third-tier nations are too numerous list; suffice to say they will include presently advanced nations like South Korea, EU constituents like Germany and the United Kingdom, through to nations like Chile, Pakistan and Iran, and even to a number of African states.

So ... anyone else have any thoughts?

 

[clint g]

Wouldn't it be some shit if the US actually merged with the EU by 2100? I can see it happening someday

 

[Brent]

I'm not so sure the US will be around by then, we might be a third world country by then.

 

[Rii]

^ Somehow I doubt it.

One thing I find interesting is that despite major unanticipated developments in the 20th century: the world wars, the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, the pace of technological progress ... the primary narrative remained intact.

That is to say, it was evident by 1900 that the 20th century was going to be the American century, much as it is evident now that the 21st is to be the Asian century. The world wars hastened the end of European dominance - particularly that of the British Empire - but the power shift was always going to happen.

 

[clint g]

I'm not so sure the US will be around by then, we might be a third world country by then.

I doubt it but anything is possible I suppose.

 

[clint g]

That is to say, it was evident by 1900 that the 20th century was going to be the American century, much as it is clear now that the 21st is to be the Asian century. The world wars hastened the end of European dominance - particularly that of the British Empire - but the eventual outcome was never in doubt.

It'll be interesting so see how long it lasts. With the rise of the internet and the way the world is developing, it seems as if it is becoming more difficult for a nation to maintain control of outside societies.

 

[Rii]

That is to say, it was evident by 1900 that the 20th century was going to be the American century, much as it is clear now that the 21st is to be the Asian century. The world wars hastened the end of European dominance - particularly that of the British Empire - but the eventual outcome was never in doubt.

It'll be interesting so see how long it lasts. With the rise of the internet and the way the world is developing, it seems as if it is becoming more difficult for a nation to maintain control of outside societies.

I think the internet and the associated electronic revolutions are probably one of the most powerful forces for global equality around. Developing nations can't conduct cutting edge research or build particle accelerators, but the benefits of established technology trickle down to them faster then ever before. Most African nations are skipping this 'landline' bullshit in favour of going straight to wireless and mobile phones. Internal stability is about the only major hurdle to development these days; and we know that development is the solution to just about every problem around: terrorism, population growth, human rights (ok, China is bucking the trend here for the moment ) and so on.

 

[clint g]

Even with China, the human rights thing is going to catch up with them sooner or later. Right now the Chinese people are trading economic growth for human rights. As the people get a bit more cash in their pockets though, they're going to want more of a say in what's going on.

 

[Rii]

Even with China, the human rights thing is going to catch up with them sooner or later. Right now the Chinese people are trading economic growth for human rights. As the people get a bit more cash in their pockets though, they're going to want more of a say in what's going on.

I agree. I'm not so sure about democracy per se - I don't think it's nearly as important to most folks as it's generally assumed to be - but I think the party will eventually have to accede to a lot of the things that generally go along with it if they're to maintain control at all. Either bend, or break.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I think your analysis is mostly correct, maybe with a couple of tweaking.

Personally, I'm doubtful Russia would join the EU: I know traditionally it's considered more European than Asian, but I find it difficult to imagine that the other EU countries would be happy about having such an heavy weight among them. The balance of the EU rests on having a few leading countries (Germany, France, England, with Spain and Italy following) but no leader. I find it more likely that Russia would keep its role as the Lonely Bear, surrounding itself with small satellite countries: a kind of new USSR, but leaning more towards Central Asia than Europe. On the other hand, with the inflow of Muslim immigrants in Europe, I foresee that the religious difference will become less important, and Turkey will become a fully European country in less than a century, maybe less faster.

I also think you underestimate South American countries: I think that many of them will be smart enough to realize that they need to create a common market among themselves to compete with the US, Europe, China and India. I imagine that, under the leadership of Brazil, they will form an economic alliance like the former EEC (European Economic Community) from 67 to 93. Maybe they will even form a political alliance, but I'm not sure about that.

 

[T'Girl]

Wouldn't it be some shit if the US actually merged with the EU by 2100? I can see it happening someday

After (if) Turkey joins the EU the next member would be more likely to be Canada, given the similarities in political/economic systems, than the US.

It would be hard to see Mexico moving beyond second-tier status becoming a member of a "big five," Brazil would be a better candidate. They certainly would seem to have they energy future better planned out than a lot of countries. If they ever get a handle on their poverty Brazil would difinately be a major world player.

Russia is a on going question mark, they have the natural resources, they just seem to be "stuck."

 

[clint g]

Wouldn't it be some shit if the US actually merged with the EU by 2100? I can see it happening someday

After (if) Turkey joins the EU the next member would be more likely to be Canada, given the similarities in political/economic systems, than the US.

It's not mutually exclusive Plus, Canada and the US share many more similarities than either side cares to admit

 

[Holdfast]

Bah.

Not worth worrying about too much, and not really important to my worldview. The more important issue, is how they're getting rich. The precise countries don't matter; the bigger point is they're getting richer by being capitalist (more or less). And once a country's capitalist, the hard work's done. People want to keep their money, and that's a useful check to any government. Sooner or later, the governments' hands will be tied by all the money they're earning.

 

[Rii]

Russia is a on going question mark, they have the natural resources, they just seem to be "stuck."

Russia is actually developing quite rapidly. It could be moving even faster if it was willing to borrow, but it has this very un-western aversion to running deficits. Russia has one of the lowest levels of public debt of any nation, certainly the lowest of any large nation. Russia's main problem at the moment is corruption.

 

[clint g]

Russia is a on going question mark, they have the natural resources, they just seem to be "stuck."

Russia is actually developing quite rapidly. It could be moving even faster if it was willing to borrow, but it has this very un-western aversion to running deficits.

Seeing how this turned out for the rest of us, it seems like Russia has the right idea

Russia has one of the lowest levels of public debt of any nation, certainly the lowest of any large nation. Russia's main problem at the moment is corruption.

This issue is going to be a bit harder to overcome. From what I recall, the poverty gap in Russia is enormous. It's going to be hard getting this money into the hands of the general population

 

[Rii]

Russia is a on going question mark, they have the natural resources, they just seem to be "stuck."

Russia is actually developing quite rapidly. It could be moving even faster if it was willing to borrow, but it has this very un-western aversion to running deficits.

Seeing how this turned out for the rest of us, it seems like Russia has the right idea

Oh it can certainly be taken too far and a lot of western nations have, but Russia is still suffering from a lack of infrastructure which collapsed with the fall Soviet Union; even today the healthcare system isn't nearly as good as it was during the Soviet era. Borrowing now to accelerate the rebuilding of 'the basics' would easily pay itself off in the long run.

It says something like "Russian Roads: NATO's greatest enemy"

 

[T'Girl]

From what I recall, the poverty gap in Russia is enormous. It's going to be hard getting this money into the hands of the general population

If you want to increase a country's employment and internal economy, one way to do it is through consumerism, which doesn't work if the general population has no money.

 

[Squiggy]

I'm not so sure the US will be around by then, we might be a third world country by then.

We've dealt with worse.

 

[Admiral Shran]

To be perfectly honest, the rise of all these different power blocks scares me somewhat. If we're not careful we could have a repeat of what happend to Europe in 1914 when they had several different power blocks competing with each other. Only this time it will be on a global scale.

 

[Mr Awe]

2050 is probably about the limit of responsible forecasting, but who's interested in being responsible? Let's look a little further ahead ... to the world in 2100! *cue ominous music*

You are mistaken if you think your predictions apply to 2100. They are more applicable to 2050.

We'll see four primary power blocs of rough equivalence: China, India, the European Union and the United States.

Of those four blocs, the European Union offers the greatest uncertainty: at one extreme, it could be little more effectual than it is today; at the other, it could emerge as 'first amongst equals'. One thing is certain: lacking further integration, the disparate European nations will dwindle to near irrelevance on the world stage by 2100.

There will be a different Asian block as well that includes Japan and some of the others in the region, particularly Korea.

Beyond the 'big four' will lie the following second-tier powers: Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, Turkey.

The last nation on that list, of course, is a current candidate for the European Union. If it were admitted, by 2100 it would certainly emerge as the most powerful member thereof.

I doubt Japan will be in the 2nd tier. I suppose if it fails to join a trading bloc it could be, but it's extremely doubtful. This is something that you missed in the above section.

Turkey will not be the most powerful member of the EU if it joins. Not sure where you got that, but, flat out wrong.

Russia is a (rather more distant) possibility for future EU inclusion also. The aforementioned possibility of the EU emerging as the most powerful global entity assumes the accession of both Russia and Turkey.

Russia is a big mystery. If it remains alone, it will be a 2nd tier power. However, Russia has historical ties to China. Not always friendly but perhaps enough to be key trading partners. No way will Russia join the EU.

If either and/or both of these nations are not admitted to the EU, they will likely emerge as fulcrums of their own regional power blocs.

No, neither country would be a fulcrum of their own bloc. Neither, but especially Turkey, will not have a large enough population with a strong enough economy to pull that off. Russia, could be the fulcrum of its block, but, if it is, it'll be a 2nd tier block. If Russian joined with China, that would be a first tier block, but China would be the fulcrum or possibly (but less likely) the 2 would be balanced.

Very interesting possibilities!

Mr Awe