Page 68 - The Atlas of Economic Complexity

MAPPING PATHS TO PROSPERITY | 69

ranking 2 sorts countries according to their expected an- extraction volumes of natural resource in the different coun-
nual per capita growth. Here countries are sorted accord- tries, so we will tend to underestimate growth in countries
ing to their per capita growth potential, which is estimated where natural resource production is expanding faster than
from the mismatch between a country’s current level of ag- population and overestimating it where it is falling.
gregate output (GDP per capita) and their level of economic
complexity (see Part 1, Section 3: Why is complexity important?). by region:
China, India and Thailand are at the top of this ranking, By region, the top performers in East Asia and the Pacific
since they are countries with economies that are remark- are China (1), Thailand (3), Philippines (11), Vietnam (12) and
ably complex, given their current level of income, and are Malaysia (20), while the worst performance is expected in
expected to catch up faster than other developing nations. New Zealand (93), Mongolia (107), Australia (114), and Papua
Next come Belarus, Moldova, Zimbabwe, Ukraine and Bos- New Guinea (123). In South Asia, India is the regional leader
nia-Herzegovina, five countries where the current level of (2), while Bangladesh is the laggard (65).
income is dramatically lower than what one would expect In the Middle East and North Africa, the expected leaders
given their productive capabilities. This ranking shows that in GDP per capita growth are Jordan (14), Egypt (18) and Tu-
the two regions of the world where the potential of per cap- nisia (19), while the laggards are Libya (120), Qatar (122) and
ita growth is higher are East Asia and Eastern Europe (Map Kuwait (124), three oil exporters that are dragged down by
2). At the bottom of this ranking we have Sudan, Angola and their low complexity and by our assumption that oil exports
Mauritania. These are developing countries where the com- per real terms will remain at 2008 levels.
plexity of their economies does not provide a basis for fu- In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the leaders in GDP
ture economic growth, and, where changes in income are per capita growth are expected to be Belarus (4), Moldova
dominated by fluctuations in the price and volume of natu- (5), Ukraine (7) and Bosnia (8). The laggards would be Kaza-
ral resource activities. Per capita growth potential as a func- khstan (98), Turkmenistan (109) and Azerbaijan (112), three
tion of GDP per capita is illustrated in Figure 2. low-complexity oil exporters. To the extent that they will
The projection presented here is driven mainly by the gap carry out their planned expansion in their oil exports, their
between the initial level of complexity of an economy and its growth performance will be better than we project.
level of income. Countries whose income level is low relative In Latin America the leaders are Panama (9), Mexico (10),
to their complexity will grow faster. The opposite occurs for El Salvador (31), Guatemala (35) and Colombia (36), while the
countries whose initial income is high, relative to their initial laggards are expected to be Chile (86), Bolivia (89), Trinidad
complexity. The projection requires an assumption about the and Tobago (103) and Venezuela (115), four exporters of natu-
evolution of natural resource exports. We assume that they ral resources. Brazil ranks 8th in the region and 48th in the
will remain constant in real terms at the high level achieved world in expected GDP per capita growth.
in 2008. We believe this hypothesis is reasonable on average, In Sub-Saharan Africa, the growth leaders are expected to
as commodity prices were unusually high in 2008. To the ex- be Zimbabwe (6), Kenya (13), Uganda (24) and Senegal (25),
tent that prices deviate from this assumption, so will growth. while the laggards are expected to be Sudan (126), Angola
We do not include information regarding the changes in the (127) and Mauritania (128).