Key Trends in Globalisation

China and developing economies will determine the chances for world growth in 2012

China’s economic growth has become a key factor not only for itself but for world markets. As the scale of China's impact is still too frequently underestimated it should be noted that, measured in current dollars and at market exchange rates, i.e. in terms of actual effective demand, in the three years following the start of the international financial crisis China contributed 33.4 per cent of global market growth – more than four times as much as the US 8.1 per cent (Table 1). While final data for 2011 is not yet available, it is already clear from the first three quarters figures that China’s market last year expanded by over $1 trillion – approximately twice as much in dollars as the US, despite US growth having resumed. Table 1 makes clear no other economy has approached China in terms of market/global aggregate demand expansion.

It is therefore a key question whether China will continue essentially the same scale of market growth in 2012. The answer is ‘yes’  - but because of the issue’s importance the reasons should be clearly outlined. Interlinked with this is the decisive role played by developing economies in recovery from the financial crisis – the interlinking being that China is by far the largest developing economy, while the developing economies have become China’s largest trade partners.

In the three years covering the period from the beginning of the international financial crisis to the latest available annual data, i.e. in 2007-2010, developing economies accounted for 78.6 per cent of world market growth and developed economies for only 21.4 per cent. Considered from another angle, simply taking different classifications, either the BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China), or China plus Latin America, contributed the majority of world market/effective demand expansion – either of these groupings accounting for more than twice as much market expansion as the developed economies.

Table 1

 

Turning to more detailed trends, the first feature determining China’s continued dominant position in world market expansion, one the consequences of which are insufficiently frequently noted, is that as China’s economy becomes larger a similar percentage yearly growth necessarily turns into an increasingly large annual absolute market increase - in inflation adjusted terms, China’s economy expanded by 2.3 trillion RMB in 2008, 2.4 trillion RMB in 2009, and 3.1 trillion RMB in 2010.

But even frequently cited constant price growth figures underestimate the expansion of China’s position in the world market. Actual sales, and therefore changes in aggregate demand, use real money which is affected by exchange rate shifts and inflation – further figures in this article are therefore at current market exchange rates and prices unless otherwise stated. In 2009, when China froze the RMB’s exchange rate due to the international financial crisis, China’s economy grew by $469 billion – compared to a US contraction of $353 billion. In 2010, when China allowed the RMB exchange rate to rise, its annual economic expansion rose to $935 billion and the figure will be over $1 trillion in 2011 – roughly twice US market expansion.

Table 1 also makes clear the second reason China’s market will continue  its expansion. World growth is now dominated by developing economies and China is their most rapidly expanding trading partner.

Considering trends among developing economies, China accounting for 33.4 per cent of global market expansion. Latin America was second – constituting 17.3 per cent of world growth, with Brazil accounting for 58 per cent of this. China and Latin America together accounted for 50.7 per cent of world market growth..

Among other developing economic regions, South Asia contributed 8.0 per cent to world market growth, with India accounting for 84 per cent of this. Developing East Asian economies, excluding China, accounted for 7.0 per cent of world growth – Indonesia constituting 54 per cent of this. The Middle East and North Africa accounted for 6.1 per cent of world growth with no single dominant regional economy – the largest contributor, Egypt, constituted only 19.9 per cent of the total. Developing countries in Europe and Central Asia accounted for 4.5 per cent of world growth – of which 55 per cent was Russia. Sub-Saharan Africa grew rapidly, but due to its low starting point only contributed 2.1 per cent of world growth.

Turning to developed economies, Japan illustrates the importance of currency movements for shifts in markets measured in dollar terms. Due to the yen’s sharp exchange rate rise, Japan contributed 14.9 per cent of the dollar expansion of the world market despite Japan’s economy contracting in inflation adjusted terms. The US contributed 8.2 per cent to world market growth, despite the US not having grown in constant price terms, due to the dollar rising against other currencies,

The ‘disaster area’ for world markets was the developed European economies with a decline of $668 billion - equivalent to subtracting 9.2 cent from world growth.

It is already clear 2012 will show no fundamental change in this pattern. Developed European economies will again be the worst performing region – suffering a recession possibly magnified by a low Euro exchange rate. The US should expand, but slowly compared to previous upswings in US business cycle. Therefore if the world economy is to grow this will again have to be primarily due to developing  economies.

Fortunately, the large developing economies are slowing but still growing substantially more rapidly than developed ones. China, the dominant factor in the equation, even on pessimistic estimates is likely to grow by at least 7-8 per cent in real terms this year which, after increases in the exchange rate of the RMB and inflation is take into account, means an expansion of its market of probably 12-15 per cent in dollar terms. Minimum real growth estimates for India are at least seven per cent.

It is also clear from the pattern in Table 1 why BRIC economies will again dominate world growth – in 2007-2010 they contributed 52.5 per cent of world market expansion. Not only are the BRICs individually the largest developing economies but each is the centre of a major regional economic area. While Brazil has slowed, Russia’s economy has been accelerating, and it is in any case China and India which are the dominant dynamic BRIC economies.

This overall situation clearly interrelates with China as it already carries out the majority of its trade with developing economies – 54 per cent of total trade, 49 per cent of exports and 60 per cent of imports.

The implications for China’s markets are clear. China has not only the world’s most rapidly expanding domestic market, and declining inflation gives it extra room for domestic economic loosening/stimulus in 2012, but its biggest trading partners are the most rapidly growing regions of the world economy. It is this combination of domestic and international factors which determines that  China will continue to remain the world’s most rapidly expanding market/supplier of increased aggregate demand in 2012. Given the negative prospects in Europe, and slow growth in the US, it will then be the situation in the developing economies, which is increasingly related to the situation in China, which will necessarily determine the overall prospects for world growth in 2012.

*   *   *

This is an expanded version of an article which originally appeared in Shanghai Daily.

China is the trade hub of BRICS

The Financial Times, in its coverage of the BRICS summit in Hainan China, somewhat acidly remarked, under the headline ‘China cements role as top of the Brics’:

‘The Brics group of big emerging nations - comprised of Brazil, Russia, India, China and, for the first time this year, South Africa – is becoming a China-dominated forum in which Beijing can push its evolving global agenda without the overbearing presence of the US.

‘As the third annual Brics leaders meeting wrapped up in the swampy, half-built resort town of Sanya, on the southern Chinese island of Hainan, it was clear that Beijing was firmly in charge.’

As the Financial Times has for many years covered events which were ‘firmly in charge’ of the US, without feeling the need to make any parallel comments, this would tend to indicate something of a bias in the FT’s coverage despite claims to objectivity. Furthermore the idea that India, Russia, Brazil or South Africa feel, or are, ‘dominated’ by China in the way that, for example, the IMF, NATO, or the World Bank have all been a ’US dominated forum’ is simply untrue. China is a powerful country – and so, in particular, are India, Russia and Brazil. BRICS has powerful partners within it, it is not dominated by any one country.

What is the case is that China forms an important trade hub between the different BRICS countries – as some excellent research published around the BRICS summit indicates and which deserves wide circulation.

Particularly striking is the chart below, adapted by the BBC from the World Bank, It shows how rapidly trade is developing between the two largest BRICS economies – China and India.

‘

 

China is certainly intent on promoting trade among the BRICS countries – naturally including its own. As China Daily reported: ‘more than 500 business leaders attended the event… held during the summit. To boost intra-BRICS trade, these business leaders agreed to set up a secretariat in each country and widely solicit opinions and suggestions for bilateral trade and investment issues.’ 

The FT in its own coverage actually reveals the real situation: ‘China already accounts for about 12 per cent of trade in the rest of the Brics countries, a figure that is six times higher than at the beginning of 2000 and still growing rapidly…

‘Meanwhile, South Africa, Brazil, India and Russia devote only about 3 per cent of their resources to trade with each other and this share has barely changed during the past decade.

‘China’s trade with the other Brics countries last year increased by an average of 40 per cent, well above the 30 per cent increase in China’s overall trade, according to Yu Ping, vice chairman of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade. “But it’s true that trade volume between the other four countries remains relatively low,” Mr Yu acknowledged.’

In short China has an important position because it is emerging as a central trade hub for BRICS. Scarcely surprising as it is both the world’s largest exporter and its most rapidly growing importer. But trade is mutuallly beneficial, it does not constitute 'domination'.

The convulsion in world trade

This blog has analysed on several occasions that the current decline in financial markets, including share prices, has continued for 17 months to match in rapidity that after 1929 – i.e. the most severe recorded. As may be seen from Figure 1 the rise in share prices on Wall Street in the trading week 9-13 March week did not break out of this declining trend. The shift so far has simply moved the rate of descent closer to the declining trendline that has been operating since October 2007 following several weeks of more precipitate than average falls.

Figure 1

As may be seen from the comparison in Figure 2 the rate of descent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since October 2007 continues to be as rapid as in 1929 - i.e. it greatly exceeds in speed any other major share decline, apart from 1929, seen since the beginning of the 20th century.

Figure 2

Considering the relation between the financial decline and the productive economy, an article on this blog earlier this month also noted that, for the major industrialised economies, the annualised rate of decline in exports in the last three months has actually been more rapid than in 1929.

The latest statistical data released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for world trade up to December 2008, with data for more recent months in a few cases, allows the calculation of a picture for a wider range of countries that confirms this trend in striking fashion.

Due to the extremely rapid shift in the situation three indicators have been calculated for exports – the actual year on year decline to December 2008, the actual decline in exports since the peak month for each country or area last year, and the change during the three months to December 2008 on an annualised basis.

In order to give a historical scale of comparison the decline of US exports, in current prices, was 22.5% in 1929-30, 32.7% in 1930-31, 32.4% in 1931-32 and 4.0% in 1932-33 after which partial export recovery commenced - i.e. the most rapid annual rate of decline of US exports in the Great Depression, and the most rapid on record to date, was 32.7% in 1930-31. By 1933 US exports had fallen 66.2% below their 1929 level.

Considering first the OECD area as a whole, and the situation in the European region, the data is set out in Table 1. As can be seen for the OECD region as a whole exports have already declined by over 30% since their peak in April 2008 - essentially equaling the rates of decline of the worst year of the 1930s. The annualised rate of decline in three months up to December 2008 was an astonishing 64%.

For the major G7 economies the decline was only slightly less severe - with a decline of 26.9% since the peak in July and an annualised rate of decline of 57.8% in the three months to December 2008.

Within the Euro area the annualised rate of decline for the three months to December 2008 was 50.4% and for the OECD European region, which includes some East European states, the annualised rate of decline was 67.0%.

It may therefore be clearly said that in the field of trade, as in that of financial markets, the current decline is full comparable in speed of descent to the onset of the Great Depression. The difference, so far, is not in the speed of fall but in its duration. The decline in exports after 1929 continued for four years whereas so far the current decline has been occurring for a year.

Table 1

Turning to individual countries, Table 2 shows the figures for the largest OECD economies - the G7. As may be seen all have seen declines in exports of over 25% since their peak levels last year and in the three months to December 2008 all witnessed annualised rates of decline of more than 50%.

In short, the precipitate decline in world trade, at 1930s rates of descent, is not confined to smaller economies but fully affects the largest ones.

Table 2

Table 3 shows the rates of decline of exports for the non-G7 European OECD states. As may be seen with the exception of two small economies, Luxemburg and Ireland, which have done better than others, all OECD European countries have seen actual export declines of at least 25% and annualised rates of decline of 50% or more.

It is possible that the rate of decline for Spain, an incredible 99.7% annualised rate in the three months to December 2008, is a statistical freak or error but the annualised rates of decline for Sweden, Poland, and Norway are almost as severe - respectively, 79.1%, 82,8%, and 83.1%. Such rates may rightly be characterised not as decline but of collapse of exports in at least the short term.

Table 3

Turning to non-European economies, the data is set out in Table 4. Again, with the exception of the small economies of Iceland and New Zealand, the highly publicised decline of Chinese exports by 22.3% since their peak last year year, and at an annualised rate of 53.0% in the three months to December, are themselves actually significantly smaller than for other countries. Mexico and South Korea have already seen actual declines of exports of over 30% and South Africa and Turkey have seen falls of over 40%. The annualised rates of decline of exports for South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey - at 70.7%, 72.4%, 78.2%, 82.1%, and 90.1% respectively - are clearly catastrophic.

Table 4

Countries for which OECD data is available for January confirm continuation of the same trend – as shown in Table 5. The chief difference is that with the extra month the actual declines in exports, as opposed to only the annualised rates of fall, have become more serious.

The actual falls recorded from the maximum levels of exports are 29.8% for Switzerland, 41.1% for South Africa, 41.4% for Sweden, 46.3% for Norway and 47.5% for Turkey. There is nothing in this pattern which indicates results for other countries are likely to show an improved tendency.

Table 5

Summarising the above data, of the 34 countries studied 14 had annualised rates of decline of exports of more than 70% and 20 had rates of decline of more than 60%. The widely publicised reports of declines of exports in the last three months of last year such as the annualised 51.9% for Japan, 53.0% for China, or 54.0% for the US, which attracted much publicity, are actually modest compared to the falls in most countries.

While the annualised rates of decline show the extremely striking implosion of world trade during the last three months of 2008 an annualised rate, naturally, indicates an, in this case extremely severe, tendency. What is equally disturbing is the factual falls in exports recorded from the maximum levels last year. Seven countries registered actual falls in exports of more than 40% and 19 of more than 30%.

It should be noted that trade today plays a more significant role in the world economy than at the onset of the 1929 crisis. Exports in an economy with relatively low exposure to trade such as the US now account for 12% of US GDP compared to 7% in 1929 - the figures for most countries are of course much higher. The result of any continuation of such rapid rates of decline of trade therefore, all other things being equal, would be more severe than in 1929.

The transmission mechanisms of the financial crisis into the productive economy are also made clear by such trends. As has been noted previously, initially in the present crisis there was a disjunction between the decline in financial markets, which was of 1929 magnitude, and the situation of the productive economy - which was of a severe but not equivalent decline. As such a disjunction is highly unlikely to continue either financial markets would recover, having overshot on the downside, or the trends and statistics in the productive economy would be shown to have been a lagging indicator and they would adjust downwards to the tendencies indicated in financial markets.

The extraordinarily powerful falls in world exports shown in the latest figures for all major economies indicate that the decline in trade is operating as a key mechanism by which the crisis revealed in financial markets is beginning to affect the productive economy. It may now be said that in two areas of the world economy, financial markets and trade, rates of decline are fully comparable to 1929 scale. How powerful the transmission mechanisms from the international sector are into domestic economies must clearly be carefully studied. The duration of the crisis is also critical - the so far unique severity of 1929 was not only due to the rapidity of the fall but by its duration. The decline in US trade and GDP in the 1930s continued for four years whereas the current decline in financial markets has lasted 17 months,  the decline in trade slightly under one year, and the fall in GDP approximately six months.

Nevertheless quite sufficient data are now in to say with certainty that in the last three months of 2008 a convulsion in world trade occurred. The extreme rapidity of the fall in world trade, as with the situation in financial markets, confirms that the benchmark for present analyses must be not only post-World War II recessions but also 1929 itself.

Notes to Tables - peak month for exports in 2008

1. Peak January 2008
2. Peak March 2008
3. Peak April 2008
4. Peak May 2008
5. Peak June 2008
6. Peak July 2008
7. Peak August 2008
8. Peak September 2008

The share of developing countries in world exports

The rise of Asia, in particular China, in world export markets is well known. The aim of this post is, however, to provide a more systematic overall examination of trends in world visible exports - i.e. exports of goods and not including trade in services (to avoid excessive repetition all references to exports below are to be taken to be referring to visible exports unless otherwise specified).

The most fundamental, twenty year, tendency is shown in Figure 1. This is the well known consistent trend, since the late-1980s, for a major rise in the share of developing countries in world exports - and the decline of the share of already industrialised countries.

The share of industrialised countries in world exports fell from 70.3 per cent in 1988 to 53.3 per cent in 2007. In the same period the share of developing countries rose from 27.9 per cent to 45.2 per cent.

 

Figure 1

 

 

Considering these trends in greater detail, Figure 2 divides exports from developing countries between those in Asia and those outside Asia. Again the trend is clear.

 

The rising share of developing countries in Asia in world exports is continuous throughout the last quarter century - the share of developing Asian countries in world exports nearly tripling from 8.3 per cent in 1980 to 23.7 per cent in 2007.

 

For the initial part of the period after 1980 the share of non-Asian developing countries in world exports fell - this was particularly accounted for by a decline in the value of the share of world exports from the Middle East associated with the decline in the real price of oil in that period. However since the early 1990s the share of non-Asian developing countries in world exports has been rising steadily. The share of non-Asian developing countries in world exports rose from 13.5 per cent in 1992 to 21.5 per cent in 2007, while in the same period the share of Asian developing countries in world exports rose from 15.2 per cent to 23.7 per cent.

 

Since 1992, therefore, the increase in the proportion of world exports accounted for by Asian and non-Asian developing countries has been almost equal - the increase in the share of world exports accounted for by Asian developing countries being 8.5 per cent and the increase in the share of non-Asian developing countries being 8.0 per cent.

 

It is the combination of this rising share of world exports from both Asian and non-Asian developing countries that accounts from the strong overall rising trend in the share of developing countries in world exports. The phenomenon since the beginning of the 1990s is therefore one of developing countries in general and not one only of Asia.

 

Figure 2

 

 

 

Considering these trends in more detail, the huge role played by the development of China is evident. Figure 3 shows the share of world exports for China, developing Asia excluding China, and, to provide a comparison for the developed Asian economy, Japan.

 

The rise of China is evident - China's share of world exports rose from 1.0 per cent in 1980 to 9.8 per cent in 2006 - the last year for which full figures are available. In the same period the share of other developing Asian countries in world exports rose from 7.3 per cent to 13.7 per cent. Therefore, in this period, China alone accounted for 58 per cent of the increase in the share of developing Asian countries share of world exports - China's increase in the share of world exports being 8.8 per cent compared to 6.4 per cent for all other developing countries in Asia. Particularly since 1990 China's increase in the share of world exports has considerable exceeded that for the rest of the other developing Asian countries put together.

 

In contrast, to take the main developed country in Asia, the declining importance of Japan in world trade is evident.

 

In 1980 Japan accounted for almost as high a share of world trade as all the other developing countries in Asia combined. Since 1986 the share of Japan in world exports has declined sharply - falling from 10.3 per cent in that year to 5.3 per cent in 2007. In 1980 the developing Asian countries, including China, accounted for 8.3 per cent of world exports and Japan for 6.5 per cent. By 2006 the developing Asian economies, including China, accounted for 23.7 per cent of world exports and Japan for only 5.3 per cent. In 1980 Japan's exports were equivalent to 78 per cent of those from the developing Asian countries, while by 2006 Japan's exports were equivalent to only 22 per cent of those of the combined exports of the developing Asian countries.

 

The relative decline in importance in world of exports of Japan, and the rise of the developing Asian countries, above all China, is evident.

 

Figure 3

 

 

The more detailed trends for Asian developing countries, other than China, are shown in Figure 4. This confirms continuing strong export growth by South Korea. However Singapore, and more recently Malaysia, having been losing some world visible export share. Vietnam has been gaining export share steadily but from a very low base.

 

India stands out clearly as a large economy but with a very low share of world exports. India's share of world exports is only just over one per cent and has not been rising very strongly.

 

Figure 4

 

 

Such figures illustrate strikingly the different path of development being undertaken by China and India - the contrasting development in shares of world exports for India and China is shown in Figure 5.

 

India's economy is growing rapidly, but essentially within its domestic economy. India's share in world exports remains both very low and only slowly growing.

 

India's economy, in short, shows no signs of being strongly competitive on an international scale despite known  strength in individual sectors such as software. China's economy is growing even more rapidly than India and enjoying rapid export growth - China's economy, in short, shows far more signs of being competitive internationally than India's. This is line with the the data on the much greater size and development of Chinese firms compared to India that has been analysed elsewhere.

 

Both India and China are extremely important markets but China's economc fundamentals and competivity continue to be significantly stronger than India's.

 

Figure 5

 

 

Turning to non-Asian developing countries, the overall picture is shown in Figure 6. The main trend in the early part of the period considered is the sharp fall in the share of exports coming from the Middle East - reflecting the fall in the relative real price of oil after the beginning of the 1980s. It may also be noted that, despite the increase in the price of oil in the most recent period, the Middle East has only moderately increased its share of world exports, from relatively depressed levels, and its has not retained the position held at the beginning of the 1980s - in terms of trade surpluses, as opposed to share in world exports, a number of Middle East countries continue to be extremely important.

.

In contrast, the share of world exports from developing countries in Eastern Europe has risen significantly - from 4.4 per cent of world exports in 1999 to 8.0 per cent in 2007. Within this total the share of Eastern Europe excluding Russia rose from 3.1 per cent of world exports to 5.8 per cent, while Russia's share rose from 1.4 per cent to 2.6 per cent.

 

Over the period as a whole Africa's share of world exports fell from 4.5 per cent in 1980 to 2.6 per cent in 2007- although there has been a small recent revival from the extremely depressed levels in the mid-1990s.

 

The share of developing countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (Western Hemisphere) in world exports fell significantly in the mid 1980s but has since risen again. The rate of increase, however, is still modest compared to countries in Eastern Europe and even more so when compared to Asia. Latin America and the Caribbean's share of world exports rose from 4.3 per cent in 1992 to 5.9 per cent in 2007.

 

Figure 6

 

 

 

 

Considering the situation within Latin America there was an increase in Mexico's share of world exports in the 1990s but this has since fallen back significantly. No Latin American country has gained world export share in the way that has been experienced in Asia. This is shown in Figure 7.

 

Figure 7

 

 

Summarising these developments overall the following the following key trends emerge.

 

The increase in the share of world exports from developing countries started in Asia, however since the early 1990s this trend has become substantially more generalised. The increase in the share of world exports coming from Asian and non-Asian developing countries was essentially equal in the 15 years 1992-2007. 

 

The success of China is even greater when placed in a comparative framework than when considered by itself. China is now the world's largest visible exporter - overtaking the US and Germany.

 

Asia outside China in the recent period has ceased to gain world market share in visible exports, after an exceptional performance for several decades. South Korea continues to show outstanding visible export performance but several other Asian developing economies have lost world market share. India's share of world exports continues to be extremely low for such a large economy and shows no strong trend to rise.

 

East European developing countries, both Russia and non-Russian, have an export performance which is second only to Asia - although lagging substantially behind Asian success.

 

Latin America and Africa's role in world exports has not yet increased - despite the commodity boom.

China and India – the economic gap is widening, not narrowing

One of the most expensive mistakes that can be made in emerging markets is to confuse business and politics.
The political pages of newspapers may attempt to point business decisions in one direction when this is contrary to real business and economic fundamentals. In Russia in the 1990s, for example, even George Soros, as well as many other investors, lost large sums because they became involved in supporting people who were viewed favourably in political newspapers, instead of paying sufficient attention to these business fundamentals. In addition large amounts of time were wasted in forging links with figures who were totally peripheral to real developments – therefore failing to position companies to take advantages of key openings.
A somewhat similar mistake has been made over the last period in comparisons between India and China. There may be political reasons for preferring India to China, but this has led to the mistaken view that India may be catching up China economically, or may even be a better economic bet for the future. This is not true.
China is increasing its economic lead on India – the gap is widening, not narrowing. This is shown clearly in the macro-economic data – where China’s growth rate continues to exceed India’s , which necessarily means that the gap in GDP and overall market size is increasing. But it is also clearly seen at a company level in more detailed examination of data from the FT Global 500 whihch were considered in a previous post. It should be recalled that the FT Global 500 deals only with publicly quoted companies but it is sufficiently comprehensive, and the differences are of sufficient magnitude. to show the situation clearly. http://keytrendsinglobalisation.blogspot.com/2008/07/financial-times-global-500.html
China has almost three times as many companies in the FT Global 500, including Hong Kong, as India (35 compared to 13) and twice as many excluding Hong Kong (25 to 13). Market capitalisation of Chinese companies is over six times that of Indian companies - $2,569bn compared to $421bn. Turnover of Chinese companies in the Global 500 is six and a half times that of Indian companies.
Strikingly both Russia and Brazil continue to be stronger than India at the large company level. Market capitalisation of FT Global 500 companies is Russia $820bn, Brazil $621bn, India $421 bn. In terms of turnover the figure for Russian companies is $295bn, Brazilian $178bn, Indian $87bn.
Evidently, strategically, India is a more important market than either Russia or Brazil. India’s population is much larger than Brazil or Russia. Its growth rate is second only to China’s among the largest emerging markets. The Indian market is therefore immensely important. But China’s economic lead over India is still growing not decreasing.

Key trends in the Financial Times Global 500

As always the publication of the Financial Times Global 500 conveys a great deal of information about the world's most important publicly quoted companies - FT rankings are by stockmarket capitalisation. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e01aab98-40c9-11dd-bd48-0000779fd2ac.html

However the presentation of the material by the FT does not bring out some of the most important trends as a comparison to 1996 is carried out in terms of individual countries. Reorganisation and aggregation of the data shows key trends more clearly.
The most striking trend is the sharp decline in the weight of US and Japanese companies.
In 1996 US companies accounted for 40.6 per cent of the total number of Global 500 companies, and by 2008 this had declined to 33.8 per cent. The decline of Japanese companies was even sharper from 22.0 per cent to 7.8 per cent. A smaller decline took place for the UK.
Unsurprisingly the largest gainers were BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) companies. These rose from 3.2 per cent of the total in 1996 to 14.4 per cent in 2008.
But Eurozone based companies also advanced significantly from 13.4 per cent to 19.8 per cent of the companies in the same period.

The weight of the traditional bloc of US, Japanese and UK companies declined from 71.8 per cent of the total to 48.6 per cent.

These shifts are magnified by the decline in the value of the dollar, but that in turn partially reflects overvaluation of the dollar in the previous period.

At the level of national economies the shift in the balance of the world economy is well recognised - the majority of world GDP growth last year being in China, India and Russia, and in terms of dollar devaluation the Eurozone, in current exchange rates, became the world's largest economic unit following the decline of the dollar. But this new data also shows strikingly the shifts in terms of companies.