[Smertios]

This is something that has always bugged me. People always talk about how South Africa is becoming the African regional power and stuff like that, especially after South Africa joined the BRICS in 2010, but I seriously don't see that happening at all.

South Africa has a small population and their economy isn't that large. They certainly have made more progress than most of Africa in terms of democracy and language policy. Most African states still have European languages as official, while virtually nobody in the countries can speak them, for example. But I can't see the South African population or their economy getting that big in the next century.

The only country I can really see becoming a regional power in Sub-Saharan Africa is Nigeria. They have a large population and their economy is much stronger than that of South Africa. In fact, in the original BRIC report, the only African countries listed amongst the top 20 in both GDP and GDP per capita in 2050 are Nigeria and Egypt. Nigeria will be the 11th richest nation by 2050, above France, and the 20th n terms of GDP per capita.

Of course, Nigeria has a long way to go before managing to achieve the power status. They have to work on their democracy, tribal conflicts, inequality, low HDI etc. But once they do so, I think they will be amongst the next Brics.

I think they have to get a better language policy, though. They should follow Ethiopia's or Kenya's example, choose a spread language and make it official, serving as the lingua franca of the whole nation. Yoruba would be the best choice. Maybe a modified version, in order to adopt elements from other national languages. Creating a true 'Nigerian language' in the Niger-Congo family. Kind of similar to what happened in Indonesia, I suppose.

But I seriously don't see the possibility of South Africa being comparable to the BRICs. I mean, countries like South Africa, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Turkey and the Philippines have an economy that is comparable to that of the BRICs, but not the population and, thus, not the potential to become influent. Pakistan and Bangladesh have the population, but not the economy. The only countries I can really see having the level of BRIC economies are Indonesia, Mexico and Nigeria. They have both the population and the market that make them potentially powerful, both politically and economically.

What do you guys think?

[Dr House]

I think democracy and language policy are entirely irrelevant as indicators, and I think South Africa's heyday was when it still had Afrikaans and English as its sole official languages. Since the 80s South African economic and social indicators have plummeted.

Nigerian economic indicators have never really matched South African economic indicators, despite its larger population (and do bear in mind that South Africa has an equivalent population to Britain, Germany or France) -- mainly due to the fact it has greater human capital issues. South African GDP per capita is five times higher than Nigeria's (and its population disadvantage isn't that great; it has a third of Nigeria's) -- notably the province of Gauteng alone produces ten percent Africa's entire economic output.

[Smertios]

I think democracy and language policy are entirely irrelevant as indicators, and I think South Africa's heyday was when it still had Afrikaans and English as its sole official languages. Since the 80s South African economic and social indicators have plummeted.

Democracy brings political stability, with is necessary if you want foreign investment. And a good language policy is needed, because you can't keep the country united if you use a language nobody speaks as official. Imagine how crazy it would be for the US to adopt German as their official language, for example.

Afrikaans has always been one of the most spoken languages in South Africa. Back when the apartheid was still going on, it was probably the most spoken language, since a lot of whites left the country after the regime collapsed.

Nigerian economic indicators have never really matched South African economic indicators, despite its larger population (and do bear in mind that South Africa has an equivalent population to Britain, Germany or France) -- mainly due to the fact it has greater human capital issues. South African GDP per capita is five times higher than Nigeria's (and its population disadvantage isn't that great; it has a third of Nigeria's) -- notably the province of Gauteng alone produces ten percent Africa's entire economic output.

Not right now. But read the BRIC report. By 2050, Nigeria will have passed South Africa in pretty much all economic indicators, including GDP per capita.

And yes, South Africa has a population similar to that of France, the UK, Germany, Turkey, South Korea etc. But all those nations are losing found to more populous countries. That is why the BRICs, the US, Japan, Indonesia and Mexico will be the richest countries in the world by 2050, and not others. Nigeria will still be the 11th largest economy, just after the UK and Germany. And, given their population, I think it is fair to say they will pass them eventually, just like the BRICs, Mexico and Indonesia will have done by 2050...

[Dr House]

Democracy brings political stability, with is necessary if you want foreign investment.

Democracy is generally speaking more stable than non-democratic governments today, merely because most modern autocracies are tinpot military dictatorships that have overthrown democratic governments and will likely be eventually overthrown by them -- it is, however, far from prerequisite to political stability. China has undergone a fairly stable regime under the one-party rule of the CCP since 1948, and Singapore has had an even more stable rule under the PAP since its inception. And lest we forget, South Korea became one of the world's leading industrial powers at the helm of a military dictator?

Not right now. But read the BRIC report. By 2050, Nigeria will have passed South Africa in pretty much all economic indicators, including GDP per capita.

And yes, South Africa has a population similar to that of France, the UK, Germany, Turkey, South Korea etc. But all those nations are losing found to more populous countries. That is why the BRICs, the US, Japan, Indonesia and Mexico will be the richest countries in the world by 2050, and not others.

That of course assumes present trends to continue. I think it'd be unwise to project that far ahead -- and even moreso to do so using only statistical trends, without taking into account sociopolitical indicators that might forecast a change in those trends.

[J Oswald]

Regional power in sub-Saharan Africa is dependent primarily upon military power, and the ability of a given country to project that power. South Africa is the hegemon of Southern Africa, but it lacks both the military strength and the power-projection capabilities to extend influence over any countries outside of the Southern African geographical region. As such, anybody who speaks of there being a single African power needs to re-examine the situation. Ethiopia plays a similar role in Eastern Africa, and yet Ethiopia cannot by any indicator be described as an economic powerhouse.

The level of "democracy" in a country is a completely useless indicator of economic growth. If one examines the Corruption Perceptions Index, one will find that there is a positive correlation between economic prosperity and decreased levels of corruption. Looking at sub-Saharan Africa, one will see that the least corrupt country is Botswana, which happens to have been ruled by the same party since its incipience. The only country in sub-Saharan which is both relatively non-corrupt and has a two-or-more party system (as opposed to a dominant- or single-party system) is Ghana, which is wealthy primarily because of resource-exploitation efforts.

In regards to language policy, it is important that one language be made the national language, but that is a minor issue compared to the larger problems of crime and corruption.

[Soulflytribe]

Democracy is generally speaking more stable than non-democratic governments today, merely because most modern autocracies are tinpot military dictatorships that have overthrown democratic governments and will likely be eventually overthrown by them -- it is, however, far from prerequisite to political stability. China has undergone a fairly stable regime under the one-party rule of the CCP since 1948, and Singapore has had an even more stable rule under the PAP since its inception. And lest we forget, South Korea became one of the world's leading industrial powers at the helm of a military dictator?

Exactly! Democracy, a well-educated population, a big country population or large amounts of natural resources are very far from being determinant factors to the development of a country.
You only need economic freedom. This economic freedom will bring stability in the long term. Can you foresee an arab spring in the UAE? No, right?

People in the 90's could say that Venezuela was more stable than Singapore due to its democracy, but in the long run we could see that economic freedom created a more stable Government in Singapore than in Venezuela. So, Singapore is better for business and richer than Venezuela. Hayek was right when he talked about that so many decades ago.

In regards to the OP, I must say that Jim O'Neill has never recognized South Africa inside the BRIC block. The BRIC countries alone allowed SA to join the group, just a political manouvre, it was not based on any economic prospects whatsoever.

[Smertios]

Democracy is generally speaking more stable than non-democratic governments today, merely because most modern autocracies are tinpot military dictatorships that have overthrown democratic governments and will likely be eventually overthrown by them -- it is, however, far from prerequisite to political stability.

Yes and no. Non-democratic governments can be stable as long as there isn't much opposition to them. Once there is, instability will arise, since the people will start opposing most of the government policies. That can lead to a coup, civil unrest, civil war, revolution, assassination etc.

Lack of democracy will or will not lead to political instability, depending on the level of political indifference there is in the country. But in a modern world, where access to information and telecommunication is so easy, it is really hard for any government action to pass unnoticed. Thus keeping a high level f indifference is complicated. One of the main causes of the Egyptian Revolution last year was dissemination of ideas through Twitter and Facebook, after all. Now if you look at North Korea, where technology isn't easily available, the level of popular opposition is low, so the regime is stable.

China has undergone a fairly stable regime under the one-party rule of the CCP since 1948, and Singapore has had an even more stable rule under the PAP since its inception. And lest we forget, South Korea became one of the world's leading industrial powers at the helm of a military dictator?

China is far from being stable. Just look at all political executions, unrest in small villages, bloggers being arrested and their political activists not being able to collect Nobel prizes Their economy is just good because they have a huge market. So even if the country is not politically stable, investing there is a good idea, since you will be dealing with a 2-billion-people market, pretty much. But yeah, there are many investors turning to India instead, because they present less risk than China...

Singapore is complicated and quite unique. And I hate having to admit that, but Singapore is a great example of a Liberal dictatorship. It is one of the few places where liberalism worked, despite not having a democratic atmosphere. But the government is actually quite popular, so that creates an environment of political stability, like I said before. It is one of the least corrupt and cleanest nations in the entire world. And the only Singaporean I know is quite fond of those policies. The government is not corrupt, despite their strictness. The justice system is fair etc.

As for South Korea, are you crazy? The rule of Park Chung-hee was anything but politically stable. That is one of the reasons why his presidency ended with him assassinated, after all. But I'm not saying that political stability and economic prosperity can't exist without one another, anyway. I just said that, normally, the former leads to the latter. But there are so many variables there, that this can't be taken as an absolute. Investors normally don't like investing in risky business and/or countries, because the state is the one who holds the power. If you invest in a country and the government is overthrown, there is no guarantee that the next government will keep the contracts and/or commercial rules. You could lose a lot of money. In democracies, such instantaneous revolutions never happen. So, even if the opposition gets in power, the contracts will most likely be kept, even if there might be a chance they won't get renewed. So money won't really be lost in the process. But every government wants investment in their country. So, even if the political atmosphere is unstable, they will adopt specific policies to have the economy develop properly. Park Chung-hee is an example of a dictator that had a great economic policy. He led the country to industrialization and managed to keep the economy stable, despite the political unrest...

That of course assumes present trends to continue. I think it'd be unwise to project that far ahead -- and even moreso to do so using only statistical trends, without taking into account sociopolitical indicators that might forecast a change in those trends.

Economics is the science that studies the economy. When economists graduate, they end up working making predictions on how the economy will be in the future, so their companies know when it is safe to invest, produce, sell, buy or do whatever they need to do. The job of an economist is precisely to make predictions. But of course, the entropy there is too high. So a lot of what they predict isn't going to happen. But they can only do it based on current trends.

In the 1980s, Peter Drucker - who was a bit enthusiastic about Brazil, I must add - predicted that Brazil and China would pass through a phase of fast economic development and become relevant powers in the 21st century, because both countries had huge potential markets and were having their authoritarian rule diminished, and the political environment open. Of course, most people doubted, back then. It wasn't until 2001 that the BRIC thesis would be written and people would start accepting that idea. But look at the situation now.

Of course, if a meteor falls in Nigeria two years from now, things will change completely. Their industries will be destroyed, and their economy will suffer a lot. But we can't guess what is going to happen like that. All we can do is make predictions based on current economic trends and teh known economic history. And that does take in consideration sociopolitical indicators...

Regional power in sub-Saharan Africa is dependent primarily upon military power, and the ability of a given country to project that power. South Africa is the hegemon of Southern Africa, but it lacks both the military strength and the power-projection capabilities to extend influence over any countries outside of the Southern African geographical region. As such, anybody who speaks of there being a single African power needs to re-examine the situation. Ethiopia plays a similar role in Eastern Africa, and yet Ethiopia cannot by any indicator be described as an economic powerhouse.

In the entire world, regional power is dependent primarily on military power. Economic power comes second, though it is not hard transforming the former into that, since commercial relations and military alliances come hand-in-hand, most times.

And yes, currently there isn't a single African power. In fact, I'd say there isn't any, since external influences are more relevant in the region. But keep in mind, for example, that Brazil and Argentina were rivals in the 1970s, on regional hegemony. Nowadays, Argentina is pretty much not capable of rivaling with Brazil at all. Their population is roughly the same as that of one Brazilian state (São Paulo). Neither South Africa nor Ethiopia have the potential to rival with Nigeria, once their economy and politics are stable...

The level of "democracy" in a country is a completely useless indicator of economic growth. If one examines the Corruption Perceptions Index, one will find that there is a positive correlation between economic prosperity and decreased levels of corruption. Looking at sub-Saharan Africa, one will see that the least corrupt country is Botswana, which happens to have been ruled by the same party since its incipience. The only country in sub-Saharan which is both relatively non-corrupt and has a two-or-more party system (as opposed to a dominant- or single-party system) is Ghana, which is wealthy primarily because of resource-exploitation efforts.

I agree that there is a correlation between corruption and economic prosperity. But you are forgetting that, looking at the Corruption Perception Index, one will also find that a low level of corruption and a high level of democracy are related to one another. Cross references with the Democracy Index, for example. Like I explained before, lack of democracy leads to people not trusting the government, which, in turn, leads to political unrest. That leads to uncertainty about the economic future of the country, which makes investors not want to invest there. Corruption is just another part of that problem. Dictatorships normally lead to nepotism. Lots of close friends and relatives of dictators in power, with no qualifications whatsoever. When handling a lot of money (and the wealth handled by a state is much larger than that handled by individuals), it is just natural that they will want to take some for themselves. And the authorities won't mind, since they are all related...

In regards to language policy, it is important that one language be made the national language, but that is a minor issue compared to the larger problems of crime and corruption.

True. But again, it is not smart to adopt a language that only a minority of the population speaks. The only country in continental Sub-Saharan Africa that can adopt an European language properly is Angola, where 40-60% of the Population speaks Portuguese natively. And even there, nationalism normally goes against that, trying to emphasize Bantu languages.

Nigeria insists in having English as an official language, despite the fact that virtually nobody there speaks English. It would be much better for them to follow Indonesia's example, taking one of the most spoken languages in the country, adapting it with elements of other major languages, creating a truly national tongue. Indonesia did that, adapting Malay into the Indonesian language. Italy did that, when they unified, transforming the Tuscan language into the Italian one. Nigeria could easily take the Yoruba language and adapt it into a Nigerian language...

Exactly! Democracy, a well-educated population, a big country population or large amounts of natural resources are very far from being determinant factors to the development of a country.
You only need economic freedom. This economic freedom will bring stability in the long term. Can you foresee an arab spring in the UAE? No, right?

If the people doesn't want freedom, that won't happen. Certainly, I agree with you that economic freedom is one of the most important factors. My point was simply that democracy most normally leads to economic freedom, while dictatorship most normally doesn't. But, like the example I gave with Singapore, it is perfectly possible for that not to be the case, and the situation revert.

But if you cross references between the Democracy Index and GDP per capita, or HDI, you will find a relationship between the two. The same if you cross references between the level of school attendance and the GDP per capita and HDI. Or the number of natural resources. If the population is free to choose their leaders democratically, the risk of political revolutions is low, therefore investment will be high. A well trained professional from finland definitely gets better paid than an untrained professional from the US. And China is only a good market to invest because of their huge population, which leads to a huge potential market. That means lots of people to consume your goods, if you are planning on investing there.

Seriously, the only thing that made Brazil go so well during the 2008 crisis, but not Chile, was the difference in population. All economic indicators were pretty similar...

And natural resources mean a lot of stuff to sell. the only reason why the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf became so rich was due to Oil. Do you really think the UAE had any kind of economic prosperity before that, at all?

And, by the way, there were protests in the UAE during the Arab Spring...

People in the 90's could say that Venezuela was more stable than Singapore due to its democracy, but in the long run we could see that economic freedom created a more stable Government in Singapore than in Venezuela. So, Singapore is better for business and richer than Venezuela.

Yes and no. Venezuela during the 90s was far from being a working democracy and definitely far from being stable. there were 2 coup attempts just in 1992, after all. But there, the case was precisely the opposite. What generated political instability was the economic instability, not the other way around. There were several economic crisis during the 1980s and 1990s. That led to people losing money, thus leading to massive popular opposition to pretty much any government. Considering Venezuela never had stable institutions, that led to political instability. It had absolutely nothing to do with economic freedom, in that specific case.

As for Singapore, you are right. They had a great economic policy, despite the low level of democracy. And that led to people getting richer, which led to them supporting the government.

Hayek was right when he talked about that so many decades ago.

Most people in the world doesn't really take Hayek seriously... But yeah, he was right about a lot of stuff....

In regards to the OP, I must say that Jim O'Neill has never recognized South Africa inside the BRIC block. The BRIC countries alone allowed SA to join the group, just a political manouvre, it was not based on any economic prospects whatsoever.

The BRICs from O'Neill's thesis are not a 'bloc'. There is a political bloc called BRICS that include Bric countries and South Africa, but the BRIC Thesis referred to an economic condition of a country. Since them, several economists have used the term to refer to the potential next Brics, like Egypt, or economies that should be listed as that now, like Mexico and Indonesia...

My point here was whether Nigeria does or does not qualify, since they will have pretty much the same prosperity as other Bric countries, according to O'Neill's thesis. Their GDP will grow to become the 11th largest, by 2050. And their GDP per capita will grow to become the 20th largest...

[Social_Critic]

I guess Nigeria will be the Xth largest economy in 2050 if there's Nigeria. Also, their oil reserves are being drained, and they don't have much of a national industry other than emails asking for help to smuggle gold bars inherited by a lady whose husband is a dead general who got the gold bars selling dollars he got from crooked contracts.