PDA

View Full Version : EIU - Manning the Barricades...



GRG55
04-05-09, 05:54 PM
An interesting piece from the Economist Intelligence Unit released in March. Apologies if someone has already posted this elsewhere, but I ran a search first and nothing turned up.


[34 page .pdf document]

Quick outline about the contents to help you decide if you wish to download:


Focus is on the political fallout from the credit crisis. Supplements two previous EUI reports that examined the implications of the crisis on the global economy, and the potential wider economic effects including a Japan-style collapse in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.itulip.com/forums/ /><st1:country-region>USA.</st1:country-region></P><P><st1:country-region></st1:country-region></P><P>EIU paints three outcome scenarios:</P><OL style=1. Stimulus stabilizes the global economy and begins to restore growth, starting in the leading developed economies in 2010. This base scenario is NOT part of this assessment and report.
2. Stimulus fails, asset prices keep falling leading to a sustained contraction in leading economies – a depression punctuated by periodic rallies, protectionism and unwinding of globalization.
3. US Dollar collapse, with no successful safe-haven alternative, creating economic upheaval and the risk of social unrest and violent protest.


</OL><O:p
The report examines 165 countries using a Political Risk Index to identify those which are most vulnerable to political instability as a result of economic distress. The report contains a map [pg 17] of the individual country ranking, and a table of the countries in idex order.

Of the 165 countries 27 are rated “very high risk”, 68 at “high risk” and only 17 are rated as “low risk”. The situation is deteriorating, as in 2007 the same model rated only 35 countries in the top two risk categories.

Norway ranked the most stable, with Denmark, Canada, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland following in that order. One might be forgiven for thinking there must be some advantage to being a north country, snow-bound and frozen for at least half the year. After all, what kinda idiot is going to go out on the streets and demonstrate when it's that bloody cold out? But sadly, as the experience in Iceland shows, one would be mistaken...:p...because Russia, Mongolia, most of the CIS and the Baltics are all rated high risk. The very high risk countries include the usual culprits Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, and OPEC's newest member Angola. Oh, and for some strange reason the EIU tops the very high risk ranking with Zimbabwe...I would have thought that before a country could become "unstable", by definition it needed to be "stable" first?

The 2007 results were back-tested against a data series index, based on a weighted number of demonstrations, coups, assassinations, demonstrations and government crises, with reasonably good results. Of the 35 countries, 12 did not suffer from significant instability during the time period, a hit rate of 66%. As Meat Loaf might have said “Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad”… :)<O:p</O:p

BiscayneSunrise
04-05-09, 06:05 PM
Those countries listed as highest risk reminded me of back in college economics class when the professors were trying to be politically correct.

We began discussing the hierarchy of nations with the usual first world, second world, third world appelations. The real basket cases were then labeled fourth and even fifth world. It was then deemed politically correct to name the third world countries "developing countries"

Once professor, couldn't resist and commented that while they may all be developing countries, the reality is that many in reality are "never to be developed countries"

GRG55
04-05-09, 06:24 PM
Those countries listed as highest risk reminded me of back in college economics class when the professors were trying to be politically correct.

We began discussing the hierarchy of nations with the usual first world, second world, third world appelations. The real basket cases were then labeled fourth and even fifth world. It was then deemed politically correct to name the third world countries "developing countries"

Once professor, couldn't resist and commented that while they may all be developing countries, the reality is that many in reality are "never to be developed countries"

That's one of the burdens of having "great potential"...too often a generation or two later somebody comes along and notices the country [still] has "great potential"...:rolleyes:

Jim Nickerson
04-05-09, 06:29 PM
An interesting piece from the Economist Intelligence Unit released in March. Apologies if someone has already posted this elsewhere, but I ran a search first and nothing turned up.


[34 page .pdf document]

Quick outline about the contents to help you decide if you wish to download:



Focus is on the political fallout from the credit crisis. Supplements two previous EUI reports that examined the implications of the crisis on the global economy, and the potential wider economic effects including a Japan-style collapse in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.itulip.com/forums/ /><st1:country-region>USA.</st1:country-region></P><P><st1:country-region></st1:country-region></P><P>EIU paints three outcome scenarios:</P><OL style=1. Stimulus stabilizes the global economy and begins to restore growth, starting in the leading developed economies in 2010. This base scenario is NOT part of this assessment and report.
2. Stimulus fails, asset prices keep falling leading to a sustained contraction in leading economies – a depression punctuated by periodic rallies, protectionism and unwinding of globalization.
3. US Dollar collapse, with no successful safe-haven alternative, creating economic upheaval and the risk of social unrest and violent protest.



</OL><O:p
The report examines 165 countries using a Political Risk Index to identify those which are most vulnerable to political instability as a result of economic distress. The report contains a map [pg 17] of the individual country ranking, and a table of the countries in idex order.

Of the 165 countries 27 are rated “very high risk”, 68 at “high risk” and only 17 are rated as “low risk”. The situation is deteriorating, as in 2007 the same model rated only 35 countries in the top two risk categories.

Norway ranked the most stable, with Denmark, Canada, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland following in that order. One might be forgiven for thinking there must be some advantage to being a north country, snow-bound and frozen for at least half the year. After all, what kinda idiot is going to go out on the streets and demonstrate when it's that bloody cold out? But sadly, as the experience in Iceland shows, one would be mistaken...:p...because Russia, Mongolia, most of the CIS and the Baltics are all rated high risk. The very high risk countries include the usual culprits Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, and OPEC's newest member Angola. Oh, and for some strange reason the EIU tops the very high risk ranking with Zimbabwe...I would have thought that before a country could become "unstable", by definition it needed to be "stable" first?

The 2007 results were back-tested against a data series index, based on a weighted number of demonstrations, coups, assassinations, demonstrations and government crises, with reasonably good results. Of the 35 countries, 12 did not suffer from significant instability during the time period, a hit rate of 66%. As Meat Loaf might have said “Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad”… :)<O:p</O:p

GRG, the pdf won't open on my computer, do you have a link to it?

GRG55
04-05-09, 07:07 PM
GRG, the pdf won't open on my computer, do you have a link to it?

Hmmm. Dontchajustlove technology...I was able to open it Jim...

Try going to the Economist Intelligence Unit website here:

http://viewswire.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=manning_the_barricades&page=noads&rf=0


and see if you can open it from the link to the article on the front page.

Jim Nickerson
04-05-09, 09:34 PM
Hmmm. Dontchajustlove technology...I was able to open it Jim...

Try going to the Economist Intelligence Unit website here:

http://viewswire.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=manning_the_barricades&page=noads&rf=0


and see if you can open it from the link to the article on the front page.

I got it on another computer. Nice find. Thanks for it.

Chomsky
04-05-09, 09:49 PM
Is this not the same report cited in this thread?

http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9076

GRG55
04-05-09, 10:08 PM
Is this not the same report cited in this thread?

http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9076

Yes it is. But it shows that with that original thread title and no commentary with a tie to the source, Economist Intelligence Unit, there's no way the search feature can find it.