China should grow to World Bank High Income Definition around 2023

by

China should become a high income country by the World Bank definition by about 2023. A high-income economy is defined by the World Bank as a country with a gross national income per capita US$12,236 or more in 2016, calculated using the Atlas method.

In 2016, China had a GNI per capita of $8260.

China GNI per capita should be about 
2017 $8800
2018 $9300
2019 $9800   (about the current level of Malaysia
2020 $10200  (about current world average GNI per capita)
2021 $10800  
2022 $11500
2023 $12100  (At about World Bank high income definition)
2030 $16000  (about the current level of Uruguay)
2040 $22000 (about the current level of Saudi Arabia)
2050 $29000-32000  (about the current level of Spain, Italy and South Korea)

Nextbigfuture thinks that China’s movement up the World Bank classification may shift the definition upwards. The definition was slightly higher 2012-2015.

China’s 1.4 billion people could more than double the population that is classified as being in World Bank high income countries.

This progress would put China just past the World Average of GNI per capita, past Malaysia and near the level of Poland and Hungary.

Xu Hongcai, an economist from the China Center for International Economic Exchanges projects by 2020, China’s economic growth rate of more than 6.5%, 2025 may fall to about 5%, 2030 may be only 4%, and then stable at 3% -4% for some time.

The Atlas method is a method used by the World Bank to estimate the size of economies in terms of gross national income (GNI) in U.S. dollars.

A country’s GNI in local (national) currency is converted into U.S. dollars using the Atlas conversion factor, which uses a three-year average of exchange rates to smooth effects of transitory exchange rate fluctuations, adjusted for the difference between the rate of inflation in the country (using the country’s GDP deflator), and that in a number of developed countries

11 thoughts on “China should grow to World Bank High Income Definition around 2023”

  2. So they use 3 year average exchange rate, well that solves the PPP GDP issue
    I mean everyone knows people in China all purchase US made products priced in USDs

  3. I think that if the definition of high income is
    1. Less than $2000 (20%) more than the world average
    2. Less than Uruguay.

    Then the definition of “High Income” is not what we in the western world think of as High Income

    Indeed I can’t see how “high = average + 20%” works on a world scale either.

    • Exactly. Statistics and ‘damn lies’ are pretty much the same thing. Was it Mark Twain who said that?

  4. Three factors suggest that the transition has already occurred:

    1. China’s economy is 30% bigger than official figures

    2. GINI does not count assets and 97% of Chinese own their homes

    3. The net worth of urban Chinese families, $132,000, is higher than the net worth of urban American families, $92,000.

    • There’s no true home ownership in China. They don’t own the land but only the structure and only for 30 years. The structure is usually poor quality so it doesn’t survive even that long. Chinese economy is actually smaller than official estimates because of large portions of economy being dead weight like those empty cities.

      • Home ownership is real. Land ownership is not, but that makes no difference. Even Americans pay millions for homes built on land they don’t own.

        The construction quality varies by age and location but are well above world average. (The Chinese are, after all the world’s best engineers).

        There are no deadweight portions of the economy. There are no empty cities. http://www.vagabondjourney.com/5-chinese-ghost-cities-came-alive/:

        • Even Americans pay millions for homes built on land they don’t own.

          You mean those mobile homes in southern california that go for millions? That’s a very, very small subset of fools in America. Not the norm. So your comparison is bogus.

      • Nope wrong, Chinese buildings are of higher quality than OECD countries

        http://www.chinafile.com/china-africa-project/chinas-undeserved-reputation-building-bad-infrastructure-africa

        >Jamie Farrell, a Master’s candidate at Johns Hopkins University in the United States, researched how Chinese contractors, compared to those from OECD countries, performed in World Bank contracts in Africa.

        >The World Bank is probably one of the best sources for information to do this kind of comparison, given that China now wins more construction contracts from the Bank than any other country in the world. In fact, between 2007 and 2015, Chinese companies won almost a third of all World Bank infrastructure projects in Africa. So there is a lot of data to work with to compare both Chinese and OECD countries’ performance.

        >Jamie joins Eric and Cobus to discuss why the Chinese continue to have such a bad reputation for the quality of their infrastructure development work in Africa despite the fact that the data proves otherwise

        You can see the data here

        https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5652847de4b033f56d2bdc29/t/5813a5541b631bb77850c6ab/1477682518535/Jamie+Farrell.pdf

        When you look at all construction projects in Africa done by OECD contractors + China

        The Chinese contractors on average received better scores, the scores are awarded by the World bank and are based on building quality

    • The net worth of urban Chinese families, $132,000, is higher than the net worth of urban American families, $92,000.

      Bogus. But if we play to your propaganda, then that means China doesn’t need to export anymore to the US. Time to ban all Chinese imports to America then. Certainly China’s WTO status as a ‘developing country’ should be stripped at the very least.

    • You make excellent and well observed view points… China will never report true data’s and in Asia they usually own re property outright… Thank you for your keenly repot…

Comments are closed.