The world is in the middle of an unprecedented explosion in the middle class, but the pace is set to pick up significantly further. By 2030, an astonishing two billion new people could join the global middle class, having a significant influence on spending patterns, resource use, and environmental and political pressures. This, in fact, dwarfs even the 19th-century middle class explosion in its global scale. These are the findings of a research report by Jim O’Neill, global chief economist at Goldman Sachs. According to him, global income distribution is getting narrower, not wider. So while there is a lot of focus on widening inequality and the embattled middle class in developed countries, globally the opposite is true. As a result of these two trends, the share of the world’s income and spending that goes to this Expanding Middle is rising and could rise much further. China and India are the most important part of that story, but these dynamics stretch well beyond them. As a result, while rising inequality within countries has been in sharp focus, the ‘global’ story is one in which the distribution of global income has been becoming ‘more’, not ‘less’, equal and is likely to continue to do so.

Ebenfalls lesenswert: Robert J. Samuelson’s Warnung vor einem naiven Optimismus: Today’s global economy baffles experts—corporate executives, bankers, economists—as much as it puzzles ordinary people. Countries are growing economically more interdependent and politically more nationalistic. This is a combustible combination. The old global economy had few power centers (the United States, Europe, Japan), was defined mainly by trade and was committed to the dollar as the central currency. Its major countries shared democratic values and alliances. Today’s global economy has many power centers (including China, Saudi Arabia and Russia), is also defined by finance and is exploring currency alternatives to the dollar. Major trading nations now lack common political values and alliances. It is no more possible to undo globalization than it was possible, in the 19th century, to undo the Industrial Revolution. But our understanding of international markets, shaped by impersonal economic forces and explicit political decisions, is poor. Countries try to maximize their advantages rather than make the system work for everyone. Considering how much could go wrong, the record is so far remarkably favorable. Alas, that’s no guarantee for the future.

(Dr. Benny Peiser)