Tweet
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 theUSA.
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.
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”…
[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
EIU paints three outcome scenarios:
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.
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”…
Comment