#Japan – Martin Wheatcroft

ICAEW chart of the week: BRICS+

The ICAEW chart of the week returns from its summer holidays to look at the planned expansion of BRICS from five to 11 countries.

Venn diagram showing the G20, G7, BRICS, and BRICS+:

G20 in green, encompassing G7 in teal with USA, Japan, Canada and UK plus in blue with dotted line around Germany, France, Italy and the European Union (the EU members of the G7).

Then five countries in G20, but not in the G7, BRICS or BRICS+, being Korea, Australia, Mexico, Indonesia and Türkiye.

Tne BRICS+ in purple with Argentina and Saudi Arabia followed by BRICS in orange with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Still in the BRICS+ purple, but outside the G20 green are Ethiopia, Iran, Egypt and UAE.

Sources: G20, G7, BRICS.

Footnote gives share of global GDP: G20 86%. G7 52% (USA 26%, EU 17%), KAMIT 7%, BRICS 25%, BRICS+ 28%.

“The BRICs” was originally coined by Jim O’Neill in 2001 as an abbreviation for Brazil, Russia, India and China, four fast-growing economies that he predicted would come to dominate the world economy.

This investment shorthand evolved into something more substantive in 2006 when ministers from the four countries got together on the sidelines of a meeting at the UN. Leader summits started in 2009, followed by the addition of South Africa in 2011, which resulted in the capitalisation of the final ‘s’ to form BRICS.

BRICS has developed over time to become a counterweight to the G7, providing an alternative forum for leaders of these five major nations to discuss common concerns such as economic development, currency stability, climate change, and tackling drug trafficking and organised crime. BRICS has been increasingly important to Russia since its ejection from the G7 (then the G8) following its invasion of Crimea in 2014 and to China as relations with the G7 have deteriorated over the last decade.

The most recent summit (the 15th) was on 22-24 August 2023, at which it was announced that six additional countries would be joining on 1 January 2024 to bring the number of members to 11.

Our chart this week takes the form a Venn diagram to illustrate how BRICS, and the expanded “BRICS+” grouping (pending a new official name), fit with two other major intergovernmental organisations where leaders meet on a regular basis – the G7 and the G20.

It starts with the G20, a grouping of 19 nations and the European Union that together represent 86% of the global economy. Within this sit the eight members of the G7 group of advanced economies, representing 52% of the global economy: the USA (26%), Japan (4%), the UK (3%), Canada (2%), Germany (4%), France (3%), Italy (2%) and the European Union (17% including Germany, France and Italy). The five BRICS nations represent 25% of the global economy comprising: Brazil (2%), Russia (1.7%), India (4%), China (17%) and South Africa (0.4%).

The diagram is complicated by the expanded BRICS+ as although invitees Argentina (0.6%) and Saudi Arabia (1.0%) are also members of the G20, the other four new members – Ethiopia (0.2%), Iran (0.3%), Egypt (0.3%) and the United Arab Emirates (0.5%) – are outside the G20. These new members together represent 3% of the global economy, taking the expanded BRICS+ to 28%.

Squeezed between the G7 and BRICS+ are five G20 members that together make up around 7% of the global economy that are not in either grouping, being (South) Korea (1.6%), Australia (1.6%), Mexico (1.8%), Indonesia (1.4%) and Türkiye (0.8%). As yet there is no sign of an intergovernmental organisation for these “KAMIT” nations to complement the G7 and BRICS, although in practice they are often invited as guests to G7 summits in addition to their participation in meetings of the G20.

The attraction of intergovernmental forums such as the G7, BRICS and the G20 is that they enable national leaders to engage directly with their counterparts on a wide range of topics, in contrast to the often narrower focus and more formal diplomatic structures of treaty-based international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD), the World Bank or the Organisation of American States (OAS) for example.

Their informal nature gives national leaders more flexibility to (for example) change their memberships without lengthy treaty negotiations or to work together on pressing issues of mutual concern. However, that informality also makes it difficult to create binding resolutions, which is perhaps why the global alternative reserve currency proposed at the first BRICS summit in 2009 had still not been implemented by the time of the 15th summit this August.

ICAEW chart of the week: South Korea

My chart this week looks at the economic success story of South Korea over the last 30 years or so, using Japan as a comparator.

Line chart showing GDP per capita in current US$ between 1990 and 2023.

Japan $2,158 in 1990, steady up to 1995 then zigzags ups and down and up and down and up to a peak in 2012 before falling to 2015 then up then flattish then down and then up to $2,949 in 2023.

South Korea $551 in 1990, steady up to 1996, then down to 1998 then up then down then steady up to 2007, then down to 2009, then zig zag up to 2021, then down, then up to $2,783 in 2023.

The news that South Korea, to align with most of the rest of the world, is cutting the age of its citizens by a year or two – it used to deem a baby one year old at birth, and add a year on 1 January – prompted us to take a look at this peninsula nation and its amazing economic success story.

As my chart this week illustrates, GDP per capita in 1990 in South Korea was $551 per month in then current US$, approximately one quarter of its neighbour Japan’s GDP per capita per month at that time of $2,158

South Korea has seen its economy grow pretty strongly over the last three decades to reach a forecast GDP of $2,783 per person per month for the current year according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is only a little below the economic activity of $2,949 per person per month anticipated to be generated by Japan in 2023.

South Korea has made steady economic progress since 1990. Outside of recessions and pandemics there have been continual improvements in economic activity and in living standards, resulting in the country moving from the developing nation category to an advanced economy.

This compares with the economic performance of neighbouring Japan, which has been on an economic rollercoaster since the end of the economic boom in the mid-1990s. While a strong currency in the run-up to the global financial crisis boosted the size of its economy in US dollar terms, Japan has subsequently underperformed as its ageing population and lack of immigration has caused its economy to slow and the Yen to fall.

Not shown in the chart is the progress made in purchasing power parity (PPP) international dollars, the measure that economists prefer to use when comparing economic performance between countries as it takes account of differences in living costs. This would show a narrower difference in 1990, when South Korean and Japanese GDP per capita per month were 629 and 1,692 international dollars respectively, and would also show South Korea outgrowing Japan with GDP per capita per month in 2023 of 4,725 international dollars, compared with 4,317 international dollars for Japan.

Many South Koreans waking up on Wednesday 28 June 2023 will have been pretty happy to discover they are now a year or two younger than they were the day before. They may be less likely to reflect on the economic miracle that has taken their country from the depths of extreme poverty in the early 1950s, following the Korean War, to becoming the prosperous nation that South Korea is today.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Japan demographics

We look at how Japan’s population is ageing and falling fast, presenting some major challenges for the public finances of the third largest national economy in the world.

Column chart showing Japan's population at twenty-year intervals from 1963 to 2063, analysed into five age groups: Ages 0-19, Ages 20-39, Ages 40-59, Ages 60-79, Ages 80+.

1963 – 36m, 32m, 19m, 8m and 1m – 96m total
1983 – 35m, 36m, 31m, 15m and 2m – 119m total
2003 – 25m, 35m, 35m, 27m and 5m – 127m total
2023 – 20m, 26m, 35m, 31m and 12m – 124m total
2043 – 15m, 22m, 26m, 31m and 16m – 110m total
2063 – 12m, 17m, 22m, 24m and 18m – 93m total

Our chart this week is on the demographics of Japan, looking at how its population grew rapidly from 96m in 1963 to 119m in 1983 and then 127m in 2003, before falling to 124m this year, to a projected 110m in 20 years’ time, and to 93m in 40 years’ time.

Our analysis starts with the 96m people who lived in Japan in 1963 and shows how increased longevity saw the population increase to 119m in 1983 (an increase of 24m from 36m births and 2m migrants less 14m deaths), before increasing to 127m in 2003 (a further 8m increase from 25m births less 17m deaths).

The population has been relatively stable since then, peaking at 128m in 2010 (not shown in the chart), before dropping to 124m this year as the number of births (20m over the last 20 years) fell below the number of deaths (25m). This was offset by a small amount of net inward migration, with the non-Japanese component of the population amounting to 3m in 2023.

Fewer younger people means that the number of births is expected to be even smaller over the next 20 years to 2043 at around 15m, at the same time as deaths are expected to increase in line with an older population. According to the latest medium-variant projections of Japan’s National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, the population is projected to drop by 14m to 110m in 2043 (15m births + 3m migrants – 32m deaths) before falling by a further 17m to 93m in 2063 (12m births + 3m migrants – 32m deaths).

The primary purpose of the chart is to illustrate how the age profile has shifted and continues to change as Japan gets older. Grouped into five age segments: 0-19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79 and 80+, the population was, is, and is projected to be as follows:

1963 – 36m, 32m, 19m, 8m and 1m – 96m total
1983 – 35m, 36m, 31m, 15m and 2m – 119m total
2003 – 25m, 35m, 35m, 27m and 5m – 127m total
2023 – 20m, 26m, 35m, 31m and 12m – 124m total
2043 – 15m, 22m, 26m, 31m and 16m – 110m total
2063 – 12m, 17m, 22m, 24m and 18m – 93m total

The contrast in the age profile in the 20th century compared with 21st century Japan is dramatic, with the proportion of population aged 60 or over increasing from 9% in 1963 to 35% today and to a projected 45% in 2063, at the same time as the share aged under 40 has fallen from 72% in 1963 to 37% in 2023 and to a projected 31% in 2063.

Also not shown in the chart is Japan’s median age, which was 26 in 1963, 33 in 1983, 42 in 2003 and 49 this year, before being projected to reach 53 in 2043 and 56 in 2063 – more than double that of a century earlier.

These demographic shifts have and will continue to present a major fiscal challenge for the Japanese government. The continued growth in size of older generations (who typically consume the most in public services and welfare), accompanied by a shrinking working-age population (the group that typically pays most of the taxes that fund public services and welfare), will not be an easy dynamic to manage. At the same time, Japan already has one of the largest national debts of any country at in excess of 250% of its GDP.

One action Japan could take is to increase the pace of net inward migration even more than it already has, given it is currently at a much lower level than in many other developed countries such as the UK. This would have the benefit of bringing in more tax-paying individuals of working age and potentially assist in driving up the birth rate, slowing the rate of fall in the size of the population. However, there would be significant political challenges to overcome for such a route to be successful.

The good news for Japan is that it can still borrow at very low interest rates, with the effective interest rate payable on 10-year government bonds currently at 0.4%, much lower than in many comparable countries with much lower levels of external debt. This is both a threat, in that interest rates could go up significantly in the future, but also an opportunity in that the Japanese government is able to invest in adapting itself for a very different future.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Inflation around the world

This week we look at how inflation is racing upwards across the world, with the UK reporting in April one of the highest rates of increase among developed countries.

Bar chart showing inflation rates by G20 country: Russia 17.8%, Nigeria 16.8%, Poland 12.4%, Brazil 12.1%, Netherlands 9.6%, UK 9.0%, Spain 8.3%, USA 8.3%, India 7.8%, Mexico 7.7%, German 7.4%, Canada 6.8%, Italy 6.0%, South Africa 5.9%, France 4.8%, South Korea 4.8%, Indonesia 3.5%, Switzerland 2.5%, Japan 2.4%, Saudia Arabia 2.3%, China 2.1%.

Inflation has increased rapidly over the last year as the world has emerged from the pandemic. A recovery in demand combined with constraints in supply and transportation has driven prices, with myriad factors at play. These include the effects of lockdowns in China (the world’s largest supplier of goods), the devastation caused by the Russian invasion in Ukraine (a major food exporter to Europe, the Middle East and Africa), and the economic sanctions imposed on Russia (one of the world’s largest suppliers of oil and gas).

As the chart shows, the UK currently has – at 9% – the highest reported rate of consumer price inflation in the G7, as measured by the annual change in the consumer prices index (CPI) between April 2021 and April 2022. This compares with 8.3% in the USA, 7.4% in Germany, 6.8% in Canada, 6.0% in Italy, 4.8% in France and 2.4% in Japan.

The UK’s relatively higher rate partly reflects the big jump in energy prices in April from the rise in the domestic energy price cap, which contrasts with France, for example, where domestic energy price rises have been much lower (thanks in part to state subsidies). The UK inflation rate also hasn’t been helped by falls in the value of sterling, making imported goods and food more expensive.

Other countries shown in the chart include Russia at 17.8%, Nigeria at 16.8%, Poland at 12.4%, Brazil at 12.1%, Netherlands at 9.6%, Spain at 8.3%, India at 7.8%, Mexico at 7.7%, South Africa 5.9%, South Korea at 4.8%, Indonesia at 3.5%, Switzerland at 2.5%, Saudi Arabia at 2.3% and China at 2.1%. For most countries, the rate of inflation is substantially higher than it has been for many years, reflecting just how major a change there has been in a global economy that had become accustomed to relatively stable prices in recent years.

This is not the case for every country, and the chart excludes three hyperinflationary countries that already had problems with inflation even before the pandemic, led by Venezuela with an inflation rate of 222.3% in April, Turkey with a rate of 70%, and Argentina at 58%.

Policymakers have been alarmed at the prospect of an inflationary cycle as higher prices start to drive higher wages, which in turn will drive even higher prices. For central banks that has meant increasing interest rates to try and dampen demand, while finance ministries have been looking to see how they can protect households from the effect of rising prices, particular on energy, whether that be by intervention to constrain prices, through temporary tax cuts, or through direct or indirect financial support to struggling households.

Here in the UK, both the Bank of England and HM Treasury have been calling for restraint in wage settlements as they seek to head off a further ramp-up in inflation. They hope that inflation will start to moderate later in the year as price rises in the last six months start to drop out of the year-on-year comparison and supply constraints start to ease, for example as oil and gas production is ramped up in the USA, the Middle East and elsewhere to replace Russia as an energy supplier, and as China emerges from its lockdowns.

Despite that, prices are likely to rise further, especially in October when the energy price cap is expected to increase by 40%, following a 54% rise in April. This is likely to force many to make difficult choices as household budgets come under increasing strain.

After all, inflation is much more than the rate of change in an arbitrary index; it has an impact in the real world of diminishing spending power and in eroding the value of savings.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Global population

The ICAEW chart of the week looks at how the estimated global population of almost 8bn people is distributed around the world.

Bubble chart showing estimated global population of 7,995m in 2022: South Asia 1,894m, East Asia 1,671m, South East Asia 682m, Pacific 43m, Africa 1,419, Europe 592m, Middle East 357m, Eurasia 246m, North America 511m, South America 443m and Central America & Caribbean 97m.

UN projections show that the planetary population will reach approximately 7,955m in June this year, a 1.0% increase over the 7,875m estimate for June 2021.

The largest region on our chart is South Asia, which has 1,894m inhabitants, including 1,411m in India, 216m in Pakistan, 173m in Bangladesh, 40m in Afghanistan and 31m in Nepal. This is followed in size by the 1,671m people living in East Asia, including 1,432m in mainland China (currently the most populous country in the world), 126m in Japan, 52m in South Korea and 26m in North Korea.

Africa is the third largest region with 1,419m inhabitants, with 482m living in Eastern Africa (including Ethiopia 118m, Tanzania 67m, Kenya 56m, Uganda 50m, Mozambique 34m and Madagascar 29m), 424m in Western Africa (including Nigeria 217m, Ghana 32m, Côte d’Ivoire 27m and Niger 26m), 254m in Northern Africa (including Egypt 106m, Sudan 46m, Algeria 45m and Morocco 38m), 190m in Middle Africa (including the Democratic Republic of the Congo 95m, Angola 35m and Cameroon 27m), and 69m in Southern Africa (of which 60m are in South Africa).

Excluding Russia and Belarus, Europe has 592m people, including 444m in the 27 countries of the EU (including Germany 83m, France 66m, Italy 59m, Spain 46m and Poland 38m), 68m in the UK and 43m in Ukraine, although these numbers are all before taking account of the several million Ukrainians who have been forced to flee the war and are living temporarily in other countries.

Eurasia, comprising the Commonwealth of Independent States of Russia, Belarus and the ‘stans’ of central Asia, has 246m inhabitants (including Russia 143m and Uzbekistan 34m), while the Middle East has an estimated 357m people (including Turkey 85m, Iran 85m, Iraq 44m, Saudi Arabia 36m and Yemen 32m.

North America has 511m inhabitants (USA 336m, Mexico 137m, Canada 38m), while 97m live in Central America (52m) and the Caribbean (45m), and 443m live in South America (including Brazil 217m, Colombia 51m, Argentina 46m, Peru 34m and Venezuela 34m).

South East Asia has 682m inhabitants, including 277m in Indonesia, 113m in the Philippines, 100m in Vietnam, 70m in Thailand, 56m in Myanmar and 34m in Malaysia. A further 43m people live in the Pacific region, of which 26m are in Australia.

Although the rate of global population growth was projected to slow significantly in recent years, from 1.3% a year in 2000 when the population was 6.1bn, to 1.0% a year currently and to a forecast of around 0.7% in 20 years’ time, that still means that the number of people on the planet is expected to grow to around 9.8bn in 2050, placing even greater demands on natural resources than today.

This highlights just how important achieving net zero and environmental sustainability is to the lives and wellbeing of future generations.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: G7 economic growth

The latest IMF economic forecasts put the UK at the bottom of the pile in 2023, but our chart this week elevates the UK to fifth place out of seven by looking at average growth for the four years from 2020 to 2023.

Chart presenting economic growth for the G7 in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and the average over four years.

USA: -3.4%, +5.7%, +3.7%, +2.3%, average +2.0%
Canada: -5.2%, +4.6%, +3.9%, +2.8%, average +1.4%
Germany: -4.6%, +2.8%, +2.1%, +2.7%, average +0.7%
France: -8.0%, +7.0%, +2.9%, +1.4%, average +0.7%
UK: -9.3%, +7.4%, +3.7%, +1.2%, average +0.6%
Japan: -4.5%, +1.6%, +2.4%, +2.3%, average +0.4%
Italy: -9.0%, +6.6%, +2.3%, +1.7%, average +0.2%

Recent media reports have contrasted the government’s boast of being the best performing economy in the G7 in 2021 with the latest forecasts from International Monetary Fund (IMF) that suggest the UK economy will be bottom of the same league in 2023. Our chart this week attempts to take a step back and look at the overall picture by illustrative average economic growth by the G7 nations over the four years between 2020 and 2023.

These numbers are based on the IMF’s World Economic Outlook and the accompanying World Economic Outlook Database that were published on 19 April, setting out economic forecasts for the world economy over the next few years.

According to the IMF, the USA is the best performing economy in the G7, with average annual economic growth of +2.0% over the period from 2020 to 2023. An economic contraction of 3.4% in 2020 was more than offset by a rebound of 5.7% in 2021, followed by forecast growth of 3.7% in 2022 and 2.3% in 2023. Canada is not far behind, with an average growth of 1.4% over the four years, comprising respectively -5.2%, +4.6%, +3.9% and +2.8% in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Germany and France fare pretty similarly to each other, with Germany projected to experience marginally above 0.7% average growth and France marginally below. The patterns are different, however, with Germany having suffered a less severe economic hit during 2020 followed by moderate growth (-4.6%, +2.8%, +2.1%, 2.7%), while France was hit much harder by the pandemic followed by a much stronger rebound before a return to lower growth in 2023 (-8.0%, +7.0%, +2.9%, +1.4%).

The UK is in fifth place in this league table, but at 0.6% average economic growth over the four years selected this is only slightly less than Germany and France. With an economic contraction in 2020 of 9.3%, the UK suffered more severely from the pandemic than the other members in the G7 (although this is partly because of differences in statistical methodologies) but then saw the biggest rebound in 2021 with growth of 7.4%. Growth this year is forecast by the IMF to be 3.7% before falling to an (unfortunately) more typical level of 1.2% in 2023.

Vying for the wooden spoon are Japan and Italy, with Japan continuing a long period of low growth and a slower recovery from the pandemic than the others to average 0.4% a year (-4.5%, +1.6%, +2.4%, +2.3%). Italy secured the bottom position by virtue of being hit hardest by the pandemic and having less of a rebound than others (-9.0%, +6.6%, +2.3%, +1.7%), a net average growth rate of 0.2% over the four-year period.

For those that follow this particular league table, there is a hope that slightly stronger growth than the IMF has forecast could move the UK up one or two places above France and/or Germany. However, the bigger concern for most of us is about the downside risks to the global and UK economies from the war in Ukraine, rampant inflation, and a global cost of living crisis. These may put back even further any hope of returning the UK and other developed economies to a pre-financial crisis path of moderate economic growth.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Government borrowing rates

Our first chart of 2022 highlights how the cost of government borrowing remains extremely low for most of the 21 largest economies in the world, despite the huge expansion in public debt driven by the pandemic.

Government 10-year bond yields: Germany -0.13%, Switzerland -0.07%, Netherlands 0.00%, Japan 0.09%, France 0.23%, Spain 0.60%, UK 1.08%, Italy 1.23%, Canada 1.59%, USA 1.65%, Australia 1.79%, South Korea 2.38%, China 2.82%, Poland 3.87%, Indonesia 6.38%, India 6.51%, Mexico 8.03%, Russia 8.38%, Brazil 10.73%, Turkey 24.21%.

Our chart of the week illustrates how borrowing costs are still at historically low rates for most of the 21 largest national economies in the world, with negative yields on 10-year government bonds on 5 January 2022 for Germany (-0.13%) and Switzerland (-0.07%), approximately zero for the Netherlands, and yields of sub-2.5% for Japan (0.09%), France (0.23%), Spain (0.60%), the UK (1.08%), Italy (1.23%), Canada (1.59%), the USA (1.65%), Australia (1.79%) and South Korea (2.38%).

This is despite the trillions added to public debt burdens across the world over the past couple of years as a consequence of the pandemic, including the $5trn added to US government debt since March 2020 (up from $17.6trn to $22.6trn owed to external parties) and the more than £500bn borrowed by the UK government (public sector net debt up from £1.8trn to £2.3trn) for example.

Yields in developing economies are higher, although China (2.82%) and Poland (3.87%) can borrow at much lower rates than Indonesia (6.38%), India (6.51%), Mexico (8.03%), Russia (8.37%) and Brazil (10.73%). The outlier is Turkey (24.21%), which is experiencing some difficult economic conditions at the moment. Data was not available for Saudi Arabia, the 19th or 20th largest economy in the world, which has net cash reserves.

With inflation higher than it has been for several years, real borrowing rates are negative for most developed countries, meaning that in theory it would make sense for most countries to continue to borrow as much as they can while funding is so cheap. However, in practice fiscal discipline appears to be reasserting itself, with Germany, for example, planning on returning to a fully balanced budget by the start of next year and the UK targeting a current budget surplus within three years.

For many policymakers, the concern is not so much about how easy it is to borrow today, but the prospect of higher interest rates multiplied by much higher levels of debt eating into spending budgets just as they are looking to invest to grow their economies over the rest of the decade. Despite that, with the pandemic still raging and an emerging cost of living crisis, there may well be a temptation to borrow ‘just one more time’ to support struggling households over what is likely to be a difficult start to 2022.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: G7 economies

Our chart this week illustrates how in representing more than half of the world economy, decisions taken by the G7 can have a significant impact on the entire planet.

The G7 summit hasn’t formally started yet, but Group of Seven (G7) ministers and their guests have already started to meet ahead of the main event next month, albeit subject to quarantine restrictions.

The #icaewchartoftheweek illustrates how important this gathering is by highlighting how the seven major democratic nations and the European Union that together comprise the G7 represent more than half the global economy – and even more than that, once four invited guest nations are included.

Circular 'sunburst' chart showing G7 nations (USA, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Canada plus remaining EU nations), G7 guest nations (India, South Korea, Australia and a spoke for South Africa) and the rest of the world (China, Russia and Brazil followed by all the rest).

Overall, the G7 economies are forecast by the IMF to generate £35.9tn of economic activity in 2021 at current prices, 54% of forecast global GDP of £66.8tn. This comprises the economies of seven individual member nations: the USA (£16.3tn), Japan (£3.8tn), Germany (£3.1tn), the UK (£2.2tn), France (£2.1tn), Italy (£1.5tn) and Canada (£1.3tn), together with the 24 other EU member states (£5.6tn).

The guests invited to the 47th G7 summit in Cornwall are expected to generate a further £4.9tn or 7% of global GDP in 2021, bringing the total economic activity represented at the summit to £40.8tn or 61% of the total. They are India (£2.2tn), South Korea (£1.3tn), Australia (£1.2tn) and South Africa (£0.2tn).

Not represented at the G7 are China (£12.2tn), Russia (£1.2tn) and Brazil (£1.1tn) and around 160 other nations across the globe (£11.5tn in total).

The G7 summit presents an opportunity for the 11 national leaders and 2 EU representatives involved to shape the direction for much of the world, with discussions expected to range from saving the planet through to transparency in financial and non-financial reporting.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: The debt of G7 nations

This week’s chart looks at how the pandemic has driven government debt levels higher, a topic that will be on the agenda at the G7 summit in Cornwall in six weeks’ time.

2019 General Government Net / GDP plus forecast change over 2020 and 2021:

Canada 23% + 14% = 37%
Germany 41% +11% = 52%
UK 75% + 22% = 97%
France 89% + 17% = 106%
USA 83% + 26% = 109%
Italy 122% + 22% = 144%
Japan 150% + 22% = 172%

The #icaewchartoftheweek is on the topic of government debt, looking at the indebtedness of the seven nations that comprise the G7 together with the EU.

The strength (or otherwise) of public finances will underlie many of the discussions at the upcoming G7 summit in Cornwall in June as countries decide how best to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, achieving net-zero carbon and the COP26 goals, strengthening defence and security, and economic recovery. All of these are likely to require significant public investment at a time when public finances have been hit hard from a combination of the financial crisis just over a decade ago and the coronavirus pandemic over the past year.

Perhaps best-placed amongst the G7 are Canada and Germany, with stronger public balance sheets than their peers putting them in a better position to fund public investment. Canada’s general government net debt to GDP ratio (the net debts of the federal government, provincial governments and local authorities combined compared with Canadian GDP) is forecast to increase from 23% at 31 December 2019 to 37% at 31 December 2021, while Germany’s general government net debt to GDP ratio is forecast to increase from 41% to 52% over the same period.

The UK is next with its general government net debt up from 75% of GDP to a forecast 97% of GDP, followed by France with its net debt increasing from 89% in December 2019 to a forecast 106% of GDP for the end of 2021. The USA is expected to overtake France with its major stimulus packages seeing debt rise from 83% as a proportion of GDP to 109% by the end of this year. The biggest ratios within the G7 are Italy, which is expected to increase from 122% to 144%, while Japan is expected to rise from 150% to 172% of GDP.

Not shown on the chart are G7 guest nations this year: Australia (up from 26% to a forecast 49% of GDP) and South Korea (12% to 23%) are both in relatively strong public finance positions, while India (74% to 99%) is in a more challenging fiscal situation.

Despite the differences in debt levels, there will be a commonality amongst all the nations present in needing to find money to deal with increased pressure on public services and social security systems as populations age, for public investment in achieving net zero and in infrastructure more generally, to fund defence in an increasingly unstable global security environment and in economic stimulus to restart economies as they reopen, not to mention the need to replace tax income on fossil fuels as they are eliminated over the coming decades.

The signs are that tax reform will play a larger part in discussions than it may have done previously, with the USA’s suggestion for a minimum corporation tax indicative of a move to limit tax competition between nations and work more collaboratively to capture tax receipts from increasingly mobile global corporations and individuals.

Hence while many of the headlines from the G7 summit are likely to be focused on the heads of government talking about the global response to the coronavirus pandemic, the global security situation and global plans to deliver net zero, the side room containing finance ministers discussing global taxation and global public investment may be just as consequential.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: global military spending

19 March 2021: The UK’s Integrated Review is the inspiration for this week’s chart, illustrating the 20 countries around the world that spend the most on their militaries.

Chart showing global military spending in 2019 led by USA (£526bn) and China (£200bn) followed by 18 other countries - see text below the chart for details.

The UK Government launched its Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy on 16 March 2021, setting out a vision for the UK’s place in the world following its departure from the European Union and in the context of increasing international tensions and emerging security threats.

At the core of the Integrated Review is security and defence, and ICAEW’s chart of the week illustrates one aspect of that by looking at military spending around the world.

The chart shows spending by the top 20 countries, which together comprise in the order of £1.2tn of estimated total military spending of around £1.4tn to £1.5tn globally in 2019 – an almost textbook example of the 80:20 rule in action.

More than a third of the total spend is incurred by just one country – the USA – which spent in the order of £526bn in 2019 converted at current exchange rates. The next biggest were China and India at £200bn and £50bn respectively, although differences in purchasing power mean that they can afford many more soldiers, sailors and aircrew for the same amount of money. This is followed by Saudi Arabia (£45bn), Russia (£41bn), France (£38bn), the UK (£38bn), Germany (£38bn), Japan (£34bn), South Korea (£33bn), Australia (£21bn), Italy (£20bn), Canada (£17bn), Israel (£16bn), Brazil (£14bn), Spain (£13bn), Turkey (£11bn), the Netherlands (£9bn), Iran (£9bn) and Poland (£9bn).

Exchange rates affect the relative orders of many countries in the list, for example between Russia, France, the UK and Germany which can move up or down according to movements in their currencies, while there are a number of caveats over the estimates used given the different structures of armed forces around the world and a lack of transparency in what is included or excluded in defence budgets in many cases.

In addition, the use of in-year military spending does not necessarily translate directly into military strength. Military capabilities built up over many years or in some cases (such as the UK) over many centuries need to be taken into account, as do differing levels of technological development and spending on intelligence services, counter-terrorism and other aspects of security. Despite these various caveats, estimated military spending still provides a useful proxy in understanding the global security landscape and in particular highlights the UK’s position as a major second-tier military power – in the top 10 countries around the world.

Global Britain in a Competitive Age: the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy sets out some ambitious objectives for security and defence, which it summarises as follows: “Our diplomatic service, armed forces and security and intelligence agencies will be the most innovative and effective for their size in the world, able to keep our citizens safe at home and support our allies and partners globally. They will be characterised by agility, speed of action and digital integration – with a greater emphasis on engaging, training and assisting others. We will remain a nuclear-armed power with global reach and integrated military capabilities across all five operational domains. We will have a dynamic space programme and will be one of the world’s leading democratic cyber powers. Our diplomacy will be underwritten by the credibility of our deterrent and our ability to project power.”

The estimates of military spending used in the chart were taken from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s Military Expenditure Database, updated to current exchange rates.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.