Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.

A couple of weeks ago I linked to a paper predicting that China’s growth would start to slow down in about five years, when its per capita income reaches $17,000. The authors based this on a comparison to a set of other countries that had also experienced high growth rates but eventually slowed down.

This week the Economist gathered a host of economists to comment, and for the most part they all agreed with the gist of the paper. However, they didn’t invite Stuart Staniford, who thinks the $17,000 number is all wet. Roughly speaking, he thinks the authors chose the wrong set of countries for comparison, so he set out to get a more apt sample set:

To try to get a better grip on the situation, I did two things. Firstly, to formalize the instinct that the US has been at/near the productivity frontier at most times, I expressed every country’s GDP/capita as a fraction of the US value in the same year. Then I started kicking countries out of the sample, unless they met the following criteria: they started out the sample clearly less productive than the US (I took less than 60% as my threshold), and ended up significantly more productive, relative to the US, than they had started out. Ie, we want countries where it’s somewhat plausible that there’s a story of underdevelopment, period of rapid catchup, followed by slowing growth once the country is a fully developed country with modern capital infrastructure and levels of productivity.

Long story short, Stuart produced the chart below, which suggests China can keep growing at a fast pace until its per capita income is somewhere in the $25,000 range, which is probably still 15-20 years away. I don’t have the chops to adjudicate this, but I thought it was worth highlighting a contrarian opinion anyway. China might very well slow down in the next five or ten years anyway, since it faces multiple constraints (resource scarcity, productivity limits, demographics), but the $17,000 limit is just a guess, and you should probably put some fairly large mental error bars around it.

Keep us relentless, independent, and free to read.

For 50 years, Mother Jones has offered honest, investigative reporting you can rely on:

    • Relentless in the pursuit of truth, unafraid to hold the powerful to account

    • Independent from influence or agenda from oligarchs and corporations

    • Freely accessible to every reader, never behind a paywall

But we can’t do any of this without you. Reader support powers our newsroom to stay nimble and fearless, ready for whatever story comes next. If you can, make a donation today.

Keep us relentless, independent, and free to read.

For 50 years, Mother Jones has offered honest, investigative reporting you can rely on:

    • Relentless in the pursuit of truth, unafraid to hold the powerful to account

    • Independent from influence or agenda from oligarchs and corporations

    • Freely accessible to every reader, never behind a paywall

But we can’t do any of this without you. Reader support powers our newsroom to stay nimble and fearless, ready for whatever story comes next. If you can, make a donation today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate