The World in economic indices that do not depend on a country's size. X. Two-dimensional distribution of countries on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b, Perfectness Index pf} in 2016-2021 Текст научной статьи по специальности «Экономика и бизнес»

Мир в экономических индексах, не зависящих от размера страны.

X. Двумерное распределение стран на плоскости {Индикатор Равновесия b, Индекс Перфектности pf} в 2016-2021 гг.

Сейдаметова Зарема Сейдалиевна, доктор педагогических наук, профессор

Темненко Валерий Анатольевич, кандидат физико-математических наук, доцент

Крымский инженерно-педагогический университет имени Февзи Якубова, Симферополь, Республика Крым

Цель исследования – изучение структурной устойчивости двумерного распределения стран на плоскости экономических параметров {Индикатор Равновесия b, Индекс Перфектности pf} в 2016-2021 гг. Метод исследования –построение ежегодных двумерных распределений стран на названной плоскости экономических параметров и визуальное сопоставление этих ежегодных распределений с целью выявления устойчивых структурных элементов, если такие существуют. Выявлено, что в 2016-2021 на плоскости {Индикатор Равновесия b, Индекс Перфектности pf} можно идентифицировать те же группы стран, различающиеся по сочетанию этих двух параметров, которые ранее по статистическим данным только одного года (2021 г.) были названы «Моделями равновесия»: Model I (или «Глобальная реторта», включающая большую часть стран); Model II – несколько стран с высокой перфектностью и слабым нарушением социально-экономического равновесия; Model III – страны с умеренной и низкой перфектностью и слабым нарушением равновесия; неравновесные страны – страны с существенным нарушением социально-экономического равновесия; можно выделить также небольшую группу «недоиспользуемых» экономик – это страны с относительно пониженным значением Индикатора Равновесия b (по сравнению с другими странами в той же группе перфектности). Научная новизна заключается в предварительном, качественном выявлении самого факта устойчивости разделения мировой экономики на эти структурные элементы («Модели социально-экономического равновесия») в течение достаточно длительного временного промежутка продолжительностью в шесть лет. Представленные данные создают в результате удобный и устойчивый понятийный аппарат для описания структуры мировой экономики и позволяют поставить задачу исследования устойчивости «Моделей Равновесия» в более длинный временной шкале.

Ключевые слова: мировая экономика; Индикатор Равновесия; Индекс Перфектности; Модели Равновесия; структурная устойчивость.

Цитировать: Seidametova Z.S., Temnenko V.A. The World in economic indices that do not depend on a country's size. X. Two-dimensional distribution of countries on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b, Perfectness Index pf} in 2016-2021 // KANT. – 2023. – №4(49). – С. 135-142. EDN: JGQSIA. DOI: 10.24923/2222-243X.2023-49.25

Seidametova Zarema Seidalievna, DSc of Pedagogical sciences, Professor

Temnenko Valerii Anatolievich, Ph.D. of Physics and Mathematical sciences, Associate Professor

Fevzi Yakubov Crimean Engineering-Pedagogical University, Simferopol, RC

The purpose of the research is to study the structural stability of the two-dimensional distribution of countries on the plane of economic parameters {Equilibrium Indicator b, Perfectness Index pf} in 2016-2021. The research method is the construction of annual two-dimensional distributions of countries on the named plane of economic parameters and visual comparison of these annual distributions in order to identify stable structural elements, if they exist. It was revealed that in 2016-2021 on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b, Perfectness Index pf} it is possible to identify the same groups of countries, differing in the combination of these two parameters, which were previously called “Equilibrium Models” based on statistical data for only one year (2021): Model I (or “Global Retort”, including most countries); Model II – several countries with high perfectness and weak socio-economic disequilibrium; Model III – countries with moderate and low perfectness and weak disequilibrium; disequilibrium countries – countries with a significant violation of socio-economic equilibrium; we can also distinguish a small group of “underutilized” economies – these are countries with a relatively low value of the Equilibrium Indicator b (compared to other countries in the same perfectness group). The scientific novelty lies in the preliminary, qualitative identification of the very fact of the stability of the division of the world economy into these structural elements (“Models of socio-economic equilibrium”) over a fairly long period of six years. The presented data creates as result in a convenient and stable conceptual apparatus for describing the structure of the world economy and allows us to pose the task of studying the stability of these “Equilibrium Models” on a longer time scale.

Keywords: world economy; Equilibrium Indicator; Perfectness Index; Equilibrium Models; structural stability.

УДК 339.97:330.43

ВАК РФ 5.2.5

Seidametova Z.S., Temnenko V.A.

The World in economic indices that do not depend on a country’s size.

X. Two-dimensional distribution of countries on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b, Perfectness Index pf} in 2016-2021

Introduction

The previous paper describes in detail the one-dimensional distributions of countries according to the Perfectness Index pf and the Socio-Economic Equilibrium Indicator b in 2016-2021. The definitions of these two economic variables and the definitions of the other economic indices we use are given in the same previous paper. The purpose of our research is to study the structural stability of the two-dimensional distribution of countries on the plane of economic parameters {Equilibrium Indicator b, Perfectness Index pf according to statistical data 2016-2021. This goal of the paper structures the following tasks: 1) construction of annual two-dimensional distributions of countries on the plane {b, pf} according to statistical data for 2016-2021; 2) interpretation of each annual distribution in terms of the previously proposed “Equilibrium Models”; 3) determination of the boundaries separating on the axis of the Equilibrium Indicator b the position of groups of countries with a significant violation of the socio-economic equilibrium, as well as the boundaries separating the position of a group of countries with a weak violation of the socio-economic equilibrium (countries belonging to the “Model III"); 4) comparison and analysis of lists of countries belonging in different years to the group of countries with a significantly disturbed equilibrium, as well as lists of countries belonging to a group of countries with a weakly disturbed equilibrium.

Main part.

Distribution of countries on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b, Perfectness Index pf} in 2016-2021. The electronic supplement to this paper (https://t.ly/5ESmB) contains annual lists of countries with known economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b in 2016-2021. Each annual list is ordered in descending order of the Equilibrium Indicator b. According to the economic information presented, this supplement is close to the supplement (https://t.ly/kPL8L) to the paper [1]. But in the supplement to the paper [1], the lists of countries were ordered by the Perfectness Index pf. In addition, the tables in the supplement (https://t.ly/kPL8L) contained “rectified” economic indices s and r (their definition is given in paper [2]) and there were no indices EPI, CPI. The ordering of countries in descending order of the Equilibrium Indicator b, adopted in the supplement for this paper, is convenient for the purposes of this paper – primarily for identifying countries with disturbed socio-economic equilibrium.

Fig. 1 is based on the data given in the supplement (https://t.ly/5ESmB). This figure shows the distribution of countries on the {b, pf} plane in 2016-2021. Each annual figure highlights areas corresponding to different models of socio-economic equilibrium: “disequilibrium” countries, Model III, Model II, Model I. Most countries of the world belong to the area “Model I”, which we called in the paper [3] a “Global Retort”. Isolated points not included in any equilibrium model, located to the left of the “Global Retort”, correspond to countries with “underutilized” economies. Such “underutilized” economies correspond to countries with reduced (for their perfectness groups) values of the Equilibrium Indicator b.

Countries with a significant violation of socio-economic equilibrium. In the lower right corner of each annual distribution shown in Fig. 1, there is an area corresponding to disequilibrium countries. How does this area stand out? This area corresponds to the highest values of the Equilibrium Indicator b. If you look at the data given in the supplement (https://t.ly/5ESmB), you can see that at the beginning of each annual list, with the indicator b value significantly exceeding one, when moving down the list there is a rapid decrease in the Equilibrium Indicator b with a large reduction step. Then, as you move further down the list of countries, the reduction step b decreases significantly. Table 1 shows our chosen minimum value b_min corresponding to countries with significantly disturbed socio-economic equilibrium. This value b_min was chosen so that the difference  between b_min and the value b_next of the country next in the list to the country to which, corresponds b_min, was noticeably greater than the decreasing step b when moving further down the annual list from the supplement (https://t.ly/5ESmB).

Fig. 1 - Distribution of countries on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b, Perfectness Index pf} in 2016-2021

Table 1 - The lowest value of the Equilibrium Indicator b_min for a group of disequilibrium countries and the value b_next for the country next in the list of countries in descending order b.

year 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

bmin 1.47 1.42 1.45 1.49 1.48 1.52

bnext 1.40 1.33 1.38 1.43 1.40 1.46

=bmin–bnext 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06

According to the table 1 we can assume that the quantity b_min is a diffuse constant 〈b_min 〉=1.470.02. The same status of a diffuse constant can be attributed to the values b_next and : 〈b_next 〉=1.400.03; 〈∆〉=0.070.01.

Table 2 provides an alphabetical list of all countries that, at least once during the six-year period under review, had an Equilibrium Indicator b that exceeded the value b_min in the corresponding year. It is these countries, according to our assumption, that belong to the countries with a significant violation of the socio-economic equilibrium. The “+” symbol in the table 2 means that a given country in a given year satisfies the given criterion of a significantly disturbed equilibrium (b>b_min). The symbol “–” means that there is no significant disequilibrium in a given year; the symbol “n/a” means there is no data about this country (if the CPI value is unknown, then pf and b cannot be calculated).

Table 2 - Countries with significant socio-economic disequilibrium in 2016-2021, in alphabetical order

year

a country 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

Angola – – – + n/a +

Bahrain – – – + + –

Congo, Rep. – + + + – –

Dominican Rep. – + + – – –

Equatorial Guinea + + + + + n/a

Guatemala – + – – – –

Haiti – + – – – –

Iraq + n/a + + + +

Kuwait – – + – + –

Libya + + + + + +

Maldives – – + – – –

Mexico – – + + + –

Russian Fed. + + + + + +

Somalia + + n/a + + n/a

South Sudan + n/a n/a n/a n/a +

Sudan – – – + + +

Turkmenistan + n/a n/a + + +

Venezuela + n/a n/a n/a n/a +

Yemen – n/a n/a + + +

We can classify those countries from table 2 as “stable disequilibrium”, for which disequilibrium was recorded in each year for which in table 2 data is present. Of the nineteen countries included in the table 2, eight countries can be considered as “steadily disequilibrium”. These are Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, Libya, Russian Federation, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Venezuela.

The appearance of some countries in the table 2 may be due to expert errors in determining the Corruption Perception Index CPI. Table 3 shows the economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b for Bahrain. From this table it follows that in 2017 and 2018, Bahrain recorded a sharp drop in CPI – from 43 in 2016 to 36 in 2017 and 2018. This drop in CPI leads to a significant increase in the Equilibrium Indicator b and the value b for Bahrain falling into the disequilibrium zone (b>b_min).

Table 3 - Economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b for Bahrain in 2016-2021

year 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

EPI 19.88 17.59 20.49 20.62 22.72 23.57

CPI 4 2 42 42 36 36 43

pf 34.63 34.00 35.32 29.95 30.31 36.91

b 1.26 1.23 1.27 1.49 1.53 1.29

It seems implausible to us that such a sharp drop in CPI followed by a subsequent recovery. This may be expert bias or a temporary modification of the data collection method used to calculate the CPI.We tend to believe that the 2016 and 2019-2021 data show a different Bahrain, firmly belonging to Model III (countries with weak socio-economic disequilibrium).

Table 4 provides a summary of economic indices for Kuwait.

Table 4 - Economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b for Kuwait in 2016-2021

year 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

EPI 21.46 21.39 27.93 29.14 27.90 25.29

CPI 43 42 40 41 39 41

pf 36.13 35.70 36.35 37.19 34.56 35.89

b 1.26 1.29 1.45 1.43 1.48 1.38

The annual fluctuations in the index CPI of Kuwait appear to be within the expert error of calculating this index: drop by 2 points in 2017, an increase by two points in 2018, a subsequent drop by 1 point in 2019, an increase by 2 points in 2020 – such fluctuations in themselves are natural and cannot change the status of a country from “equilibrium” to “disequilibrium”. But these fluctuations in the index CPI were accompanied by noticeable changes in the index EPI.

The level of GDP and GDP/PC for Kuwait, as for other energy supplying countries, depends on the conditions of the global energy market. The rise in EPI from 2016 to 2017 combined with the fall in CPI in 2017 led to a sharp increase in the Kuwait Equilibrium Indicator b in 2017 and formally upgraded the country from weakly disequilibrium (Model III) into the group of countries with a significant disequilibrium.

In 2018, despite the continued growth of the EPI (which itself increases the Perfectness Index pfand the Equilibrium Indicator b), thanks to a 2-point increase in the CPI, Kuwait according to the indicator b was on the border between “Model III” countries and disequilibrium countries. In 2019, a drop in CPI of just 1-point (despite a simultaneous drop in EPI) again led to a slight increase in the Equilibrium Indicator b. This small increase b was enough to put Kuwait back on the list of disequilibrium countries. In 2020 the Economic Productivity Index EPI of Kuwait as a result of the pandemic shock, sharply decreased (like other energy suppliers), which, combined with the growth of CPI, led to a significant decrease in the Equilibrium Indicator b and Kuwait again returned to the list of countries with weak disequilibrium (Model III).

The history of oscillations of the Bahrain and Kuwait economic indices is quite instructive. It shows that the criterion we have adopted for classifying countries as disequilibrium countries (b>b_min) is overly strict – but we do not yet have another criterion. For those countries whose Equilibrium Indicator b is close to b_min, it is necessary to consider a wider set of economic indices over several years.

Table 5 shows the economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b for Haiti in 2016-2021. This country, according to table 2, was included in the list of countries with a significant violation of socio-economic equilibrium once, in 2020. Table 5 shows the reason for this phenomenon: in 2020, EPI growth was recorded by 67%. With little change and consistently low CPI (the high level of corruption), this increase in EPI led to a significant increase in the Equilibrium Indicator b (b>b_min) and Haiti was included in the list of countries with a significant violation of socio-economic equilibrium in 2020. How significant is this data? Haiti has been in a state of chaos for years, with very weak authorities and strong control of armed criminal groups over the daily life of the population. Arguably, any Haiti economic statistics are unreliable and should not be included in an analysis of the global economy. But the population of Haiti is part of the population of the Earth, and we are inclined to believe that even unreliable statistics from Haiti (or Afghanistan, or Somalia) should be included in the description of the world economy: this is how the world economy works now, and some of the statistics about it has unreliable “garbage” character.

Table 5 - Economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b for Haiti in 2016-2021

year 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

EPI 1.37 1.10 0.66 0.74 0.74 0.71

CPI 20 18 18 20 22 20

pf 8.45 7.28 6.41 7.25 7.86 7.16

b 1.36 1.43 1.26 1.17 1.06 1. 15

Table 6 shows the economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b for Maldives in 2016-2021. In these data, after a systematic annual drop in CPI from CPI=36 in 2016 to CPI=29 in 2019, there is a sudden and unlikely increase in CPI by 14 points in 2020. These changes led to an increase in the Equilibrium Indicator b from 1.29 in 2016 to 1.52 in 2019, i.e. to the transition of Maldives from the group of countries belonging to Model III (a weak disturbance of the socio-economic equilibrium) for one year 2020 into the group of countries with significant disequilibrium (b>b_min). The subsequent unexplained rise in the CPI in 2020, coupled with the pandemic shock that caused a significant drop in the Maldives’ EPI (as well as other island economies focused on international tourism), led to so sharp decline in the Equilibrium Indicator b that the Maldives fell into the top group of countries, belonging to the basic equilibrium model (Model I). However, such a rapid increase in CPI recorded in 2020 causes some distrust in all the economic characteristics of this island economy.

Table 6 - Economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b for Maldives in 2016-2021

year 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

EPI 7.76 5.97 9.41 8.86 10.71 11.67

CPI 40 43 29 31 33 36

pf 26.06 26.57 20.08 20.88 23.02 25.98

b 1.05 0.91 1.52 1.40 1.38 1.29

Some countries listed in table 2 by the combination of the dynamics of two indices – EPI and CPI – can probably really change their status from “disequilibrium” to “equilibrium”.

Table 7 shows the economic indices of Mexico. In 2017-2019 this country belonged to the list of “disequilibrium” countries. In 2020, due to a real drop in Mexico’s EPI as a result of the pandemic shock (like other energy trading countries) and a possible slight increase in CPI by 2 points, Mexico moved to the list of countries with weak disequilibrium (Model III) and remains on this list in 2021.

Table 7 - Economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b for Mexico in 2016-2021

year 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

EPI 7.52 7.18 8.60 8.29 8.56 8.59

CPI 31 31 29 28 29 30

pf 20.04 20.06 19.63 18.55 19.13 20.05

b 1.34 1.33 1.48 1.52 1.48 1.44

Table 8 shows the dynamics of the Angola economic indices, similar to the dynamics of the Mexico indices.

Table 8 - Economic indices EPI, CPI, pf and b for Angola in 2016-2021

year 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

EPI 1.46 1.53 2.59 2.34 n/a 4.09

CPI 29 27 26 19 n/a 18

pf 12.45 11.87 13.04 9.72 n/a 9.93

b 0.95 1.04 1.23 1.73 n/a 1.99

There was a noticeable jump for Angola in the Corruption Perceptions Index in 2019 by 7 points. Angola until 2017 is an extremely corrupt country, which is reflected in the low CPI index for 2016 and 2018. Since 2017, the Angola government has announced a decisive fight against corruption [4]. Whether this was actually reflected in the jump in CPI 2019, or whether this jump reflects the expectation of the experts who collected the data to calculate the CPI, we don’t know. But this jump in CPI, according to the table 8 immediately moved Angola in 2019 from the list of countries with significant disequilibrium to the list of countries belonging to Model III (countries with weakly disturbed equilibrium), and later, in 2020 and 2021, thanks to the continued growth of CPI and the continuing fall of EPI, Angola, according to the value of the Equilibrium Indicator b, found itself in the basic list of equilibrium countries (Model I).

Countries with weak disturbance of socio-economic equilibrium (Model III). We selected countries belonging to Model III (i.e. countries with a weak violation of socio-economic equilibrium) according to the criterion of the Equilibrium Indicator b belonging to a certain interval: b_(III,min)<b<b_(III,max). The upper limit of this interval b_(III,max) separates the “Model III” area on the indicator b axis from the area of countries with a significant violation of socio-economic equilibrium. In accordance with what was said in the previous section of the paper, b_(III,max) it coincides with that given in table 1 value b_next. The value b_(III,min) was defined as a threshold value b such that when b<b_(III,min) the characteristic interval along an axis b between two neighboring countries along this axis is significantly less than for any pair of countries belonging to Model III.This is not a very strict criterion, but it allowed us to show in Fig. 1 confidently separate the area belonging to “Model III” countries from the base area of most countries (“Model I”).

Table 9 shows the values b_(III,max) and b_(III,min) in 2016-2021. The number of countries belonging to this interval b is also indicated there N_III (i.e. the number of “Model III” countries).

Table 9 - Model III parameters (b_(III,max), b_(III,min), N_III) in 2016-2021

year 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

bIII,max 1.40 1.33 1.38 1.43 1.40 1.46

bIII,min 1.26 1.16 1.23 1.30 1.22 1.24

NIII 14 19 13 11 16 18

Interval boundaries on the axis b defining the position of countries Model III, can be considered diffuse economic constants with an error of less than 3%: 〈b_(III,max) 〉=1.400.03; 〈b_(III,min) 〉=1.240.03. However, the number of countries belonging to “Model III”, varies more, within 20%: 〈N_III 〉=153.

Table 10 provides an alphabetical list of countries that fell into the Model III zone at least once. The “+” symbol in this table means that the country is in the Model III zone; the symbol “D” means that the country in a given year fell into the zone of countries with a significant disequilibrium (b>b_(III,max)); the symbol “–” means that b<b_(III,min); the symbol “n/a” means no data.

Table 10 - Countries with moderate socio-economic disequilibrium (Model III) in 2016-2021 (an alphabetical list order)

year

a country 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

Angola – – + D n/a D

Argentina – – – – + +

Azerbaijan – + – + – –

Bahrain + + + D D +

Cambodia – + + + + +

Comoros + + – – – –

Congo, Dem. Rep. – + – – – –

Congo, Rep. + D + – – –

Djibouti – + – – – –

Dominican Rep. + D D + + +

Ecuador – – – – + +

Eritrea – n/a n/a n/a n/a +

Gabon + + + + + –

Guatemala – D + + + +

Guinea-Bissau – + + n/a + +

Haiti + D + – – –

Honduras + + – – – –

Iran + + n/a n/a + +

Italy – – – – – +

Kazakhstan – – + + + +

Kuwait + + D + D +

Maldives – – D + + +

Mexico + + D D D +

Nicaragua + + + – – –

Nigeria – + – – – –

Panama + + + + + +

Papua New Guinea – + – – – –

Paraguay – + + + + –

Sudan – + + D D D

Trinidad and Tobago – + + – + +

Uzbekistan – – – – + +

Yemen + n/a n/a D D D

Zimbabwe – – – + + –

Which countries from this extensive list are firmly in Model III?

Taking into account the above comments about the behavior of the economic indices of Bahrain and Kuwait, it can be considered that these two oil monarchies firmly belong to Model III: their inclusion in the list of countries with a significant violation of the socio-economic equilibrium is apparently accidental and is associated with some methodological errors in determining the index CPI. Bahrain and Kuwait tend to have the highest perfectness index scores pf among “Model III” countries. Steadily belongs to “Model III” Panama (6 times in 6 years), as well as Cambodia, Gabon and Guatemala (5 times in 6 years). Perhaps to countries that have a stable “Model III” should also be considered Dominican Rep., Iran, Kazakhstan and Paraguay (4 times in 6 years). Mexico can be considered a borderland country between countries with moderate disequilibrium (3 times in 6 years) and countries with significant disequilibrium (3 times in 6 years).

Countries with high perfectness and moderate disequilibrium (Model II). Among the countries with high values of the Perfectness Index pf there is a small group of countries with a maximum value of the Equilibrium Indicator in a certain small range of values pf. We identified this group of countries as “countries with high perfectness and low socio-economic disequilibrium” (“Model II”). This group of countries can be compactly described as follows: this is Luxembourg (having b≈0.97-0.99 at pf=100) and those countries from a group of five countries, ordered by perfectness pf (Ireland, USA, Qatar, Israel, Italy), which have in a given year b>b_Luxembourg; and when the Perfectness Index pf in this list decreases, the Equilibrium Indicator b does not decrease. A list of countries that belong to “Model II”, according to these criteria, is given in table 11. The “+” sign in the table indicates that the country belongs to “Model II” that year; the sign “–” means that the country in that year belongs to the base “Model I” (with the exception of Italy in 2016, when this country, according to table 10, was included in the list of countries belonging to “Model III”).

Table 11 - Countries owned by Model II 2016-2021

year

a country 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

Luxembourg + + + + + +

Ireland + + + + + –

USA + + + – – –

Qatar + + + + + +

Israel + + – – – –

Italy – + – + + –

In this small group of six countries, three countries had almost constant Corruption Perceptions Index CPI scores over six years (Luxembourg, Ireland, Qatar). USA and Israel during this period showed a persistent decline in CPI, i.e. increase in the level of corruption (USA CPI drop by 7 points; Israel CPI drop by 5 points). Italy during this period showed a persistent increase in CPI, from 47 points in 2016 to 56 points in 2021. This CPI dynamics, combined with changes in EPI, determined the movement of these six countries on the {b, pf} plane. This movement is reflected in table 12. This table shows a pair of numbers for each country: the top number is the Perfectness Index pf, the bottom number is the Equilibrium Indicator b. The data in table 12 explains the structure of table 11: why in a given year some countries are included in the “Model II” list and others are not.

Table 12 - Perfectness Index pf (top) and Equilibrium Indicator b (bottom) in 2016-2021 for six countries included in Model II

year

a country 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

Luxembourg 100 100 100 100 100 100

0.98 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.98

Ireland 85.01 83.33 84.12 81.71 81.52 80.51

1.00 1.02 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.97

USA 70.44 72.01 74.87 75.08 79.54 78.76

1.01 1.02 1.00 0.96 0.92 0.93

Qatar 65.41 63.85 67.18 67.08 67.83 65.28

1.06 1.02 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.13

Israel 57.58 58.91 58.90 58.24 59.63 61.67

1.07 1.04 1.04 1.01 1.01 0.97

Italy 49.69 47.90 48.59 47.34 45.39 42.71

1.02 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.18 1.25

Countries with “underutilized” economies. Table 13 provides an alphabetical list of countries with “underutilized” economies, i.e. countries that are in fig. 1 at least once to the left of the “Global Retort” of the “Model I” base zone, to which most countries belong. The “+” symbol in the table 13 means that the country belongs to the list of “underutilized” economies in a given year. The symbol “–” indicates that the country is Model I in a given year. The symbol “n/a” indicates no data available.

Table 13 - Countries with “underutilized” economies in 2016-2021

year

a country 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

Barbados + + – – + –

Bhutan + – n/a – + +

Botswana – + – + + –

Burkina Faso + – + – + –

Cabo Verde + + + + + +

Chile + + + + + +

Denmark – + + + + +

Estonia + + + + + +

Finland + – + – – –

Georgia – + – + – –

New Zealand + + + + + +

Rwanda + + + + + +

St. Vincent and the Grenadines + + – – – –

Seychelles + + + – – –

Sierra Leone + – – – – –

Sweden – – – – – +

Uruguay + + + + + +

According to table 13 steadily “underutilized” economies have seven countries: Cabo Verde, China, Denmark, Estonia, New Zealand, Rwanda, Uruguay.Each of these seven countries has a noticeable excess in CPI in its EPI-group compared to other countries in this EPI-group.

Conclusions

The paper examines the distribution of countries according to the so-called “models of socio-economic equilibrium” in 2016-2021. It has been established that more than one hundred countries steadily belong to the main “Model I”, demonstrating socio-economic equilibrium according to the value of the Equilibrium Indicator b (b1). There are 19 countries that, based on very large values, b could at least once in six years be included in the list of countries with a significant violation of socio-economic equilibrium. All of them are low perfectness countries (pf20). Only 8 countries out of these nineteen are permanently on this list.

Thirty-three countries with moderate and low perfectness pf at least once in six years demonstrated such values of the Equilibrium Indicator b that allow the country to be included in the list of countries with moderate socio-economic disequilibrium (“Model III”). On average, there are 15 countries on this list per year, but only eight of them consistently show moderate disequilibrium.

Among the countries with high perfectness, pf there is a small group of six countries with the increased values of the Equilibrium Indicator b, which suggests that these countries have a moderate violation of socio-economic equilibrium (“Model II”).

There is a group of seventeen countries that have at least once in 6 years a lowered (for the level of perfectness of each country) value of the Equilibrium Indicator b. We have identified these countries as a special group of “underutilized” economies. Only seven countries are consistently in this special group.

Overall, this analysis allows us to conclude that the introduction of new economic variables (Perfectness Index pf and Equilibrium Indicator b) turned out to be quite useful. The distribution of countries on the plane of these variables made it possible to introduce the idea of the existence of several models of socio-economic equilibrium. The vast majority of countries firmly belong to one or another equilibrium model. Some countries “migrate” between equilibrium models. Some “migrations” are apparently real (e.g. Mexico, Italy). Some “migrations” (for example, Bangladesh, Maldives) cast doubt on the reliability of the relevant economic data (primarily the expert Corruption Perception Index CPI).

References:

1. Seidametova Z.S. The World in economic indices that do not depend on a country’s size. VIII. The Correlations of the Perfectness Index pf with “rectified” economic indices s and r in 2016-2021 / Z.S. Seidametova, V.A. Temnenko // KANT. - 2023. - №3(48). – C. 82-91.

2. Seidametova Z.S. The World in economic indices that do not depend on a country’s size. III. The Perfectness Index and the Socio-Economic Equilibrium Indicator / Z.S. Seidametova, V.A. Temnenko // KANT. - 2023. - №2(47). – C. 84-90.

3. Seidametova Z.S. The World in economic indices that do not depend on a country’s size. IV. Models of the Socio-Economic Equilibrium / Z.S. Seidametova, V.A. Temnenko // KANT. - 2023. - № 2 (47). – C. 90-99.

4. Angola [e-resource]. – URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola