CC BY
0
Мир в экономических индексах, не зависящих от размера страны.
IV. Модели социально-экономического равновесия
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 – построение и описание распределения стран на плоскости экономических переменных {Индикатор Равновесия b; Индекс Перфектности pf} и {Индикатор Равновесия b; Бюджетный Индекс BLI} для выявления на этих плоскостях характерных зон социально-экономического равновесия («моделей равновесия») и составления списка стран с возможным существенным нарушением равновесия. Научная новизна заключается в выявлении нескольких зон равновесия на плоскостях экономических переменных {b; pf} и {b; BLI}. Выявленная в этой и предшествующей статье на статистических данных 2021 года фундаментальная тенденция большинства стран мира к формирования некоторого вида социально-экономического равновесия позволяет в результате поставить исследовательскую проблему изучения природы этого равновесия и пределов его устойчивости в условиях возможного глобального кризиса (мирового финансового кризиса или глобальной геополитической трансформации).
Ключевые слова: мировая экономика; индекс перфектности; индикатор равновесия; бюджетный индекс; социально-экономическое равновесие; модели равновесия.
Цитировать: Seidametova Z.S., Temnenko V.A. The World in economic indices that do not depend on a country's size. IV. Models of the Socio-Economic Equilibrium // KANT. – 2023. – №2(47). – С. 90-99. EDN: FOOPII. DOI: 10.24923/2222-243X.2023-47.17
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 study is to build and describe the distribution of countries on the plane of economic variables {Equilibrium Indicator b; Perfectness Index pf} and {Equilibrium Indicator b; Budget Index BLI} to identify characteristic areas of socio-economic equilibrium (“equilibrium models”) on these planes and compile a list of countries with possible significant disequilibrium. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the identification of several equilibrium zones on the planes of economic variables {b; pf} and {b; BLI}. The fundamental tendency of most countries of the world towards the formation of some kind of socio-economic equilibrium, revealed in this and the previous paper on the basis of the statistical data of 2021 allows us, as a result, to pose the research problem of studying the nature of this equilibrium and the limits of its stability in the context of a possible global crisis (global financial crisis or global geopolitical crisis).
Keywords: world economy; perfectness index; equilibrium indicator; budget index; socio-economic equilibrium; equilibrium models.
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. IV. Models of the Socio-Economic Equilibrium
Introduction
The previous paper presented the transformation of the pair of economic indices EPI and CPI to a new pair of economic variables: the Perfectness Index pf and the Indicator of Socio-Economic Equilibrium b. For brevity, we will call the last value the “Equilibrium Indicator”. The definitions of all the necessary economic variables and the mathematical formulas relating these variables to each other are given in the previous paper.
If the basic pair of economic variables {b, pf} is supplemented with a third variable, the Budget Index BLI, then to describe the global economy, we get a three-dimensional space of variables {b, pf, BLI}. Each country for which these three variables are known is represented by a point in this three-dimensional space, and the entire world economy is represented by some cloud of points in this space. We call this cloud the “global economy swarm”. Fig. 1 shows the 2021 global economy swarm in space {b, pf, BLI}. The main feature of a three-dimensional global swarm in these coordinates is its almost two-dimensional nature: the swarm is strongly flattened, concentrated along the b axis. The highest and lowest values of the Perfectness Index in this global swarm differ by a factor of 30. The largest and smallest values of the Budget Index differ by almost 10 times. But along the axis of the Equilibrium Indicator b, most of the countries (more than a hundred countries) are concentrated in a narrow layer from b0.7 to b1.1. Fewer than a dozen countries have an Equilibrium Indicator value b sufficiently greater than one, from b1.5 to b2.3. As in the previous paper, we interpret this narrowness of the distribution of countries along the b-axis as indicating the operation of some fundamental law of the world economy: the law that most countries of the world tend to maintain a certain balance between the capabilities of society and the productivity of the economy. This tendency is natural, spontaneous. It is neither controlled nor managed by the decisions of governments or the intentions of the business elite. The purpose of this paper is to study the details of this concentration of the global economy swarm by constructing two-dimensional projections of this swarm onto the coordinate planes of economic variables {b, pf} and {b, BLI}. This goal structures the following tasks: 1) construct and describe the distribution of countries on the plane {b, pf} and identify in this distribution areas of concentration of countries (“Equilibrium Models”); 2) provide lists of countries that are not included in the main equilibrium zone (“Model I” zone); 3) construct histograms of the distribution of countries according to the Equilibrium Indicator b for each Perfectness group; 4) taking into account these histograms, identify the corresponding zones of equilibrium models for each Perfectness group; 5) build two-dimensional distributions of countries on the {b, BLI} plane for each Perfectness group and identify zones of different equilibrium models for each Perfectness group on the {b, BLI} plane.
Main part.
Distribution of countries on the {b, pf} plane and equilibrium models. The electronic appendix to this paper (https://t.ly/2vIg) provides a complete list of countries for which the Perfectness Index pf, the Equilibrium Indicator b and the Budget Index BLI for 2021 are known. The countries in this Appendix are ordered in descending order of the Perfectness Index. Countries are grouped into the Perfectness groups described in the previous paper. The full and abbreviated names of the Perfectness groups, as well as the interval occupied by the group on the Perfectness axis, are shown in table 1.
Table 1. Perfectness intervals pf for Perfectness groups (2021)
Full name of the Perfectness group Abbreviated name of the Perfectness group Perfectness interval
VeryHigh VH (64; 100]
High H [35; 64]
UpperMiddle UM [20; 35)
LowMiddle LM [15; 20)
Low L [10; 15)
VeryLow VL (0; 10)
Shown in fig. 1 swarm of the global economy in the three-dimensional space of economic variables {b, pf, BLI} is built according to Appendix (https://t.ly/2vIg). Based on the same data, fig. 2 shows the projection of the swarm of the global economy on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b; Perfectness Index pf}. In this figure there are 178 countries for which b and pf were known. For two countries from this set, the Budget Index BLI was not known in 2021 (Lebanon and Afghanistan). Therefore, in the three-dimensional fig. 1 there are 176 points.
Fig. 1. The global economy swarm in 3D-space of economic variables {b, BLI, pf} (2021)
Fig. 2 shows some of the conditional boundaries of the zones or equilibrium models introduced by us. The main zone, or Model I, which we have called the “Global Retort”, contains 137 countries (77% of the total number of countries in this figure). In the narrow area of this “retort”, at the Perfectness level VeryHigh, its width according to the Equilibrium Index b does not exceed 0.2. In its widest part, at the Perfectness level LowMiddle, it occupies the b-axis interval from b_min0.54 to b_max1.21.
Fig. 2. Distribution of countries on the {Equilibrium indicator b, Perfectness index pf}-plane (2021). Model I is the area of countries with Model I socio-economic equilibrium; Model II is the area of countries with Model II socio-economic Equilibrium; Model III is the area of countries with Model III socio-economic Equilibrium; Disequilibrium economies are an area of countries with a significant violation of the socio-economic Equilibrium.
Outside the “Global Retort”, to the left of it, there are several countries with lower (for their Perfectness groups) values of the Equilibrium Indicator b. The reason for such a decrease in b is, as a rule, an excessively high value of the Corruption Perception Index CPI (excessively high compared to the “neighbors” in the EPI-group). We paid attention to these countries earlier in [1], [2]. We have called such economies the "underutilized" economies. We consider that for such countries the state of society with a very low level of corruption (high values of the index CPI) is such that it would allow to have higher economic productivity than the real one. We do not know whether the inhabitants of these countries are inclined to believe that their economy is an “underutilized” one. We noted earlier this phenomenon of “underutilization” of the economy for New Zealand [1], [3]; some New Zealand economists are also concerned about this [4].
Table 2 provides a list of countries that, in our opinion, have “underutilized” economies. There are 13 countries on this list. The list is sorted in descending order by the Perfectness Index. For each country, its three-letter code according to the ISO standard [5] is given, as well as its Perfectness index pf, equilibrium indicator b, the country's rating on the Perfectness Index r (pf), the “ranking shake-up” (this indicator was introduced in the previous paper) and the name the Perfectness group that this country belongs to.
Table 2. Countries with a lower value of the Equilibrium Indicator b
compared to other countries in their own Perfectness groups
n Country name Country code pf b n(pf) Perfectness group
1 Finland FIN 86.49 0.719 6 7 VH
2 New Zealand NZL 84.45 0.703 9 11 VH
3 Estonia EST 61.78 0.727 24 10 H
4 Uruguay URY 54.07 0.654 28 20 H
5 Seychelles SYC 49.73 0.654 33 20 H
6 Chile CHL 48.86 0.701 36 14 H
7 Barbados BRB 48.09 0.733 38 11 H
8 Costa Rica CRI 39.58 0.758 47 9 H
9 St. Vincent and the Grenadines VCT 36.76 0.680 49 23 H
10 St. Lucia LCA 35.62 0.732 51 17 H
11 Bhutan BTN 33.20 0.462 57 61 UM
12 Cabo Verde CPV 28.37 0.543 68 49 UM
13 Rwanda RWA 18.33 0.420 108 52 LM
All countries presented in table 2 have a positive “ranking shake-up” . This means that all of them “floated up” in the ranking when moving from the Economic Productivity EPI-scale to the Perfectness scale pf. This “bump” is generated by an excess value of the Corruption Perceptions Index CPI compared to other countries in the same EPI-group. In this group of "underutilized" economies there are countries with the lowest values of the Equilibrium Indicator b in the world: Rwanda, Bhutan, Cabo Verde. But we also included in this group several countries with b≳0.7 values: Finland, New Zealand, Estonia, Chile, Costa Rica, St. Lucia. Due to the complex geometric shape of the “Global Retort”, it is difficult to confidently draw a line between “underutilized” economies and “normal” economies that have Model I socio-economic equilibrium.
To the right of the “Global Retort” along the b-axis are two groups of countries with a slightly disturbed socio-economic equilibrium. They have an Equilibrium Indicator b value higher than other countries in the same Perfectness groups.
In the area of high perfectness (Perfectness groups VH and H), there are only five such countries with slightly disturbed equilibrium. They are given in table 3. We have called these countries “countries with Model II socio-economic equilibrium”. This table contains the same characteristics of countries as in table 2. Four countries in this table have a moderate negative “ranking shake-up”. This means that they have a slightly higher level of corruption (lower CPI values) than other countries in this EPI-group Hot, to which all the countries in table 3 belong.
Table 3. Countries with Model II socio-economic equilibrium (countries
of high perfectness with slightly disturbed socio-economic equilibrium)
n Country name Country code pf b n(pf) Perfectness group
1 Luxembourg LUX 100 0.982 1 0 VH
2 Ireland IRL 85.01 1.000 8 -6 VH
3 United States USA 70.44 1.011 19 -13 VH
4 Qatar QAT 65.41 1.062 22 -13 VH
5 Israel ISR 57.58 1.066 26 -11 H
In the area of moderate and low Perfectness, there are 15 countries with slightly disturbed equilibrium. We referred these countries to Model III of socio-economic equilibrium. They are presented in table 4.
Table 4. Countries with Model III socio-economic equilibrium
(countries of moderate and low perfectness with a slight violation
of the socio-economic equilibrium, b>b_min≃1.25; b≤b_max≃1.40)
n Country name Country code pf b n(pf) Perfectness group
1 Kuwait KWT 36.13 1.259 50 -17 H
2 Bahrain BHR 34.63 1.264 53 -16 UM
3 Panama PAN 25.56 1.271 73 -19 UM
4 Mexico MEX 20.04 1.343 95 -31 UM
5 Gabon GAB 19.30 1.294 102 -29 M
6 Dominican Republic DOM 18.59 1.330 106 -32 M
7 Guatemala GTM 13.59 1.401 129 -35 L
8 Iran, Islamic Rep. IRN 12.91 1.331 131 -24 L
9 Lebanon LBN 12.43 1.390 135 -30 L
10 Honduras HND 10.78 1.312 146 -25 L
11 Congo, Rep. COG 9.38 1.370 160 -30 VL
12 Nicaragua NIC 8.69 1.399 162 -26 VL
13 Haiti HTI 8.45 1.360 163 -24 VL
14 Comoros COM 8.14 1.311 164 -20 VL
15 Yemen YEM 5.21 1.310 174 -8 VL
This table is structured in the same way as table 2 and table 3. All of these countries in this table have a negative “ranking shake-up” . This means that they had an increased level of corruption (lower CPI values) in their EPI-groups. All these countries have moderate values of the Equilibrium Indicator b, ranging from b≃1.25 to b≃1.40.
The two groups of countries that we have identified in fig. 2 and in table 3 and table 4, like Model II and Model III, demonstrate the same economic phenomenon: a slight disruption of the socio-economic equilibrium. We do not combine them into one equilibrium model, since visually in fig. 2 there is a gap between these areas: in the area of moderate perfectness there are no countries with slightly disturbed equilibrium. We don't know if this absence is a random detail of the 2021 statistics or if it reflects some kind of “prohibition” inherent in a moderately perfect economy.
The sparse area in the lower right area of fig. 2 contains eight countries that we have identified as separate area “Disequilibrium economies”. These are countries with a significant violation of the socio-economic balance. We chose the excess of the equilibrium indicator b over some boundary value b_min≃∜4.5≃1.456… in 2021 as the criterion for this significant violation. The list of these non-equilibrium countries is given in table 5. The same table shows the same characteristics of countries as in tables 2, 3 and 4. Table 5 is ordered in descending order by the Equilibrium Indicator b. This table is led by the country with the highest b=2.278 in the world, indicating a very significant deviation from equilibrium. All countries in this table have a negative “ranking shake-up”. Consequently, they had an increased level of corruption (lower CPI values) compared to other countries with similar EPI economic productivity values. Six countries from table 5 have a very high modulo “ranking shake-up” . Consequently, they moved down the ranking quite a lot when moving from the Productivity scale EPI to the Perfectness scale pf. Two countries (South Sudan and Somalia) were at the very bottom of the EPI-rankings and had little to no room to go down when moving to the Perfectness scale: they remained at the very bottom of the rankings.
Each country in table 5 undoubtedly have its own reasons for disturbing the socio-economic equilibrium. But it can be noted that of the eight countries in this table, seven (except Somalia) are included in the list of major energy resources exporting countries for which energy resources export revenues make up a significant part of export earnings. Of the fifteen moderately unbalanced Model III countries, five are major oil exporters. But, of course, the export of energy resources in itself does not doom the country to a violation of the socio-economic balance. Such large exporters of energy resources as Norway, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman are included in the “Global Retort” zone and have a basic equilibrium model (Model I).
Table 5. Countries with Significant Disruption of Socio-Economic
Equilibrium (b>b_min≃∜4.5≃1.456) в 2021 г.
Countries are sorted in descending order of Equilibrium Indicator b
n Country name Country code pf b n(pf) Perfectness group
1 Equatorial Guinea GNQ 10.22 2.278 151 -74 L
2 Turkmenistan TKM 12.30 2.195 139 -76 L
3 Libya LBY 9.80 2.185 154 -68 VL
4 Venezuela VEN 6.16 2.025 172 -39 VL
5 South Sudan SSD 3.10 1.652 178 -1 VL
6 Russian Federation RUS 19.68 1.507 100 -42 LM
7 Iraq IRQ 12.35 1.503 137 -37 L
8 Somalia SOM 3.86 1.471 177 -2 VL
Perfectness groups on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b, Perfectness Index pf}. More detailed ideas about the relationship between Perfectness and the equilibrium model can be obtained by considering the projection onto the {b, pf} plane of each Perfectness group separately from the other groups.
These projections of Perfectness groups are shown in fig. 4. Fig. 4 is convenient to study simultaneously with fig. 3. The fig. 3 shows histograms of the distribution of countries according to the Equilibrium Index for each Perfectness group. With the help of these histograms, the equilibrium areas were lined up in fig. 4.
The histogram of the Perfectness group VeryHigh (fig. 3a) shows that four countries have higher values of the balance indicator b in this group, and two countries have lower values of the indicator b. The rest of the countries form an almost homogeneous array in the range of [0.756; 0.918] with a local burst of histogram density in a narrow interval from b=0.846 to b=0.864. This general form of histogram is displayed in the construction of equilibrium areas in fig. 4a. Two countries: Finland and New Zealand are referred by us to the group of underutilized economies (U), four countries (Luxembourg, Ireland, USA and Qatar) belong to Model II (countries with weak disequilibrium). All other countries are included in the zone of the basic equilibrium model (Model I).
The histogram of the distribution of countries in the Perfectness group High according to the equilibrium indicator b (Fig. 3b) allows us to consider that in this group there are eight countries with a low value of b (b<0.775), which can be combined into one subgroup of underutilized economies (U). One country has a very high b indicator value and should be assigned to Model III (Kuwait). When constructing the distribution of countries in this Perfectness group (fig. 4b), it becomes obvious that one more country with b=1.066 (Israel) should be separated from the basic equilibrium zone (Model I) and attributed to Model II (see table 3). Fig. 4b shows the distribution of countries in this Perfectness group by equilibrium models. For the Perfectness group UpperMiddle in Fig. 3c and 4c must be perceived simultaneously. Fig. 3c shows that there are three countries with excess b (b>1.25). In fig. 4c, these countries are assigned to the “Model III” set (Bahrein, Panama, Mexico). In fig. 3c, two countries have lower b values (b<0.55). In fig. 4c, these two countries are included in the set of “underutilized” economies (Bhutan and Cabo Verde). The rest of the countries on the histogram (fig. 3c) fall into two large groups containing 13 countries (0.59≲b≲0.80) and 25 countries (0.90≲b≲1.17), but fig. 4c does not show such a breakdown of the main zone into two independent groups of countries. All countries in these two ranges of b are united by us into the “Model I” zone.
The LowMiddle Perfectness group is shown in fig. 3d (histogram of the distribution of countries according to the Equilibrium Indicator b) and fig. 4d (distribution of countries on the plane {b, pf}). The histogram in fig. 3d is “cut” by the discreteness of information and is difficult to interpret. But it can be stated quite definitely that in this group there is one country with an insufficient level of the Equilibrium Indicator b. In fig. 4d this country (Rwanda) is shown as a representative of “underutilized” economies. Rwanda has a high CPI value, which is uncharacteristic for African countries, and, because of this, has the lowest Equilibrium Index value in the world (b=0.42). One country in Fig. 3d has an extremely high b value (b>1.5). In fig. 4 this country (Russia) belongs to the group of “disequilibrium” economies. Two more countries in fig. 3d have a high value of b on the interval [1.290; 1.344]. In fig. 4d, these two countries, Gabon and Dominica, are assigned to the set of “weakly disequilibrium” economies (Model III).
The countries belonging to the Perfectness group Low are shown in fig. 3e and fig. 4e. Histogram on the fig. 3e shows three countries with non-equilibrium large b>1.5. In fig. 4th these three countries mentioned in table 5 are shown as belonging to the zone of “disequilibrium” economies (Iraq, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea).
a
b
c
d
e
f
Fig. 3. Histogram of the distribution of countries according to the Equilibrium Indicator within each Perfectness Group (2021). a. Perfectness Group VeryHigh; b. Perfectness Group High; c. Perfectness Group UpperMiddle; d. Perfectness Group LowMiddle; e. Perfectness Group Low; f. Perfectness Group VeryLow.
A few more countries from fig. 3e having b on the interval [1.3; 1.4] are shown in fig. 4e as “Model III” countries (Guatemala, Iran, Lebanon, Honduras). These are countries with a weak violation of the socio-economic equilibrium. We have included all other countries of this Perfectness group in fig. 4e into the main equilibrium zone (Model I). Perhaps Nigeria (b=1.168) is a transitional case between equilibrated Model I countries and weakly disequilibrium Model III countries.
a
b
c
d
e
f
Fig. 4. Distribution of countries on the plane {Equilibrium indicator b, Perfectness index pf} within each Perfectness group (2021). a. Perfectness Group VeryHigh; b. Perfectness Group High; c. Perfectness Group UpperMiddle; d. Perfectness Group LowMiddle; e. Perfectness Group Low;
f. Perfectness Group VeryLow;
U – the “underutilized” economies; D – the “disequilibrium” economies.
The countries belonging to the Perfectness group VeryLow are shown in fig. 3f (distribution histogram for indicator b) and fig.4f (distribution of countries on the plane {b, pf}). These figures show separate groups of non-equilibrium countries with large b (b≳1.47) (Libya, Venezuela, South Sudan, Somalia). There is a group of countries with a moderately high value of the Equilibrium Indicator b (b=1.31.4). These countries belong to the Model III equilibrium zone (Congo, Rep., Nicaragua, Haiti, Comoros, Yemen). All other countries can be attributed to the main equilibrium zone (Model I).
Distribution of countries on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b, Budget Index BLI}. Fig. 5 shows the distribution of countries in the {b, BLI} plane that has developed in 2021. In this figure, one can confidently single out the eight significantly disequilibrium countries and the group of countries with Model III. Both of these groups of countries on the b-axis are separated from each other and all other countries. Countries with a basic equilibrium model (Model I), countries with Model II, and countries with “underutilized” economies are mixed in this figure. They are not separated from each other either along the axis of the Equilibrium Indicator b, or along the axis of the Budget Index BLI. For the world as a whole, there is no such thing as a “budget norm”. But such a norm can be found for every Perfectness group. Fig. 6 (a, b, c, d, e, f) shows the projections of each Perfectness group onto the {b, BLI} plane. In these figures, zones (“models”) of equilibrium are highlighted and the upper and lower limits of the budget norm for each Perfectness group are shown. The construction of these figures is based on the data given in the electronic appendix to this paper (https://t.ly/2vIg). Budget norm limits are based on the distribution of countries by the Budget Index BLI presented in the appendix. Table 6 shows the interval of the Budget norm shown in fig. 6.
Table 6. Budget norm interval for perfectness groups in 2021
Perfectness Groups Budget Norm Interval by Index BLI
VeryHigh [31; 57]
High [26; 49]
UpperMiddle [17; 41]
LowMiddle [14; 37]
Low [14; 26]
VeryLow [11; 28]
The half-width of the budget norm interval is 1213% in the “senior” Perfectness groups (VeryHigh, High, UpperMiddle and LowMiddle) and less than 10% in the two last Perfectness groups. Only in the Perfectness group VeryHigh does the interval of the budget norm correspond to the standards of the fiscal-social state [2].
In some Perfectness groups, there are states for which the Equilibrium Index b belongs to the basic equilibrium interval (“Model I”), but the budget index BLI significantly exceeds the upper limit of the budget norm. Such states in fig. 6 are not included in the contour that bounds the “Model I” zone. We believe that the excess budget signals some disequilibrium in the country, even if the Equilibrium Indicator b belongs to the “Model I” zone. There are two such countries in the Perfectness group UpperMiddle (Dominica, BLI=59.29; Vanuatu, BLI=46.48). There are also two such countries in the Perfectness group Low (Lesotho, BLI=47.96; Kyrgyz Republic, BLI=33.86). There is one such country in the Perfectness group VeryLow (Eritrea, BLI=33.46).
Fig. 5. Distribution of countries on the plane {Equilibrium indicator b, Budget Index BLI} (2021). Notation: D – line of non-equilibrium countries; Model III – a zone of countries with Model III socio-economic equilibrium.
We believe that for countries with a significant violation of the Socio-Economic Equilibrium, the concept of “budgetary norm” may not be applicable. For example, there are four countries with disequilibrium economies in the Perfectness group VeryLow. Two of them have a Budget Index well above the upper limit of the budget norm of this Perfectness group (Libya, BLI=59.98; South Sudan, BLI=43.05), and two countries have a Budget Index below the lower limit of the budget norm of this Perfectness group B (Venezuela, BLI =6.00 Somalia, BLI=4.94).
Conclusions
In the previous paper, a non-linear transformation of a pair of basic economic variables {Economic Productivity Index EPI; Corruption Perception Index CPI} to a new pair {Perfectness Index pf, Indicator of Socio-Economic Equilibrium b} was introduced. In this paper, using the constructed one-dimensional and two-dimensional distributions of countries, the distribution of countries on the {b, pf} plane is clearly demonstrated.
a
b
c
d
e
f
Fig. 6. Distribution of countries of different Perfectness groups on the plane {Equilibrium Indicator b, Budget Index BLI}. a. Perfectness Group VeryHigh; b. Perfectness Group High; c. Perfectness Group UpperMiddle; d. Perfectness Group LowMiddle; e. Perfectness Group Low; f. Perfectness Group VeryLow; U – the “underutilized” economies; D – the “disequilibrium” economies; ----- upper and lower bounds of the budget norm.
It is revealed that this distribution is extremely compressed, flattened along the b-axis. This high concentration of countries on a narrow range of b is interpreted in the article as a manifestation of the fundamental law of the global economy: the law of the existence of a trend toward Socio-Economic Equilibrium for most countries of the world. On the {b, pf} plane, the main equilibrium zone (“Model I” or “Global Retort”) was found to contain 137 countries. Only 8 countries in 2021 with high values of the indicators b (b=1.47-2.37) have significant disruptions in the Socio-Economic Equilibrium. Twenty countries show weak violations of the Socio-Economic Equilibrium. For them, the Equilibrium indicator b slightly exceeds the upper limit of the values b of the “Global Retort” countries in the corresponding Perfectness groups. Several countries were also identified with low values of the Equilibrium Indicator b. We have classified these countries as “underutilized” economies. The paper also presents the distribution of countries on the plane {b, BLI}. This distribution allows us to reveal the relationship between the budget norm and the equilibrium zones in each Perfectness group.
References:
1. Seidametova Z.S. Parameter of the socio-economic equilibrium of a country in the global economy “swarm”. I. Hot and warm economies / Z.S. Seidametova, V.A. Temnenko // Ученые записки Крымского инженерно-педагогического университета. - 2021. - № 3 (73). - C. 120-128.
2. Seidametova Z.S. Parameter of the socio-economic equilibrium of a country in the global economy “swarm”. II. “Cold” economies / Z.S. Seidametova // Ученые записки Крымского инженерно-педагогического университета. - 2021. – №3(73). - C. 128-134.
3. Seidametova Z.S. Nuclei of normality for EPI-groups in the global economy. I. “Hot” and “warm” economies / Z.S. Seidametova, V.A. Temnenko // Ученые записки Крымского инженерно-педагогического университета. - 2022. – №1(75). - C. 138-144.
4. Hendy, S., Callaghan, P. Get off the grass: Kickstarting New Zealand's Innovation Economy. – Auckland University Press, 2013. – 248 p.
5. ISO 3166 country codes [e-resource]. – URL: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/
