I know China is number one on the list of emerging superpowers, but I’m curious who’s number two: Russia, or India? If the primary determinant is GDP per capita Russia wins easily, but I hear they suffer from enormous corruption that is so systemic to their economy and culture that they may never be able to shake out of their current position as a natural resource provider. what say you?
Wouldn’t simple GDP be a better metric than GDP per capita? If global power was based on GDP per capita Qatar is the lone superpower.
In terms of total GDPit goes US, China, Japn, Germany … with Russia at 8 and India at 10.
Overall I think rather than either Russia or India or possibly even China the next super power could be the EU. Provided, of course, that they can keep themselves together.
Well, how are we defining superpower? Is a capacity for global military force-projection a necessary element?
If one holds with McMahon’s ideas on sea power, India is in a somewhat better position, with tons of seaports. Russian Seaports tend to be strategically peripheral, but India’s are right there in the middle of some of the busiest cargo shipping lanes on the planet.
Anyway, my vote is for China, which wasn’t on the original list of choices. They have a comparable strategic location, with lots of seaports, and they have an enormous economy. India can’t afford to build up a “superpower-level” fleet, but China…um…well, almost can.
(They’d be fools to, as it would burden their economy.)
I’d pick India. I feel India’s economy has plenty of room for growth, while I don’t feel that’s as true for Russia.
Don’t count out Brazil. It has a major advantage in that it’s not facing the same military issues that China, India, and Russia face. It can focus solely on development without having to waste resources on defense. This was one of the major advantages the United States had when it grew in power.
Brazil might not be the next superpower. But it’ll probably be the country that ends up replacing the next superpower.
Of course, the next superpower will be the Islamic Caliphate!
No, oil has about run its course and the Arabs have nothing else, and with their squabbling couldn’t take advantage of any advantage they might actually have.
Just as soon as they solve that pesky 1300 year civil war issue.
I’d say India is poised to become a superpower. Russia seems to be in a middle income trap, and is experiencing declining fertility rates. India has a surplus of young workers which will in the future allow their economy to grow. Plus they have about 7x more people.
Cmon. It can’t be that difficult to read a two line long OP that starts with “I know China is number one on the list of emerging superpowers, but I’m curious who’s number two:”
[Satire mode on]See? This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that pollutes the SDMB. No one said it was difficult. Pure straw man attack. It rebuts a position no one has taken. It’s completely manipulative and totally dishonest.[Satire mode off]
I just didn’t do it, is all. I saw the header, and jumped right down to the responses.
India has closer to 8 times the population, and has substantially higher fertility rates than Russia.
India’s fertility rate is declining quite fast though, while Russia’s has bottomed out and has started increasing.
Russia’s a middle income country, yes (or middle-to-high, I guess), but it’s also way above India.
That is the ONLY element. A superpower can reach out and touch anybody anywhere on the globe. Any country that cannot do that is not a superpower, regardless of how rich or otherwise powerful it is.
Russia doesn’t need nearly as much room for growth.
One of the enduring conditions of geopolitics is how consistently Russia has been able to punch above its economic weight. The 1990’s were an exception, not the rule.
I think Russia has too many systemic problems, and if anything is going to decline more over the next 50 years, not return to super power status. The EU will never be a super power because it will never invest in force projection.
I’d guess by the end of this century there will be a few superpowers: the U.S., China, and then probably a third or fourth country. The 3rd/4th countries are likely to be India and Brazil. But they both have a lot farther to go than China.
I doubt any will be like the U.S. of 1980 or 1990 or even 2010. Countries (including the U.S. of 2014 and likely of 2100) don’t seem to have the desire for that level of force projection anymore. I mean, China wants to be able to project force to a degree, but they’re clearly most interested in their immediate surroundings. I think to some degree they see that there aren’t as many benefits as one might imagine to global force projection to the scale of the United States and there’s a reason we’re cutting back on it as well.
Brazil is ahead of Russia and India
I don’t think you can overstate the hit that Japan has just taken. The Japanese economy will require a good long time to regain momentum. If the question were “and the one after that” though, I’d say Japan was a good bet.
Some interesting input for the discussion here: World Bank Map of GDP Growth Rates
South America is certainly on the upswing, and I’ve always sort of wondered why they weren’t more of a power. In the “old” definition of SuperPower, they simply had no reason to join in the competition for military superiority. If we accept the OP’s redefinition with economic criteria (and I do agree) then we have to look at countries with untapped natural resources. Russia and India have both long struggled to feed and shelter their citizens due to lack of resources as opposed to lack of governmental organization. I don’t see either of them ever developing the kind of excess resources necessary to support a wider domination.
It will be a coalition forming in either Africa or South America. Either region, if they could overcome the ridiculous infighting and corruption that have drained their potential for so long, would be able to sustain a wider influence. They both have the resources, it’s just a question of where an intelligent and influential enough leader pops up.
Because SA is divided into several countries that often do not get along with each other. A United States of South America would be more of a power. The Union of South American Nations is a beginning there, but I expect a union that facilitates collective military action is even farther off than it is in Europe (NATO don’t count so long as the U.S. controls it).
The Soviet Union was never able to do that, unless you count nuclear submarines. It had aircraft carriers, but they were basically an afterthought. By your metric the US is the only superpower that has ever existed. Unless you do count subs, in which case Britain and France are also superpowers.
^Agreed, I like Wikipedia’s definition of superpower for its comprehensiveness and utility:
"A superpower is a state with a dominant position in international relations and is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale. This is done through the means of both military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence. "