{"id":1931,"date":"2007-02-14T13:18:40","date_gmt":"2007-02-14T09:18:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/?p=1931"},"modified":"2013-03-14T13:19:04","modified_gmt":"2013-03-14T09:19:04","slug":"georgias-place-in-the-world-taking-into-account-some-social-economic-indicators","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/?p=1931","title":{"rendered":"Georgia\u2019s place in the world taking into account some social-economic indicators"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ioseb Archvadze <\/strong><\/p>\n

The level of social-economic development of every country and its place in the world is characterized by many indicators. <\/p>\n

Some of them have a constant, \u201cstrategic\u201d load and are hardly prone to changes (e.g. the size of a country\u2019s territory); however, most of the indicators are evolutionary changeable. Among the latter, particularly noteworthy are the ones that more or less completely characterize the effectiveness of correlation of business environment and production forces existing in the country. At the same time, in the long-term outlook the vector of any country\u2019s development is determined by the growth of a cumulative effect of such indicators as the number of population and the amount of GDP per head. The extent of correlation of de facto and de jure territories isalso very important for the countries being in the process of formation of their statehood 1.
\n In view of many well-known reasons, transition to market economy in Georgia has been extremely painful and dramatic. It can be said that at the turn of 1980-1990 the economic slump in our country was twice as deeper in comparison with he average level in the CIS, and the period of economic regress was about three years longer. Accordingly, in 1989-1994 the Georgian economy turned out to be thrown back for three decades and, correspondingly, each percent of economic growth from the mid 1990s to the present moment has been much \u201clighter\u201d than, for instance, in the neighboring countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia). Now, according to the level of economic development (the amount of GDP per head), Georgia is at the level of 70% of the one that used to be in 1990 (in fact, at the level of 1979\u2026) and, according to the absolute amount of GDP \u2013 at the level of 56% (which corresponds to level of 1973)2. It means that, at the rates that have been formed over the past 10 years, Georgia will be able to approach the level of absolute GDP volume of 1990 by 2015, in calculation per head \u2013 by 2012, and reach the correlation that it used to have with the rest of the world in early 1990s \u2013 only by 2035-2040\u2026
\n Currently, according to the official rate, the amount of GDP per head produced in Georgia makes up only 17,5% of the corresponding world level, and 32,2% – according to the parity of the currency\u2019s purchasing power (PPP)3. Pursuant to the mentioned parameter, Georgia belongs to the lower group of the world\u2019s medium-developed countries. At the same time, according to the level of economic development, Georgia holds the eighth place among the CIS countries \u2013 after Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. The indicators of GDP production in the CIS countries and their correlation with Georgia can be clearly seen from the chart given below.
\n The processes taking place in the countries that are immediate neighbors of Georgia \u2013 Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation \u2013 should be particularly important for us. In spite of the events that have taken place in the recent period, Russia still remains the largest trade partner of Georgia, and 28% of Georgia\u2019s foreign trade falls on these three countries.
\n The chart given below shows the correlation of the dynamics of economic development in the aforementioned countries with the corresponding indicators in Georgia.
\n Over the period of the past 6 months, as compared to Georgia, Armenia\u2019s upward index per head rose by 2,6 times (from 16,7% to 44,2%) and, correspondingly, that of Azerbaijan \u2013 by 2,1% (from 22,2% to 46,0%). This takes place in conditions when the demographic situation, the tendency of population change in these two countries of South Caucasus is more positive than in Georgia. In 2005, as compared with 2000, the population of Georgia decreased by 5,2%, Armenia \u2013 only by 2,1% and that of Azerbaijan grew by 2,0%. In absolute figures the aforementioned data of Georgia\u2019s economic lag in comparison with the remaining countries of the South Caucasus is more impressive, since, from the demographic point of view, Georgia belongs to the seven countries of the world (Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Bulgaria, Georgia) where a decrease in the number of population has taken place over the past thirty years (1975-2005); according to the appraisal of the UN experts, Georgia is among the twenty countries where in the coming ten years the number of population will decrease instead of growing5, and among the five countries where during the four decades \u2013 in 2015 as compared to 1975 \u2013 thepopulation will not grow, but decrease still more.
\n A relative advantage in the demographic situation and high rates of economic growth per head in the neighboring countries of the South Caucasus are gradually changing the absolute parameters and proportions of the economic potential in their favor. If in 1996 Azerbaijan produced 4,3% more GDP in comparison with Georgia, in 2006 \u2013 2,9 times more. During the same period the ratio of Armenia\u2019s GDP as compared to the similar indicator of Georgia rose from 52,5% to 70,9%. Currently, according to the parity of the currency\u2019s purchasing power, Azerbaijan\u2019s GDP makes up 276% of Georgia\u2019s level, and Armenia\u2019s one \u2013 87,4% respectively.
\n Our lag from the Russian Federation is particularly significant. If we put out of brackets the circumstance that Russia\u2019s \u201ccontribution\u201d to this lag is immeasurable, we should admit that Russia has already passed on to another \u201cweight category\u201d according to the level of its economic development, the population\u2019s well-being and the index of human development, and within the next few years it aims at establishing its position among the six leading countries of the world6. Correspondingly, speaking of relations with this country, along with economic sanctions, embargo, deportations and encouragement of separatism, we must also touch upon the economic aspects of Russia\u2019s progress. Currently Russia takes the lead over Georgia according to the following indicators per head: economically (GDP per head) \u2013 by 3,2 times, average wage \u2013 by 3,3 times, deposits in the banking sector \u2013 by 8,5 times, granted credits \u2013 by 18,6 times, monetary reserves \u2013 by approximately 10 times\u2026 If, for instance, in 1990 the average wage in Georgia made up 72% of that in Russia, in 2006 it made up only 30%. At the same time, the number of hired employees for the equal number of population in Georgia is three times lower in comparison with Russia, in view of which the purchasing power of the wage fund of the same number of population in Georgia is 9-10 times lower as compared to Russia. That is why Russia remains so attractive for Georgian labor migrants (in spite of everything, including the displays of xenophobia in this country); that is why our people are striving to get to this country. I believe that a substantial changing of this \u201caspiration\u201d is possible by means of essential solving of the employment problem in Georgia, creation of new jobs, enabling of the state program encouraging the return of labour migrants that left the country in the past 10-15 years\u2026
\n As compared to the demographic and economic indices, the situation with the human development index is better and it currently approaches the average world one (0,743 and 0,741 respectively); it is at the level that Singapore had in the second half of 1970s, Chile \u2013 in early 1980 and Panama \u2013 in early 1990s. According to this indicator, Georgia holds the 97th place in the world among the 177 countries and by 23 points passes ahead of the country\u2019s place according to economic development (GDP production per head taking into account PPP). At the same time, certain problems are observed in this aspect as well. For instance, now, as far as the human development index is concerned, Georgia is by 23% behind Norway that holds the first place in the world, while in 1992 it was behind Canada, which held the first place at that time, only by 19,8%. For the time being, the human development index of Norway that holds the first place is by 3,5% higher than the one Canada used to have in 1992 when it held the first place, while the current Georgia\u2019s index is behind the one it had in 1992 by 0,5%. At present time, as far as the human development index is concerned, Georgia holds the sixth place among the 12 CIS countries. It is behind Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Armenia. For instance, in the countries\u2019 rating list Georgia is behind Armenia by 17 points, which is considerably exceeds the level of 1990 (13 points). The world got acquainted with Georgia thanks to the \u201cRevolution of Roses\u201d that took place here and the launched reforms. Now it is already necessary that the mentioned tendencies should be reflected in the economic indicators, raising of the level of the population\u2019s incomes and well-being. Then the world\u2019s interest towards our ancient culture and, at the same time, young country, being in the process of quest and formation, will really increase.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ioseb Archvadze The level of social-economic development of every country and its place in the world is characterized by many<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[28,36],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nGeorgia\u2019s place in the world taking into account some social-economic indicators - Geoeconomics<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/?p=1931\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Georgia\u2019s place in the world taking into account some social-economic indicators - Geoeconomics\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Ioseb Archvadze The level of social-economic development of every country and its place in the world is characterized by many\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\">\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"6 minutes\">\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Geoeconomics\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/?p=1931#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/?p=1931\",\"name\":\"Georgia\\u2019s place in the world taking into account some social-economic indicators - Geoeconomics\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-14T09:18:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-03-14T09:19:04+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/c8498c0ae03a66c87b59761fbd19b04c\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/?p=1931\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/c8498c0ae03a66c87b59761fbd19b04c\",\"name\":\"Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/2.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bf2d8703d729f003d8905b57fcab5078?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Admin\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1931"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1931"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1931\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1932,"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1931\/revisions\/1932"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geoeconomics.ge\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}