**Table 1: Economic Weight in 2010 and 2030: Convergence Scenario**

|**Country/group**||**20**|**10**|||**2030**|||**Change (2 **|**030 -2010)**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||||share of||||share of||Dynamism:||
||GDP per<br>capita<br>(PPP,<br>US$)<br>|GDP<br>(const.US<br>$ bn)|world<br>GDP<br>const.<br>(%)|share of<br>world<br>GDP PPP<br>(%)|GDP per<br>capita<br>(PPP,<br>US$)|GDP<br>(const.US$ bn)|world<br>GDP<br>const.<br>(%)|share of<br>world<br>GDP PPP<br>(%)|<br>Share of<br>incremental<br>GDP<br>(const.US$)|Dynamism:<br>Share of<br>incremental<br>GDP (PPP,US$)|
|United States|47,284|14,658|23.5|16.8|66,519|24,019|17.2|11.8|12.1|8.0|
|EU-27|32,615|16,282|26.1|18.7|47,683|24,195|17.3|11.9|10.2|6.8|
|Japan|42,820|5,459|8.7|6.3|62,374|7,352|5.3|3.6|2.4|1.6|
|China|11,303|5,878|9.4|17.4|32,980|22,440|16.1|23.5|21.4|28.0|
|India|3,795|1,538|2.5|5.3|13,373|8,422|6.0|9.8|8.9|13.1|
|Korea|23,961|1,007|1.6|1.3|46,753|2,172|1.6|1.1|1.5|1.0|
|Africa|2,633|1,437|2.3|2.8|7,425|8,075|5.8|5.0|8.6|6.7|
|Brazil|16,684|2,090|3.3|3.7|30,874|4,624|3.3|3.3|3.3|2.9|
|Indonesia|7,890|707|1.1|2.1|23,022|2,917|2.1|3.1|2.9|3.8|
|Russia|23,803|1,465|2.3|3.8|35,782|2,058|1.5|2.3|0.8|1.1|
|**Total**|**12,844**|**62,452**|**100.0**|**100.0**|**24,963**|**139,766**|**100.0**|**100.0**|**100.0**|**100.0**|
|BRICs|9,112|10,972|17.6|30.2|24,063|37,544|26.9|38.7|34.4|45.1|
|Populous BIICs (Brazil, India,<br>Indonesia,China)|8,325|10,213|16.4|28.5|23,539|38,402|27.5|39.6|36.5|47.8|
|Asia ex. Japan|7,417|11,129|17.8|31.5|21,376|45,234|32.4|45.7|44.1|56.4|
|Emergingand developing|7,906|21,355|34.2|52.5|19,369|74,060|53.0|67.4|68.2|78.6|

Source: Subramanian (2011) For projecting trade, economic theory and evidence offer guidance. Just as the force between two objects in physics depends on the product of their masses and the distance between them, so trade between two countries is thought to depend on their economic mass (GDP) and all the frictions affecting trade, including transport costs and policy barriers.

The theoretical foundations of this so-called ―gravity model‖ have been solidified in recent years (see Eaton and Kortum, 2002; Anderson and van Wincoop, 2003; Subramanian and Wei, 2007; Helpman, Melitz and Rubinstein, 2008). Unlike economic convergence, which worked in theory but was realized in the real world incompletely and tardily, gravity as a determinant of trade has been robustly and consistently vindicated in the real world.

From an analytical perspective, it is important to note that the shifts in trade are likely to be a direct consequence of the shifts in the economy via the ―gravity‖ effect.<sup>6</sup> The results are shown in Table 2 (for selected countries). If gravity exerts its expected force, the effects will be striking, indeed even more striking than the effects on GDP. China, which accounted for 10 percent of world trade in goods in 2010 will account for nearly15 percent in 2030. Its trade will be more than two times that of the United States and more than four times that of Germany, both of which will see a decline in their shares of world trade.

> 6 These projections assume an income elasticity of trade of 1.  If going forward, developments such as defragmentation of production occur, the relationship of trade and income may change.

10