LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS Monday 11th March 2009
Click to return to Table of Contents
Unfortunately, for much of the Western world, Vietnam is not a country but a war.
The level of interest or knowledge of this country is appallingly poor, limited to impressions garnered from films such as the Deer Hunter or Apocalypse Now or even Rambo, from stereotypical visions of Vietcong crawling around in tunnels or a napalmed girl running naked beside a rice paddy, or peasants in conical hats or an execution at point blank range.
Possibly one reason why these images persist is because they are allowed to persist on both sides.
You can tour the tunnels (we didn't), you can see the vestiges of war in museums, you can see water buffalo in the streets, and of course there are still conical hats.
You can meet, as we did, individuals who can dispel these stereotypes, but you can also approach this question from the other end of the spectrum...coldly, analytically, dispassionately, just by studying the statistics for the country (provided by The Economist in its 2009 Pocket World In Figures), and comparing them to the country with which you are most familiar (in this case the UK).
Of course, there are, as Disraeli said, lies, damned lies, and statistics, but if you combine this top down view with what you have seen you can learn some surprising facts which can perhaps change your preconceptions and make sense of the place.
First, start with the size, the physical size or geography of the country. Score one to Vietnam.It has 331,114 sq. km, whereas the UK has 242,532 sq km.
Vietnam is 36% larger in land mass than the UK but has marginally less arable land (21% to 24%).
The UK is of course an island running 990km from Land's End to John O'Groats as the crow flies, whereas Vietnam is long and thin, a whip cracked by China to the South and wrapped around Laos and Cambodia and bounded on the East by the South China Sea.
You wonder why the US bombed Laos and Cambodia?
Well, they had to if they wanted to stop the flow of goods down the Ho Chi Minh trail from the North, because there was no way that the North Vietnamese could pass through the choke points of such a narrow country and were obliged to do an end run through neighbouring countries.
Next, the people.
As I mentioned, Vietnam has 85mln people to the UK's 60 (59.8 actually).
What is interesting is that this gap is growing. Population in Vietnam is growing at 1.2% per year, the UK only .41%.
Despite being crammed on an island, the population density in the UK is marginally less than Vietnam (246.6 per sq km in the UK to 257.7 in Vietnam).
Compare this with the two most populous countries in the world- India and China, with 340.6 and 138.4, respectively.
Though neither country figures in the top 60 in terms of size, they are the 12th largest (Vietnam), and the 21st largest (the UK) in terms of population.
Vietnam has the 7th largest refugee population in the world (ie. people who have left and reside overseas). 374,000.
By the way, the two countries with the biggest number of refugees residing in their country are Pakistan and Iran (mostly Afghans) which explains a lot of things.
In terms of the composition of the population, Vietnam is split down the middle: 100 men to 100 women.
The UK runs a men deficit of 96/100.
In both countries, women outlive men; in Vietnam 76.2 years to 72.3 years; in the UK 81.6 years to 77.2 years.
Not surprisingly due to the 30 years of war, there are very few old people in Vietnam (7.6% of the population over 60) as compared to the UK (21.2% over 60).
Even more striking is how young Vietnam is, with 29.6% of the population under 15 (and they have no recollection of any war).
In the UK youth under 15 make up only 18% of the population.
Japan is an even more demographically old country, with only 13% under 15 and 26.5% over 60.
The preponderance of youth helps explain the dynamism of the country.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that where there are more young people, there is more energy.
In the UK 89.1% of the population live in urban centres.
In Vietnam only 26.7%.
Farmers predominate.
In Vietnam, 58% of the population work in agriculture.
In the UK, the figure is 1%.
That's right. 1%.
A breakdown of what the rest of the people do is instructive.
Vietnam is still a place where people make stuff, or grow stuff.
After agriculture, 29% work in industry and only 17% in Services.
In the UK, most people just do stuff. 77% of them, in fact.
What kind of stuff? I don't know, just stuff. Services, you know.
Mostly without the service.
You get paid a lot more for just doing stuff than you do for making stuff.
Does it improve the world?
I don't know, but I suppose if the UK is what a post-industrial economy looks like, then sooner or later most countries will head in that direction.
At least that is what they aspire to.
Do stuff, and then pay others to do the real work.
As for feeding the people who do stuff, there are not a lot of people working as farmers in the UK.
It is one of life's great ironies that in a post-industrial economy less people are now required to feed the gobs of the people who sit down and do stuff and make them fatter and fatter.
Yet another proof of the law of unintended consequences.
There are not currently a lot of fat Vietnamese (see low incomes, diet, and having to work hard) but there will be, if modern post-industrial service economies are anything to go by.
There are slightly less number of households in Vietnam than in the UK (25.6mln to 26.2mln). In these households, however, there is more likely to be an intact family in Vietnam than in the UK.
The average household has 3.3 people; in the UK 2.3 people (6th lowest in the world).
This corroborates the higher birth rate in Vietnam and the fact that there are more marriages (12.1 per 100....3rd highest in the world) and more marriages that last longer (.5 divorces per 1000).
The figures for the UK are 5.2 and 2.9 respectively.
The divorce rate puts the UK at 17th in the world.
As one might expect the UK is streets ahead in technology within these households: 99.5 Colour TVs, 56 telephones, 116.6 mobile phones, and 75.8 computers per 100 people.Vietnam doesn't even come close: 70.8 TVs, 32.2 phones, 18.2 mobile phones, and only 1.4 computers per 100 population.
As far as the internet is concerned, there are only 1.4 internet hosts per 1000 people in Vietnam, as opposed to129.2 in the UK.
Vietnam is among the world leaders in pirated software, with over 88% of computers running purloined goods (5th in the world).
This was borne out by my experience. All the computers I used had license error messages from Microsoft.
In economic terms, (and as these figures are published by The Economist, most of them had to do with economics) Vietnam is dwarfed by the UK.
Let's start with GDP (Gross Domestic Product), the measure of the output of an economy.
In $ terms, Vietnam has a GDP of $61bln. The UK has a GDP of $2,377bln (ie.$ 2.4 trillion).
This works out to a comparative GDP per head of $720 in Vietnam vs. $39,750 in the UK.
If you adjust this for purchasing power parity (with the US as 100) the UK only has 75.3, but Vietnam has 5.4.
This means that on average , a UK person can buy 15 times what the average Vietnamese can.
The average Yank can buy 20 times, and probably does.
How is this income generated?
One might assume that in a state which is avowedly Communist that much of the economic growth would be from the public sector.
Nothing of the kind. In Vietnam, 63.5% is from private consumption vs. roughly the same in the UK (63.2%).
Only 6.2% comes from Public consumption, whereas in the People's Republic of Gordon Brown the figure is a whopping 21.7%.
Much of the demand in Vietnam comes from direct investment (ie. foreign capital) 32%.
In the UK this is only 18.2%.
The economy of Vietnam is export driven, with 69.4% of the GDP derived from exports.
In order, the major exports are crude oil, textiles, footwear, and forestry products.
The US, Japan, and Australia are the top destinations (purchasers of goods have very short memories if the price is right).
The UK has only 3.8% of the total.
The UK exports manufactured and semi-manufactured goods, fuels, foods, and drinks, importing more or less the same categories, only just more of them.
Both countries run current account deficits (ie. they import more than they export).
Neither country have reserves to cover imports at the same rate, though the UK can only cover two weeks and Vietnam 3.3 months.
Compare this with Japan (15months), China (14 months), and Korea (7months).
Both countries are important exporters of agricultural goods, with the UK ranked 21st in the world, and Vietnam 29th.
However, whereas for Vietnam these exports are crucial to the economy, in the UK they represent 0.9% of GDP or the 8th least economically dependent on agriculture in the world.
Vietnam is the 8th most dependent on trade with 69% of the economy relying on it, slightly behind Belgium with 71% (Aruba is tops with 172%!!!!
I guess that means you import everything, and pay for it with drugs, daiquiris, and banking fees).
The UK has the 3rd largest trade deficit in the world, after the US and Spain.
Vietnam is nowhere in the top 24.
Vietnam also has the 17th largest worker's remittances in the world. This jibes with the overseas refugee population, who send money back to the folks they left behind, and who are starting to return with skills learned in the West.
As far as borrowing goes, Vietnam ranks 39th in the world for foreign debt with $20bln, though as a percentage of GDP it doesn't make the top 50. UK debt held by foreigners is over a trillion.
Vietnam also ranks 8th in the world as a recipient of bilateral and multilateral aid with $1.85bln. Nigeria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are the largest.
Vietnam ranks 10th in GDP growth with 11.2% p.a. from 1996-2006.
There are a few surprise statistics. Vietnam is the world's 2nd largest producer of coffee at 1.1 metric tonnes, behind Brazil but slightly ahead of Colombia, Indonesia, and Ethiopia.
They don't however, drink much of the stuff.
They are 5th in Rice, and 7th in Tea.
In energy, though they do have oil reserves, they don't rank in the top 30 producers (the UK is 14th).
Vietnam has the HIGHEST growth in market capitalisation in the period 2002-2007 in the world, at 12590%.
That bears repeating. Say it out loud, and then prefix it with: "As a communist country......."
It also has the largest increase in value at 78,544% over the same period.
Go figure.
The cost of living in Vietnam doesn't figure in the world map, whereas the UK is 3rd, after Norway and France. (This was at the end of 2007, before sterling took a tumble).
In terms of entertainment (cinema), music, internet, Nobel Prize Winners, daily newspapers, or Oscars, Vietnam is nowhere.
Its press is the 8th least free in the world, well behind China.
The UK is surprisingly 24th. Vietnam doesn't rank in beer or wine consumption.
The UK is amazingly not in the top 20 beer and is 14th is wine. (Do I believe this? Not hardly. Try going down any high street at 11PM on a Saturday evening.)
Neither figures in smoking, murders, or people on death row.
They are closely ranked (12th and 13th) in the number of prisoners, however, with 98k Vietnamese and 91k Brits. The US is by far the greatest, with 2.3mln prisoners.
Defense spending as a % of GDP puts Vietnam at 8th in the world at 5.6%.
In absolute terms, the UK spends almost as much a year on defense ($55bln) as the entire GDP of Vietnam.
However, Vietnam has the 10th largest standing army at 455 thousand (with 5mln reservists)....Message: DON'T PICK A FIGHT WITH THEM, but they are hardly spending enough to be a world power.
Russia, by the way has 20mln reservists according the Economist.
Vietnam doesn't figure in the environmental performance index, either good or bad. Neither of its main cities appear in the world's most polluted (Cairo and Delhi are the top two), and China has 23 of the top 38 on the planet.
India has 4 of the top 10. The UK is the 8th largest emitter of CO2, though Vietnam is in the top 50 at 38. Per person, the UK is 19th on the list, Vietnam doesn't figure.
However, Vietnam has the 5th largest increase in CO2 emissions at 11.9% per year (which coincides almost exactly with its growth rate economically).
Neither country figures in clean energy (Sweden is #1). So that is the view from the top on Vietnam and the UK, at least according to the Economist.
What are we to make of all this?
The first conclusion I would say is what I said to Christina, and I don't mean this in anyway to be disparaging or belittling (literally) in any way.
After 10 days in Vietnam, I said: "Never underestimate a lot of little people."
Vietnam, though an old country in terms of history, is a young country literally (few old people) and in economic terms (growth and development is only recent).
By almost any measurement of development, it is way behind the UK, but it is galloping to catch up. It still has a long way to go in terms of infrastructure and technology.
It remains an export-led producer of raw materials but its industrial base is growing. It has a population of hard-working, family-oriented people composed of varied ethnic groups and divided (still) by the three regions and the dialects. Money is pouring in, however, and if you had closed your eyes and bought the stock of almost Vietnamese company, you would have been a chart topper.
Can this continue?
Of course not, but it still remains (I say it again) a young and dynamic country, still emerging from its troubled colonial, post-colonial, and war-weary past.
Still, for the 12th largest population in the world, it is punching far below its weight. How will an avowedly Communist party machine manage the process of rapid development and the iniquity of stock markets dominated by foreign investors? How will they manage the process of letting the genie of development out of the bottle? How do they move from a nation of motorcycles and mini-industries to one where a supermarket is not an object of wonder but an every day occurence?
I don't know, and in trying to relate this mass of statistics to the people I met and saw is difficult
.There was a young boy (3 years old), the son of an upscale lacquerware store in Hanoi, who was
a) tending towards chubby and;
b) playing with not one but two mobile phones.
The shopgirl said dismissively that he was spoiled and rich. The tons of kids I saw flirting were doing what kids do; a team of waiters and waitresses yukking it up; shop boys and girls in the Adidas sport shop on a Friday night; the sparkled 16 year old on the bus in Phan Tiet; Dung's little 2 year old; all those youth on the beach.
These youth are the future of Vietnam, not the Vietcong.
Only time will tell, I suppose. Whatever the statistics, Vietnam is a country which deserves not to be ignored, and one where the old images or misconceptions deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Go to Chapter 9
Click to return to Table of Contents
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment