This article says that trade (import/export) is now 50-100% of GDP

[Hannah Bell]

in developing countries, & foreign capital is ~100-200% of GDP in the developing world. To me, this suggests complete penetration by foreign capital, i.e. the economies of the developing world are essentially "owned" by outsiders. It this a logical assumption?

"The IMF said total trade – both imports and exports – now constitute between 50 to 100 per cent of gross domestic product in emerging and developing economies. Also, total foreign capital (assets and liabilities) ranges from 100 to 200 per cent of GDP across developing world regions, he said."


http://www.business24-7.ae/cs/article_show_mainh1_story.aspx?HeadlineID=5008

[Doctor Cynic]

1. Nope.

It just means they are just tightly integrated with the entire global economy. That by itself is nothing bad. However, if most exports are natural resources as opposed to manufactured goods and services, then leakage to multinationals will be much greater. You can control the entire Saudi/Iraqi/ economy just be owning oilfields. You'll need to own entire infrastructure networks and supply chains if you want to control, say, China's manufacturing-dependent economy.

By the way, many small economies in Europe and Asia (the Netherlands, Belgium, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc) also have trade-to-GDP ratios. Doesn't mean they are exploited by some multinationals. They just managed to prosper from their dependency on the global markets.

[Hannah Bell]

2. I'm not clear on what you mean by "trade to GDP ratio". n/t