At the beginning of this year, Eurasia Group, the political risk firm I lead, released
its top 10 risks of 2013
. We forgot to put
Pepsi-guzzling whistleblowers
on the list, but we did give our top slot to increasing turmoil in “emerging markets.” In a global economy that has become more reliant on countries whose economies are vulnerable to political shocks, emerging markets are our new economic fulcrums. What is causing this growing uncertainty in emerging markets? How much stress can they take without upsetting the balance for everyone else.
The protests in countries like Brazil and Turkey are not Arab Spring-style uprisings: they’re the anger and frustration of newly empowered middle and lower-middle classes, the same consumers who were the catalysts and beneficiaries of this growth in the first place. In emerging markets, politics have at least as big an impact on market outcomes as the underlying economics — that’s why these kinds of protests can strike seemingly out of the blue, and bring business-as-usual to a halt. Compare the impact of protests (and leaders’ responses) in Brazil and Turkey to the Occupy Wall Street movement. In a developed country like the United States, the political system is consolidated in a manner that forces fringe movements to choose one of two paths: go mainstream or lose steam. In emerging markets that have experienced dramatic and rapid changes, governments can’t keep up with citizens’ evolving demands. Protests are far more likely to swell, with severe economic ramifications.
Why are the protests in Turkey and Brazil happening? There are immediate triggers. In Brazil, it was a small raise in bus fares; in Turkey, it was the imminent demolition of sycamore trees in Gezi Park. But these triggers are the narrow manifestations of larger, systemic grievances playing out on a country level, and trends in the global economy at large. So what are the larger factors that make even model emerging markets more ripe for unrest?