Several other Gulf wealthy countries
Although there are not many samples of this economic development model, it is sufficient, and similar economic systems are similar. Other countries that can be included in this group are Kuwait (2013 per capita nominal GDP of $45,189) reached $70,785 per capita real GDP in 2013, the United Arab Emirates (the famous Dubai is here, $44,552 per capita nominal GDP), Bahrain ($47,926 per capita nominal GDP) of $49,633, and Oman ($21,456 per capita nominal GDP) of $43,304, and belongs to the Arab countries. These are rich oil exporting countries, and the per capita real GDP level has reached the real GDP level of the first-class developed countries, and the per capita nominal GDP is also at the level of developed countries, but only Qatar is a new developed country, and the rest are not considered developed countries. This is an important feature of oil-exporting countries per capita, with low overall social development (which is why fertility rates in these countries are relatively similar to those in rich countries), such as low levels of education or literacy, which are unthinkable in non-oil-exporting countries. As long as the per capita real GDP of non-oil countries reaches the level of first-class developed countries, it is impossible for the comprehensive indicators to reach the comprehensive level of developed countries, and the fertility rate will naturally drop to a low level (the level of social development determines the fertility rate, and different levels of social development correspond to different fertility rates).
Like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, these countries' real GDP per capita is significantly larger than their own nominal GDP per capita, which is the core feature of this chapter. We have already passed the truth, and they are all caused by similar reasons, that is, the result of a more relaxed international strategy, which not only allows the international of conventional industrial and agricultural commodities, but also allows the construction industry and direct labor services, which naturally reduces the commodities in these fields and greatly increases the per capita real GDP.
Whether or not to accept migrant workers has little impact on the nominal GDP per capita. However, whether or not to accept migrant workers will have a huge impact on real GDP per capita. When the per capita nominal GDP is constant, the fluctuation range of per capita real GDP can even reach the level of 100%. Of course, whether or not to accept migrant workers will have a greater impact on countries with a higher nominal GDP per capita, and less on countries with a low nominal GDP per capita. Countries with low nominal GDP per capita have less influence on their country's real GDP per capita when they accept migrant workers. Of course, countries with low nominal GDP per capita also struggle to receive migrant workers. If a country with a high nominal GDP per capita accepts migrant workers, in addition to achieving a higher real GDP per capita, it can also benefit the labor-exporting country, which can give the labor-exporting country an additional foreign exchange**, thereby increasing the level of nominal GDP per capita and the level of real GDP per capita of the labor-exporting country.
If developed countries in Europe and the United States are willing to appropriately accept foreign workers, give migrant workers low human rights treatment status (this can allow foreign workers to minimize the comprehensive impact on the social order of European and American countries, in this case, European and American countries will be willing to accept foreign workers, and more importantly, only low human rights treatment can improve the labor enthusiasm of workers, and then increase the per capita real GDP of developed countries), although it is not politically correct, but it can significantly increase the per capita real GDP of European and American populations. If 10% of the population were to be admitted, it would increase real GDP per capita by 20% (an estimate that seems unfounded to the author, and you can dismiss it), as well as benefit developing countries that export labor.
The fertility rate in Kuwait was 253. Kuwait has the highest real GDP per capita and the second-highest fertility rate among the four countries, which is also at a high level, similar to India's fertility rate (251）。But it's already significantly lower than sub-Saharan African countries, where the fertility rate is 4 or 5 or 6Anything below 3 is rare.
The UAE fertility rate was 2 in 201436, this fertility rate is not high!In the case of a state of population sustainability, we have the impression that the fertility rate in these Arab countries is very high, but in fact, the fertility rate in these countries has declined significantly recently, and the position of ultra-high fertility here has long since given way to Africa.
Tunisia, which is across the sea from Italy, had a per capita real GDP of US$10,998 in 2013 and a nominal GDP per capita of US$4,317, and a fertility rate of 2 in 201400, the corresponding situation of its per capita GDP level and fertility rate is no different from that of non-Islamic countries. Its real GDP per capita and nominal GDP per capita are lower than Chinese mainland's, and in the Arab countries, the fertility rate is still so low, which means that the free fertility rate in Chinese mainland in 2013 will be at a similar level or lower.
The fertility rate in Bahrain in 2014 was 181, This is another rich Arab country with a low fertility rate, and the fertility rate is basically in a state of generational replacement. This should change our perception that the fertility rate in Islamic countries can also be low.
The fertility rate in Oman was 2 in 201486, this fertility rate is relatively high, which may be related to the fact that the country has not been rich for a long time, but compared with sub-Saharan African countries, it is much lower.