No in the sense that one of the authors who coined the term did IRC follow up study and explicitly does not think it exists.
The mostly No part: middle income trap, according to the authors / as metric of development is about countries being unable to progress up higher value economic efforts, which then constrains per capita income potential. But the actual "trap" is being stuck in value chain. If one use that metric, PRC is LONG PAST middle income "trap", apart from US, PRC has relatively complete chain across broad spectrum of sectors in the world. Third place is not even close. The question is really what if even being competent and productive at everything simply is not sufficient to uplift everyone because base population is so massive. There's an upper bound on how many high skilled talent economy can support.
The yes part is being stuck in "middle income", which if you look at world bank revised 2024 high income range is 13,846, PRC 2023 projection is ~13,500, it's basically there, almost inevitable with a few more years of even modest growth even if threshold keeps getting revised up. And if you think PRC is massively lying about population like some demographers (-200m people) then PRC's been high income for a while.
The real question behind these "middle income" rhetoric with respect to PRC is can PRC reach advanced economy levels of high income, and the answer is unlikely because again there's simply too many useless people, 600m+ living on less than $2000 who got left behind by modernization that will drag the per capita stats down until they die. On the other hand they will be the first to go since cohort skews old. Let that stats settle in for a second though, ~40% of population contributes about 5% of economy. Once they start dying (2050+) PRC per capita will start trending towards advanced economy with high % of skilled people wages because PRC population with start reflecting composition of advanced economy without 200m+ farmers and 100s million more low skilled people stuck in informal economy. It's why Xi's China dream only targets modest 40k per capita by 2050 (I think in PPP terms). BTW even PRC demographers realized in 80s that PRC was trending towards old before rich, the entire will PRC get rich before old is western rhetoric. And TBH relative to PRC demography plan (one of the few examples of actual PRC long term planning) - PRC currently doing about expection.
>You do not grow like your teens and 20s in your 40s and 50s.
This is simplistic. A society with 25% skilled labour is going to grow differently than one with 60-80% (advanced economy). PRC is former, trending towards the latter. She's spitting out OECD combined in STEM talent per year, and even with 20% youth unemployment that's stupid amount of talent to improve productivity. The TLDR is PRC is in process of building 5x-10x the amount of skilled talent that pushed the them to 15T economy. It's the greatest high skill demographics divident in human history, even if net demographics will decline. The question is where will that get them? Advanced economy income? My guess is no, but will actually happen is PRC talent will increasingly compete and take pie from high income economies, and wages will start to converge. PRC will get modestly richer while advanced economies will start to get poorer.
On India, I think they'll be a much less successful PRC. Eventually they'll get there, i.e. they'll escape the middle income trap in the sense they will probably be able to competently develop most sectors indigenously - they won't actually be "trapped" by developement. But their sheer population 1.6B+ will likely trap their per capita by denominator of having so many unproductive people - India demographic divident is happening among their states with bad HDI. Nevermind unemployed STEM in PRC, their youth unemployment rate is like 40% (which western MSM doesn't seems to talk about) while being also being less educated with what talent they do generate being highly suceptible to being brain drained. It's... suboptimal.
Yes an no, but mostly no.
No in the sense that one of the authors who coined the term did IRC follow up study and explicitly does not think it exists.
The mostly No part: middle income trap, according to the authors / as metric of development is about countries being unable to progress up higher value economic efforts, which then constrains per capita income potential. But the actual "trap" is being stuck in value chain. If one use that metric, PRC is LONG PAST middle income "trap", apart from US, PRC has relatively complete chain across broad spectrum of sectors in the world. Third place is not even close. The question is really what if even being competent and productive at everything simply is not sufficient to uplift everyone because base population is so massive. There's an upper bound on how many high skilled talent economy can support.
The yes part is being stuck in "middle income", which if you look at world bank revised 2024 high income range is 13,846, PRC 2023 projection is ~13,500, it's basically there, almost inevitable with a few more years of even modest growth even if threshold keeps getting revised up. And if you think PRC is massively lying about population like some demographers (-200m people) then PRC's been high income for a while.
The real question behind these "middle income" rhetoric with respect to PRC is can PRC reach advanced economy levels of high income, and the answer is unlikely because again there's simply too many useless people, 600m+ living on less than $2000 who got left behind by modernization that will drag the per capita stats down until they die. On the other hand they will be the first to go since cohort skews old. Let that stats settle in for a second though, ~40% of population contributes about 5% of economy. Once they start dying (2050+) PRC per capita will start trending towards advanced economy with high % of skilled people wages because PRC population with start reflecting composition of advanced economy without 200m+ farmers and 100s million more low skilled people stuck in informal economy. It's why Xi's China dream only targets modest 40k per capita by 2050 (I think in PPP terms). BTW even PRC demographers realized in 80s that PRC was trending towards old before rich, the entire will PRC get rich before old is western rhetoric. And TBH relative to PRC demography plan (one of the few examples of actual PRC long term planning) - PRC currently doing about expection.
>You do not grow like your teens and 20s in your 40s and 50s.
This is simplistic. A society with 25% skilled labour is going to grow differently than one with 60-80% (advanced economy). PRC is former, trending towards the latter. She's spitting out OECD combined in STEM talent per year, and even with 20% youth unemployment that's stupid amount of talent to improve productivity. The TLDR is PRC is in process of building 5x-10x the amount of skilled talent that pushed the them to 15T economy. It's the greatest high skill demographics divident in human history, even if net demographics will decline. The question is where will that get them? Advanced economy income? My guess is no, but will actually happen is PRC talent will increasingly compete and take pie from high income economies, and wages will start to converge. PRC will get modestly richer while advanced economies will start to get poorer.
On India, I think they'll be a much less successful PRC. Eventually they'll get there, i.e. they'll escape the middle income trap in the sense they will probably be able to competently develop most sectors indigenously - they won't actually be "trapped" by developement. But their sheer population 1.6B+ will likely trap their per capita by denominator of having so many unproductive people - India demographic divident is happening among their states with bad HDI. Nevermind unemployed STEM in PRC, their youth unemployment rate is like 40% (which western MSM doesn't seems to talk about) while being also being less educated with what talent they do generate being highly suceptible to being brain drained. It's... suboptimal.