1

Fundamental properties of society

Cyclic character of world conflicts development

С -cycles

Cyclic character of economic development

К - cycles

Is there interdependence between these processes?

Are they coordinated between themselves?

If yes, what is the regularity of this coordination?

2

LAW OF STRUCTURAL HARMONY [SERGEY KAPITSA,

E . SOROKO];

MODERN CONCEPT ON THE ACCELERATION OF

HISTORICAL TIME [SERGEY KAPITSA ] ;

CONCEPT OF GREAT KONDRATIEFF CYCLES [NICOLAY

KONDRATIEFF] ;

GLOBAL FORECASTS FOR THE XXI -ST CENTURY

[VLADIMIR VERNADSKY, N IKITA MOISEEV] .

Additional conditions to the fundamental properties of

periodic processes3

«Structural portrait» of Cn – world conflicts waves

4

705 B

C

years

∆n = 50 years – 5years∙n;n = 1, 2,…, n = 9; ∆n= 5 year

5

Phase Cn - waves

T time

Inte

nsity p

hase

Characteristic features of Cn - waves

The life of each Cn – wave generates five sequential evolutionary phases (stages)

{Cn,і}, i = 1.,5:

Cn,1 (origin) > Cn,2 (growth) > Cn,3 (culmination) > Cn,4 (decrease) > Cn,5(decline).

The life duration T(Cn) of each subsequent

Cn –wave is uniquely determines by the life duration of two previous

waves, namely, T(Cn) =T(Cn-2) - T(Cn-1).

Conflict intensity I(Cn)=N(Cn)/T(Сn)

for Cn - waves, n=1,2,3.,6 increases: I(Cn+1)>I(Cn)(N (Cn) –number of conflicts that form Cn - wave)

6

7

Cn-waves intensity

time

time

Kapitsa„s formula

0

400

800

1200

― 15

― 10

― 5

Duration T(Cn) and intensity I(Сn)of world conflicts (n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7) 8

Table 1. Main characteristics of Cn-waves of conflicts

Cn-waves

Time interval of

Cn-wave,

years

Time interval of

life cycle of

Cn-wave,

years

Number of

conflicts that

form Cn-wave

Conflicts

intensity in Cn-

wave,

I(Cn), n=1,…,7

Correspondence

of Cn-waves to

Fibonacci

numbers (Fs)

C1 705 bc – 401 ab 1106 1218 I(C1)=1,101 F7=13

C2 402 – 1074 674 756 I(C2)=1,122 F6=8

C3 1075 – 1497 422 1680 I(C3)=3,981 F5=5

C4 1498 – 1749 252 1543 I(C4)=6,123 F4=3

C5 1750 – 1919 170 1485 I(C5)=8,735 F3=2

C6 1920 – 2007 87 1035 I(C6)=11,897 F2=1

C7

(Forecast wave)2008 – 2092 85 >1400 I(C7)>16 F1=1

9

Table 2. “Golden section” coefficient, Fibonacci numbers and world conflicts periods for the sequence {Cn}, n=1,2,…,7

{Cn} C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

T (Cn),

years1106 674 422 252 170 87 85

T (Cn)

/T(Cn+1)1,641 1,597 1,675 1,482 1,954 1,023 –

Fs, s=8-n 13 8 5 3 2 1 1

F8-n/F8-n-1 1,625 1,6 1,667 1,5 2 1 –

T(C1)=13kс; T(C2)=8kс; T(C3)=5kс; T(C4)=3kс; T(C5)=2kс;T(C6)=1kс; T(C7)=1kс,

where kс=85 years – universal time quantum of life cycles for C-waves

10

The first decade of the XXI century – origin;

The conflict of the XXI century(2010 – 2092)

Beginning of 20-s – end of 40-s – growth;

50-s – culmination, I*(C7)> 16;

Beginning of 60-s – end of 70-s – decrease;

80-s – decline11

Global threats generating “Conflict of the ХХІ century”(UN, UNICEF, WHO,…,

1. Global decrease of energy security;2. Balance gap between bio-capacity of the Earth and totalrequirements of mankind in context of changing ofdemographic situation;3. An increasing inequality between people and thecountries on the Earth;4. Spreading of global diseases;5. Child mortality;6. Corruption perception;7. Limited access to potable water;8. Global warming;9. The state instability (State Fragility);10. Global climate change and natural disasters

12

I A S A

І П С А

Security index

(Minkovsky norm)3

1

3)(n

l

o

jlj TrrT

1. Preparation of data

ND)SFGWWACP,CM,CD,GINI,FB,(ES=rTj

,,,,

jkjk rTrTKK

4. Clustering

3. Aggregated impact of threats totality

ES – Energy security

FB – Balance:

Bio resources/

Consumption

GINI – Inequality

GD – Global

diseases

CM – Child mortality

CP – Corruption

WA – Drinking water

GW – Global

warming

SF – State fragility

ND – Natural

disasters

2. Normalization

)NDSFGWWA,,CP,CM,CD,GINIFB,(ES=orT oooooooooo

j,,,

Isec =

Global threats generating “Conflict of

the ХХІ century”

I A S A

І П С А

Impact of threats totality

Threat 1

(ES)

Threat 10

(ND)Threat 2

(FB)

Vulnerability

FBND

ES

•••

3

1

3)(n

l

o

jlj TrrT

Vulnerability - (Minkovsky

Norm) Isec =

Threats

Totality

I A S A

І П С А

10 most safe countries

Country

Se

cu

rity

Ran

k

Se

cu

rity

Ind

ex

(M

ink

ow

sk

iN

orm

) Global Threats

En

erg

y S

ec

uri

ty I

nd

ex

Fo

otp

rin

t a

nd

bio

ca

pac

ity

Bala

nce

Ine

gu

ali

ty

(Gin

i

Ind

ex

)

Co

rru

pti

on

Pe

rce

pti

on

Wa

ter

Ac

ce

ss

CO

2 E

mis

sio

n

Ch

ild

Mo

rta

lity

Natu

ral C

ata

str

op

he

s

Sta

te F

rag

ilit

y

Natu

ral D

isa

ste

rs

Very highCanada 1 0,736 0,810 0,909 0,674 0,870 1,000 0,333 0,976 1,000 1,000 0,762

Sweden 2 0,724 0,116 0,725 0,750 0,930 1,000 0,803 0,984 1,000 1,000 0,762

Norway 3 0,720 0,909 0,783 0,742 0,870 1,000 0,363 0,984 1,000 0,920 0,740

Australia 4 0,705 0,800 0,858 0,648 0,860 1,000 0,460 0,976 0,999 0,920 0,775

Finland 5 0,696 0,091 0,775 0,731 0,940 1,000 0,580 0,984 1,000 1,000 0,730

New

Zealand

6 0,692 0,146 0,769 0,638 0,940 1,000 0,743 0,976 1,000 0,960 0,742

Denmark 7 0,671 0,107 0,494 0,753 0,940 1,000 0,673 0,980 1,000 1,000 0,699

Switzerland 8 0,671 0,068 0,440 0,663 0,900 1,000 0,820 0,980 1,000 0,960 0,780

Netherlands 9 0,658 0,160 0,423 0,691 0,900 1,000 0,710 0,980 1,000 1,000 0,732

Austria 10 0,649 0,088 0,531 0,709 0,810 1,000 0,713 0,980 1,000 1,000 0,738

10

I A S A

І П С А

G8 Countries in Terms of Safety

Country

Se

cu

rity

Ran

k

Se

cu

rity

Ind

ex

(M

ink

ow

sk

iN

orm

)

Global Threats

En

erg

y S

ec

uri

ty I

nd

ex

Fo

otp

rin

t a

nd

bio

ca

pac

ity

Bala

nce

Ine

gu

ali

ty

(Gin

iIn

de

x)

Co

rru

pti

on

Pe

rce

pti

on

Wa

ter

Ac

ce

ss

CO

2 E

mis

sio

n

Ch

ild

Mo

rta

lity

Natu

ral C

ata

str

op

hes

Sta

te F

rag

ilit

y

Natu

ral D

isa

ste

rs

Canada 1 0,736 0,810 0,909 0,674 0,870 1,000 0,333 0,976 1,000 1,000 0,762

Japan 12 0,644 0,012 0,394 0,751 0,750 1,000 0,670 0,984 0,995 1,000 0,815

France 14 0,632 0,031 0,429 0,673 0,730 1,000 0,800 0,980 1,000 0,960 0,773

Germany 15 0,628 0,028 0,412 0,717 0,780 1,000 0,673 0,980 1,000 1,000 0,721

United

Kingdom

20 0,606 0,044 0,384 0,640 0,840 1,000 0,673 0,976 1,000 0,920 0,734

Italy 23 0,596 0,031 0,394 0,640 0,520 1,000 0,740 0,984 0,993 1,000 0,751

USA 32 0,546 0,028 0,449 0,592 0,720 1,000 0,313 0,972 0,998 0,920 0,721

Russia 63 0,428 0,562 0,225 0,601 0,230 0,970 0,647 0,928 0,999 0,720 0,321

G8

I A S A

І П С А

Postsocialist Countries in terms of

Safety

Country

Se

cu

rity

Ran

k

Se

cu

rity

Ind

ex

(M

ink

ow

sk

i

No

rm)

Global Threats

En

erg

y S

ecu

rity

Ind

ex

Fo

otp

rin

t a

nd

bio

cap

ac

ity

Ba

lan

ce

Ineg

ua

lity

(Gin

iIn

de

x)

Co

rru

pti

on

Pe

rce

pti

on

Wa

ter

Ac

ce

ss

CO

2 E

mis

sio

n

Ch

ild

Mo

rta

lity

Na

tura

l

Ca

tas

tro

ph

es

Sta

te F

rag

ilit

y

Na

tura

l D

isas

ters

Latvia 25 0,579 0,141 0,307 0,623 0,480 0,990 0,900 0,956 1,000 1,000 0,479

Slovakia 28 0,572 0,017 0,262 0,742 0,490 1,000 0,777 0,968 0,999 0,960 0,590

Lithuania 29 0,571 0,041 0,232 0,640 0,480 1,000 0,873 0,964 1,000 0,960 0,551

Poland 30 0,561 0,027 0,217 0,655 0,420 1,000 0,733 0,972 1,000 1,000 0,612

Czech

Republic

31 0,561 0,033 0,296 0,746 0,520 1,000 0,620 0,984 1,000 0,960 0,626

Bulgaria 33 0,536 0,081 0,145 0,708 0,410 0,990 0,817 0,940 1,000 0,920 0,506

Estonia 35 0,533 0,047 0,249 0,642 0,650 1,000 0,533 0,972 1,000 0,960 0,530

Croatia 36 0,532 0,052 0,225 0,710 0,410 1,000 0,823 0,972 1,000 0,800 0,603

Byelorus 38 0,509 0,018 0,123 0,703 0,210 1,000 0,780 0,952 1,000 0,880 0,421

Ukraine 50 0,466 0,010 0,106 0,719 0,270 0,960 0,767 0,932 1,000 0,800 0,379

Moldova 54 0,451 0,008 0,029 0,668 0,280 0,920 0,940 0,936 0,999 0,560 0,398

Romania 55 0,447 0,609 0,153 0,690 0,370 0,570 0,860 0,924 0,999 0,840 0,526

Russia 63 0,428 0,562 0,225 0,601 0,230 0,970 0,647 0,928 0,999 0,720 0,321

Georgia 69 0,401 0,144 0,056 0,596 0,340 0,820 0,973 0,820 0,994 0,600 0,498

Armenia 81 0,352 0,023 0,077 0,662 0,300 0,920 0,960 0,884 0,466 0,720 0,485

Azerbaijan 84 0,333 0,025 0,078 0,810 0,210 0,770 0,873 0,644 1,000 0,480 0,444

Uzbekistan 85 0,326 0,032 0,030 0,732 0,170 0,820 0,823 0,728 1,000 0,480 0,429

Kazakhstan 89 0,294 0,425 0,141 0,661 0,210 0,860 0,557 0,708 0,999 0,680 0,293

Tadjikistan 91 0,289 0,161 0,019 0,674 0,210 0,590 0,973 0,716 0,976 0,400 0,336

Turkmenistan 102 0,206 0,262 0,133 0,592 0,200 0,720 0,707 0,584 1,000 0,560 0,286

I A S A

І П С А

BRIC Countries in Terms of

Safety

Country

Se

cu

rity

Ra

nk

Se

cu

rity

Ind

ex

(M

ink

ow

sk

iN

orm

)

Global Threats

En

erg

y S

ec

uri

ty I

nd

ex

Fo

otp

rin

t a

nd

bio

ca

pa

cit

yB

ala

nc

e

Ine

qu

ali

ty

(Gin

iIn

de

x)

Co

rru

pti

on

Pe

rce

pti

on

Wa

ter

Ac

ce

ss

CO

2 E

mis

sio

n

Ch

ild

Mo

rta

lity

Natu

ral C

ata

str

op

hes

Sta

te F

rag

ilit

y

Nat

ura

l Dis

aste

rs

Brazil 49 0,469 0,170 0,249 0,420 0,350 0,900 0,940 0,868 0,999 0,840 0,569

Russia 63 0,428 0,562 0,225 0,601 0,230 0,970 0,647 0,928 0,999 0,720 0,321

China 73 0,382 0,066 0,095 0,553 0,350 0,770 0,873 0,892 0,997 0,600 0,600

India 75 0,377 0,122 0,056 0,675 0,350 0,860 0,960 0,704 0,994 0,440 0,522

BRIC

I A S A

І П С А

10 Least Safe Countries

Country

Sec

uri

ty

Ran

k

Se

cu

rity

Ind

ex

(M

ink

ow

skiN

orm

) Global Threats

En

erg

y S

ecu

rity

In

dex

Fo

otp

rin

t a

nd

bio

ca

pa

cit

yB

ala

nc

e

Ineq

uali

ty

(Gin

iIn

de

x)

Co

rru

pti

on

Pe

rce

pti

on

Wa

ter

Ac

ce

ss

CO

2 E

mis

sio

n

Ch

ild

Mo

rta

lity

Na

tura

l C

ata

str

op

he

s

Sta

te F

rag

ilit

y

Nat

ura

l Dis

aste

rs

Kenya 96 0,268 0,313 0,018 0,575 0,210 0,610 0,990 0,520 0,999 0,480 0,345

Zimbabve 97 0,261 0,267 0,009 0,390 0,210 0,810 0,973 0,472 0,999 0,320 0,076

Kameroon 98 0,256 0,329 0,039 0,554 0,240 0,660 0,990 0,404 1,000 0,360 0,381

Cambodia 99 0,237 0,285 0,043 0,596 0,200 0,410 0,997 0,428 0,993 0,440 0,445

Zambiya 100 0,231 0,347 0,019 0,579 0,260 0,580 0,993 0,272 1,000 0,320 0,268

Haiti 101 0,228 0,298 0,032 0,408 0,160 0,540 0,993 0,520 0,977 0,400 0,472

Turkmenista

n

102 0,206 0,262 0,133 0,592 0,200 0,720 0,707 0,584 1,000 0,560 0,286

Nigeria 103 0,203 0,375 0,022 0,563 0,220 0,480 0,970 0,224 1,000 0,240 0,376

Ethiopia 104 0,078 0,357 0,013 0,700 0,240 0,220 0,997 0,344 0,550 0,240 0,461

Mozambique 105 0,057 0,380 0,024 0,604 0,280 0,430 0,997 0,420 0,459 0,400 0,296

I A S A

І П С А

Internet-portal:

wdc.org.ua

Table 3. Cyclic character of economic developmentBig Kondratieff cycles

Number (n) of big

Kondratieff cycle in

generally accepted

chronology

Cycle designationTime interval of full

cycle

Time interval of

up wave of cycle

Time interval of

down wave of cycle

1 1779 – 1844/51 1779 – 1810/17 1810/17 – 1844/51

2 1844/51 – 1890/96 1844/51 – 1870/75 1870/75 – 1890/96

3 1890/96 – 1936/40 1890/96 – 1914/20 1914/20 – 1936/40

4 1936/40 – 1980/85 1936/40 – 1966/71 1966/71 – 1980/85

5 1980/85 – 2020/25 1980/85 – 2003/09 2003/09 – ???

0

1K

0

2K

0

3K

0

4K

0

5K 21

Big Kondratieff cycles in the XX-XXI centuries

22

co

st

of

cap

ital

3-rd cycle 4-th cycle 5-th cycle 6-th cycle

5-th technological

mode(microelectronics,

mobile communications,

Internet, computer)

6-th

technological

way

(bioengineering

, space

chemistry,

genetics, the

science of man)

years

23

5-7% of world GDP

Overcoming the world crisis

Periods of upwaves of Kondratieff cycles areusually accompanied by more serious socialdisruptions (revolutions, wars, etc.) than theperiods of downwaves. Hence, Kondratieff

cycles characterize not only economic, but alsosocio-political dynamics N. Коndratieff

This indicates the interconnection between two cyclic processes – development of world

economy and course of system world conflicts.24

Main assumptionThere is one more down wave in the Kondratieff cycle that

lasts for about 28 years, (1750-1779), and precedes the first up wave (1779 – 1810) identified by Kondratieff

Metric correspondence of length -down wave ( 28 years) (assumption) andfirst up wave ( 30 years) of N. Kondratieff

Innovative concept of J. Schupeter: “There exists infinite series of Kondratieff cycles” (30-s of the XX century)

F. Braudel considered Kondratieff waves as a variety of historic cycles and dated their origination several centuries earlier.

…

...

Ob

ject

ive

just

ify

ass

um

pti

on

s

25

Table 4. Modified sequence of big Kondratieff cycles

Number (n) of big

Kondratieff cycle

in a modified

sequence

Cycle designationTime interval of full

cycle

Time interval of

cycle upwave

Time interval of

cycle downwave

1 K 1 1750/55 – 1810/17 1750/55 – 1779/85 1779/85 – 1810/17

2 K 2 1810/17 – 1870/75 1810/17 – 1844/51 1844/51– 1870/75

3 K 3 1870/75 – 1914/20 1870/75 – 1890/96 1890/96– 1914/20

4 K 4 1914/20 – 1966/71 1914/20 – 1936/40 1936/40– 1966/71

5 K 5 1966/71 – 2003/09 1966/71 – 1980/85 1980/85– 2003/09

Generally accepted sequence:АВ = UPWAVE, DOWNWAVE ,

Modified sequence :ВА = DOWNWAVE, UPWAVE .

26

Overlapping of the sequence {Kn}n 1

and C5-wave on the time interval 1750 -1920

2 3; ;G C K K K K5 n 1n 1; ,

56,6y.k 5

1T C = T T T

3K K K1 2 3

k 5n ( (C )=3

27

Cycle Cycle Cycle

Overlapping of the sequence {Kn}n 1

and C6 -wave on the time interval 1920 -2008

5;G C K K K6 n 4n 1; , 43,5y.k 6

1T C = T T

2K K4 4

k 6n ( (C )=2

28

Cycle Cycle

The revealed regularity (processes synchronicity)

QUANTIZATION PRINCIPLE

The time intervals ∆(Cn), n 5,on which the wave Cnundergoes its five phases of evolution

(origin) > (growth > (culmination) > (decrease) > (decline)

Contain an integer number nk(∆(Cn)) of full K –cycles of the sequence {Kn}n 1.

MONOTONICITY PRINCIPLE

The average duration of Tk(∆(Cn) of one full K – cycle of the sequence {Kn}n 1

on time intervals ∆(Cn) decreases as n grows.

29

MAIN HYPOTHESIS

Since development of global economy and the course of systemic global conflicts are interdependent

components of the same process – evolutionary development of globalized society, the revealed regularity (synchronicity) of these processes on time intervals ∆(C5) и ∆(C6) as to obeying the

quantization and monotonicity principles holds true also on the time interval ∆(C7)

30

31

Scenario A of K - cycles course in the XXI century.

Distinction of "conflict of the XXI century" (critical zone)

Distinction of the

C7-wave

years

production ↓↑ consumption

32

Tk(∆(C7) )=28.3years3 K-cycles

33

Time intervals of the critical zones

of the XXI century

Scenario A

Scenario B

time

time

Additional conditions

Traditional notion about the average duration of Kondratieff cycle (40-60 years) (Confirmation of

Scenario A)

The modern concept on the acceleration of historical time (S. Kapitsa, 2004) (Confirmation of Scenario B)

Hypothesis on decreasing big Kondratieff cycles with acceleration of science and technical progress

(Yu. Yakovets, 2000) (Confirmation of Scenario B)

34

1. T (K6)=T(K7)=T(K8); 2. T(K6)=T(K7)<T(K8); 3. T(K6)=T(K8)<T(K7);

4. T(K6)>T(K7)=T(K8); 5. T(K6)=T(K7)>T(K8); 6. T(K6)=T(K8)>T(K7);

7.T(K7)=T(K8)>T(K6); 8.T(K6)<T(K7)<T(K8); 9.T(K6)<T(K8)<T(K7);

10.T(K7)<T(K6)<T(K8); 11.T(K7)<T(K8)<T(K6); 12.T(K8)<T(K7)<T(K6);

13.T(K8)<T(K6)<T(K7),

where T(K6)+T(K7)+T(K8)=T(C7)=85y.

Scenario B:possible relationships between T(K6),

T(K7), T(K8)

35

36

Fibonacci – dependence

T(C1) 13∙γk; T(C2) 8∙γk; T(C3) 5∙γk;

T(C4) 3∙γk; T(C5) 2∙γk; T(C6) 1∙γk;

T(C7) 1∙γk;

where γk =2TK (1750; 2092)

of life cycles of all Cn - waves

on the average duration of one full cycle of

modified sequence of big Kondratieff cycles

on the time interval since 1750 till 2092

37

Important corollary

The revealed coordination (synchronicity) of the world

economy development and the course of systemic global conflicts

may be interpreted as indirect confirmation of the correctness of construction of the models of big

Kondratieff cycles and C-waves

3. The Fibonacci dependence was revealed between C-cycles and K-cycles on the time interval 1750-2092г.г

2. In the XXI century most probable will be theoccurrence of three Kondratieff cycles withduration of 30 years.

1. The coordination of systemic world conflicts and Kondratieff cycles as interconnected fundamental properties of society was confirmed.

Conclusions

38

Any questions ?

Thank you for attention!

E-mail: ipsa@ntu-kpi.kiev.ua

http://www.ipsa.edu.ua

39