|
It has been fashionable to categorise countries as under-developed, developing or developed. Per
capita steel consumption, in spite of the global technological changes of the past two decades, remains an indicator of a
nation’s industrialisation and development. Additionally, consumption pattern of long products and flat products is
an indication of the path taken for development. In early stages of development, bulk of steel requirement is for long products
for infrastructure and basic industries. Demand for flat products increases as the country gets developed and the need for
white goods and consumer products rises.
It is generally accepted that 80 to 85 % long products are needed in under-developed countries, about 60 to 65 % in
developing countries and 30 to 35% in developed countries. Further, per capita steel consumption is generally 5 to 50 kg in
under-developed, 50 – 250 kg in developing and over 250 kg in developed nations. These are shown in Charts 1 & 2
|
|
| Chart 1: Development and Long & Flat product usage |
Thermex Rebar News Update
Thermex Q & T Technology
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chart 2: Nation Development & per capita steel consumption |
Today, a per capita steel consumption of 400 to 500 kg is considered the saturation point –
except for countries with small land areas coupled with large population. While the world average
is around 145 kg, the consumption data on a few countries is: Singapore 1200 kg, South Korea & Taiwan 860 to 900 kg, Germany
540 kg, USA 410 kg, Malaysia 345 kg, Thailand 150 kg, China 160 kg, Vietnam 48
kg, and India 29 kg only - which is just above the average level in Africa.
What
do these figures convey about India?
One, the present 29 kg per capita steel
consumption, a level of an under-developed nation, indicates that no meaningful infrastructural development has occurred as
a whole. Two, distribution of long and flat products consumed in the country is rather lopsided for the present level of development
– 45 % long versus 55 % flat, which is indicative of a nearly developed country. Ideally, the reverse is desired.
Viewed together these two factors suggest
that India has got its priorities wrong
in the 50 year period since 1947. We thus have small pockets of highly developed areas where the demand for cars and white
goods is high alongside major and large tracts that are under-developed. A comparison between China
and India will highlight this.
|
|
|
|
|
