I am not an economist but I follow this blog (almost) religiously. I enjoyed this post in particular because I am from an oil producing country (the first one the list above :-). I must confess, however, that I found this post and the associated briefing note (by Masami Kojima) to be somewhat "confusing". For instance, if vulnerability is defined as "the share of GDP spent on net oil imports" then shouldn't that be a number equal or greater than zero (I mean I can't fathom how u can spend "negative" money on something...but, again, I am not an economist). The other aspect I would like to understand is how ΔV correlates to the other common KPIs of socio-economic development. For instance, the study mentions that Angola and Mauritania were the only 2 countries where the consumption effect was negative in 2003–2008 period. Now, from a mathematical perspective, that simply means that they're producing more domestically than consuming, right? What are the other economic implications? e.g. did the average Angolan and Mauritanian become more economically-empowered over that 5-year period? Did inequality drop as a their countries' economies gradually became more "immune" or resilient to higher oil prices? Were more jobs created as more GDP was "freed" (in principle) to bolster other sectors of the economy? Perhaps the challenge here is to explain how all those ΔV, ΔP, ΔC figures translate in very practical terms... Finally, is high vulnerability always a bad thing? Is it possible that in some cases it represents an improvement in manufacturing technology via, for instance, increased investments in certain industrial processes that will bring net positive effects and overall economic benefits in the long(er) run?