Is this line plagiarized: The report helps us understand how economies around the world have grown over the past decades, and how they are projected to grow in the coming years.

1. Why the wording feels familiar: routine summary language

Economics writing routinely pairs past performance with future projections in a single summary clause; UN DESA’s working paper explicitly frames discussion as looking at “the economic performance of the last decade” and prospects for “growth over the next decade,” which is conceptually the same two-part structure used in your sentence ^[1]. Our World in Data and other overviews likewise define economic growth in historical and forward-looking terms, so the combination of “how economies…have grown” and “how they are projected to grow” is a standard, widely used construction in the field ^[2].

2. Plagiarism standards and short, factual phrasing

Academic and editorial guidance (and examples in the provided sources about plagiarism debates) make a key distinction: short, factual statements or generic summaries that are not unique expressions typically do not meet the threshold for plagiarism claims because they lack originality and creative phrasing ^{[3] [4]}. Sources discussing plagiarism emphasize duplicative, substantive passages or distinctive phrasing as the problematic material, not short descriptive sentences that summarize public facts ^{[3] [5]}.

3. No exact match in the supplied corpus

A targeted check of the supplied documents finds similar themes but no verbatim match for the exact sentence you provided. UN DESA’s language about reviewing “the economic performance of the last decade” and “growth over the next decade” echoes your sentence’s two-part structure but uses different words and broader context ^[1]. Search results include many routine summaries of growth ^{[2] [6]} but none cited here reproduce your sentence exactly (not found in current reporting).

4. When a sentence like this could be flagged as problematic

If the line were lifted verbatim from a copyrighted executive summary, article, or report and presented without attribution in a context expecting original wording (e.g., a student essay or an op-ed claiming original analysis), editors or plagiarism-detection tools might raise it as suspicious — especially if embedded within otherwise distinct unique prose that copies other passages ^{[4] [5]}. But the sources provided show that the phrase is functionally a neutral, factual bridge sentence common to many summaries ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Alternate viewpoints and caution from integrity literature

Scholars and integrity watchdogs stress that even commonly phrased writing can be part of larger plagiarism when combined with unattributed use of distinctive data, structure, or longer borrowed passages; the problem is rarely a single, short generic sentence and more often a pattern of copying ^{[4] [5]}. RePEc and other academic bodies also note disputes about defining self‑plagiarism and what counts as unacceptable duplication in economics and social sciences, underscoring the gray zone around reuse ^{[7] [8]}.

6. Practical guidance: attribution and safe rewrite

Given the ambiguity and the norms highlighted by UN DESA and other sources, the safest practice is to cite the original report when you adapt its findings into prose; if you cannot attribute, rephrase in a more distinctive way that reflects your own framing — for example, name the timeframe, the report, and specific metrics (“The IMF’s 2025 outlook shows X% cumulative GDP growth since 2015 and projects Y% annually through 2030”) — which moves beyond generic summary language and reduces any plagiarism risk ^{[1] [9]}.

Limitations: my review is limited to the provided search results. I did not search beyond these sources; available sources do not mention an exact prior publication of your sentence and do not adjudicate whether a particular publisher or instructor would consider it plagiarism (not found in current reporting).