ChinaToday
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2011
- Messages
- 4,557
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
India cannot compete with China's 'efficient' system of corruption, a British academic told a conference in Brussels. PublicServiceEurope.com was there to document the debate
India is simply too democratic to take full advantage of its economic potential, a conference in Brussels heard this week. Gross domestic product growth will continue to lag behind that of China because India pays more attention to minorities and to the rule of law, according to Matthew McCartney - director of contemporary south Asian studies at Britain's Oxford University.
While both countries suffer from high levels of corruption, China's one party system has a "more efficient" business-friendly system for paying backhanders. In India, on the other hand, corruption is "unpredictable" and is seen as more of a tax on investment - McCartney said.
Talking at the 'India goes global' conference hosted by the Friends of Europe think-tank, the academic said China's no-nonsense, centralised state had been more successful at turning growth into poverty reduction. "China has been much better at controlling conflict and strikes," he said. Beijing has also imposed conditions on foreign investment, such as technology transfer agreements and joint ventures with local companies, unlike India.
"The strong centralised Communist Party has efficiently organised corruption," McCartney said. Large-scale infrastructure projects such as dams are simply forced through in China whereas the Indian government struggles to push past "populist, fragmented" interest groups. "For all developed countries, democracy and property rights have been a product of economic development - not a pre-condition," McCartney said.
India's strong democratic institutions were likely to be a "handicap" to future growth rather than a boost, he predicted. "Good democracies emerge as a consequence of development," he said. "If you look at the statistics you will see that it is difficult to find a link between democracy and growth." Rather than plough money into democracy in under-developed nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the international community would do better to investment in other areas - such as the education of girls, he suggested.
Historically speaking, countries that have experienced large leaps forward in economic terms have not been particularly democratic at the time - he pointed out. As an example he took the United Kingdom of the 1830s, when the industrial revolution was in full swing. At the time, only 1 per cent to 2 per cent of the population had the right to vote. His comments led a former official of the European External Action Service, the European Union's diplomatic corps, to wonder out loud if Europe was not "too democratic" to achieve its growth goals. Does the EU need a dictatorship to redress its downward spiral?
"I hate hearing democracy knocked," retorted Naina Lal Kidwai, president of the federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. What was important was a "combination of democracy and leadership", she said. "What we have to knock is coalition governments not democracy per se."
Talking at the conference interval, McCartney told PublicServiceEurope.com that despite his presentation he was a "big fan of democracy". Governance by the people was however more likely to "stick" in countries that had achieved a certain level of per capita income, he said, citing statistical research going back more than 200 years. Countries can swing between democracy and dictatorship almost at random, he maintained. Democracies can be found in poor countries and rich countries, but they are more likely to be enduring in wealthy countries.
Playing devil's advocate, PublicServiceEurope.com asked McCartney if his "too much democracy" argument was not strikingly similar to that used by Adolf Hitler during his rise to power in the 1930s. There were simply too many political parties in Germany for its own good, Hitler said. "It is often the case that a small element of truth can be distorted by people for their own aims," McCartney replied.
Read more: India 'too democratic' to overtake China as economic superpower - Public Service Europe
India is simply too democratic to take full advantage of its economic potential, a conference in Brussels heard this week. Gross domestic product growth will continue to lag behind that of China because India pays more attention to minorities and to the rule of law, according to Matthew McCartney - director of contemporary south Asian studies at Britain's Oxford University.
While both countries suffer from high levels of corruption, China's one party system has a "more efficient" business-friendly system for paying backhanders. In India, on the other hand, corruption is "unpredictable" and is seen as more of a tax on investment - McCartney said.
Talking at the 'India goes global' conference hosted by the Friends of Europe think-tank, the academic said China's no-nonsense, centralised state had been more successful at turning growth into poverty reduction. "China has been much better at controlling conflict and strikes," he said. Beijing has also imposed conditions on foreign investment, such as technology transfer agreements and joint ventures with local companies, unlike India.
"The strong centralised Communist Party has efficiently organised corruption," McCartney said. Large-scale infrastructure projects such as dams are simply forced through in China whereas the Indian government struggles to push past "populist, fragmented" interest groups. "For all developed countries, democracy and property rights have been a product of economic development - not a pre-condition," McCartney said.
India's strong democratic institutions were likely to be a "handicap" to future growth rather than a boost, he predicted. "Good democracies emerge as a consequence of development," he said. "If you look at the statistics you will see that it is difficult to find a link between democracy and growth." Rather than plough money into democracy in under-developed nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the international community would do better to investment in other areas - such as the education of girls, he suggested.
Historically speaking, countries that have experienced large leaps forward in economic terms have not been particularly democratic at the time - he pointed out. As an example he took the United Kingdom of the 1830s, when the industrial revolution was in full swing. At the time, only 1 per cent to 2 per cent of the population had the right to vote. His comments led a former official of the European External Action Service, the European Union's diplomatic corps, to wonder out loud if Europe was not "too democratic" to achieve its growth goals. Does the EU need a dictatorship to redress its downward spiral?
"I hate hearing democracy knocked," retorted Naina Lal Kidwai, president of the federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. What was important was a "combination of democracy and leadership", she said. "What we have to knock is coalition governments not democracy per se."
Talking at the conference interval, McCartney told PublicServiceEurope.com that despite his presentation he was a "big fan of democracy". Governance by the people was however more likely to "stick" in countries that had achieved a certain level of per capita income, he said, citing statistical research going back more than 200 years. Countries can swing between democracy and dictatorship almost at random, he maintained. Democracies can be found in poor countries and rich countries, but they are more likely to be enduring in wealthy countries.
Playing devil's advocate, PublicServiceEurope.com asked McCartney if his "too much democracy" argument was not strikingly similar to that used by Adolf Hitler during his rise to power in the 1930s. There were simply too many political parties in Germany for its own good, Hitler said. "It is often the case that a small element of truth can be distorted by people for their own aims," McCartney replied.
Read more: India 'too democratic' to overtake China as economic superpower - Public Service Europe
