What's new

The Case for India: Free to Succeed

IndoCarib

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
10,784
Reaction score
-14
Country
India
Location
Antigua And Barbuda
By Michael Schuman Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011

If I have to endure another corporate executive blindly praising China and reflexively trashing India, I might actually gag. I'm often trapped in conversations with suits that follow the same, excruciating pattern. First, they swoon over China's stellar roadways and airports, the superior wisdom of Beijing's policy mandarins and the clinical efficiency of its authoritarian regime. Then they turn 180 degrees to rail against the feebleness of India's infrastructure, the ineptitude of New Delhi's bureaucrats and the convoluted course of Indian democratic politics. How, they ask, can India ever catch up?

When comparing India and China, most economists and business folk simply look at the wrong things. Beijing's bureaucrats may be better at building roads, but government dictates and human-rights abuses won't ensure the country's economic success. The past half-century of Asian economic history tells us that sustained development ultimately depends on entrepreneurship, a strong private sector, rule of law and political openness. India, not China, possesses these crucial building blocks of economic progress. And that is why India will overtake China as the world's premier emerging economy. (Graphic: How the Giants Measure Up.)

When I make this argument, I usually get bewildered stares — probably the same response you're having right now. Yes, I can see why many people believe India is stuck sucking fumes behind China's great industrial machine. The Indian economy hasn't been growing as quickly as China's, nor has its industry imprinted as deep a mark on the global economy. India has more than twice as many people trapped in desperate poverty, while its fractious democracy entangles policymaking in long-winded debates and ideological tussles unthinkable within China's autocratic government. Beijing and Shanghai are connected by high-speed trains; their thoroughfares are lined with modern office towers. In New Delhi and Mumbai, the dusty lanes remain lined with barefoot beggars and cluttered with soot-belching motorized rickshaws.

But to discover which nation will win out over the long haul, we need to dig past surface appearances, down into the guts of the two economies, to learn how they tick. China's economy appears lovely on the outside but is rotten at the core, like a brightly polished Ferrari with the innards of a Pinto. India's growth engine may occasionally get smeared with manure and lost in detours, but check under the hood, and you'll find it is much more powerful than it looks — more powerful, in fact, than China's.
(Read "India vs. China: Whose Economy Is Better?")

Part of the reason is simple mathematics. Since the Chinese economy is more than three times the size of India's, the Middle Kingdom's growth rate will inevitably slow, allowing India to close the gap. For a developing economy, China is aging rapidly because of the distortions caused by its controversial one-child policy, giving India a demographic advantage in generating future growth. Much more important, and contrary to what many believe, India possesses a superior economic model to China's — sturdier, healthier and better equipped to maintain rapid progress over the long term.

That's because India's economy has balanced sources of growth. Strong domestic demand drives India's GDP, offering the economy protection from external shocks. China has no such cushion. Its economy is overly dependent on investment and exports. Economists believe China needs to encourage more domestic private consumption — to "rebalance" — to promote sustainable economic growth. In other words, China has to become more Indian. That became obvious during the Great Recession. India charged through the downturn because the resilient Indian consumer propelled the economy forward. When the financial crisis hit China, however, Beijing was forced to unleash a tsunami of government stimulus and credit from state-controlled banks to keep growth going. Even though the world's economists lauded the effectiveness of China's recession-fighting methods, these were, in fact, a sign of the economy's frailties.

Money Talks

Beijing's stimulus effort also exposed another Chinese weakness — a faulty, immature financial system. Though the state owns large chunks of the banking sectors in both countries, China's bureaucrats interfere much more intrusively in the credit decisions of its financial institutions, turning them into little more than arms of government policy. That makes Chinese banks more vulnerable and less efficient in allocating resources. Indian banks, on the other hand, are run on a more commercial basis. They have greater expertise in risk management and credit analysis, and as a result, they tend to lend money more intelligently and have stronger balance sheets. We cannot understate how important that is for India's future performance. "Indian banks are stronger [than China's]," explains Mark Young, head of Asian banks at rating agency Fitch in Singapore. "There is a clear link between the health of the banking sector and the capability to support economic growth."

India's corporate sector beats out China's too. Indian companies are more dynamic, better managed and financially sounder than Chinese enterprises. According to data crunched by investment bank CLSA, Indian firms outperform China's, with both wider profit margins and higher returns on equity. That's not about to change. Chinese corporations are not only burdened by more debt, they are adding debt at an alarming rate. Fitch figures that at the end of 2010, bank credit represented 139% of GDP in China compared with a mere 49% in India.

We can also make the case that India is more entrepreneurial than China. Indian firms like Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services and Wipro practically invented the entire offshore IT-services industry — a sector China is now attempting to copy. At their ever expanding campuses, these companies train and absorb thousands of new hires each year while extending their reach to every corner of the globe — management challenges Chinese executives would struggle to tackle. Arvind Subramanian, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., says the evidence can be found by evaluating how companies from China and India operate outside their home markets. Indian firms, he notes, not only invest more heavily overseas than China's (as a percentage of GDP), but they also tend to operate core manufacturing and service businesses in advanced economies. China, meanwhile, has focused outward investment on natural resources in Africa and other emerging economies. That, Subramanian contends, shows Indian managers can better compete head-to-head with the world's top CEOs in the most demanding markets. (See TIME's special report "India Charges Ahead.")

Such management expertise will prove decisive as China and India lose their low-cost competitiveness. The only way either economy can keep growth roaring is to develop high-tech industries and innovative companies — a difficult leap that demands the type of smartly run companies India already has. It also requires democracy and civil liberties. By censoring the Internet, controlling the press and stifling debate, Beijing is suppressing the open exchange of information and risk-taking spirit necessary for entrepreneurial innovation. Indians, enjoying full freedom of expression and association, face no such hurdles. These basic rights in India, furthermore, are protected by an independent judiciary that can be trusted to uphold the rule of law — a crucial ingredient for economic progress.

Whether you believe India or China will own the future depends on whether you think the state or the market can generate the best economic results over the decades to come. True, China's government is more competent than India's. But can China's bureaucrats take the economy into the ranks of the most advanced? History tells us the answer is no. I dare you to name one example of an authoritarian, state-dominated economy that developed creative, innovative industries and world-beating companies. China faces that risk. On the other hand, we can make a long list of democratic, market-oriented economies with well-managed private companies that have excelled. There is every reason to believe India will be one of them.

So don't be fooled by Shanghai skyscrapers and Beijing propaganda, or misled by the chaos of Mumbai's streets and India's tendency for self-deprecation. China's state may give it an edge today. But India's private economy will give it the edge tomorrow




Read more: The Case for India: Free to Succeed - China's Century — or India's? - TIME #ixzz1dKC3nXbA
 
.
Well even I have trouble believing the article to be frank.


But let us hope for the best and work assiduously towards achieving that.
 
.
Well even I have trouble believing the article to be frank.


But let us hope for the best and work assiduously towards achieving that.

The only place success comes before work is in a dictionary. And in this case it is time for sleep before work ;)
 
.
Merits aside, I just hope this article doesn't further give impetus for others (you know who) to throw mud on India on this forum.
 
.
Merits aside, I just hope this article doesn't further give impetus for others (you know who) to throw mud on India on this forum.

Expect a lot of that. Some people will say its a western propaganda others will highlight Indian poverty rates and malnutrition
 
. . . .
this article is full of loopholes,not even one point holds water.but anyway you can keep focuing on building up your"democracy" while we concentrate on our infrastructure and enonomy.

Full of loopholes ? Why for a change this article praises India ? WE will build our economy, infra and democracy. You can build just the first two
 
.
haha,I kind of become lazy to refute those points all together,too long an article.tell me one thing that you think is the absolute truth in your article.
 
.
By Michael Schuman Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011

Beijing's bureaucrats may be better at building roads, but government dictates and human-rights abuses won't ensure the country's economic success. The past half-century of Asian economic history tells us that sustained development ultimately depends on entrepreneurship, a strong private sector, rule of law and political openness. India, not China, possesses these crucial building blocks of economic progress. And that is why India will overtake China as the world's premier emerging economy.

That shows the author knows nothing about China,China used to be a strict ditatorship,no doubt about it,but now China is not as a dictatorship as India is.China does Capitalism better than most western countries,now the ratio of private factor is the biggest in China's economy.China's rapid growth has lasted for more than 3 decades by now and still is going without any sign of letting up,if still cant be called sustainable,then I really wonder how long is it in your mind.

To be frank it's not dictatorship or any political system alone that decides a country's economy as you stated.cultures,ethnics,religions....many many things combined together make things work,look at early development of other Eastern Asian countries or regions,Taiwan,South Korea,Singapore..they were all kind of dictatorship when they first embarked economic take off,much more stricter than today's China. people can see that China is moving towards that direction to be more liberal every year,China's system is never stagnant and standstill,it always changes with the overal situation to fit it self in the best position for the development.and China most likely will follow other Eastern Asian path,cause our cultures,values and ethics are so similiar.systems can be taken and followed anywhere in the world,but what works here in East Asia,Japan in 60-70s,Korea,Taiwan,Hongkong,Singapore in 80-90s,China 90-now..show the world that this part of the world follows a different path.
 
.
people have different opinions but of course all of them are arguable

"Government ownership of key strategic industries is why China will dominate. Why? Private corporations care not for the general welfare, only for their own welfare, which is many times at odds with the general welfare. So when government owns essentially all the big corporations in all the key strategic sectors like central banking, commercial and investment banking, armaments, power generation and distribution, oil and petrochemicals, telecommunications, coal, aviation and shipping industries, as it does in China, government can make sure that the corporations in these industries do not act against the general welfare assuming that government itself is acting in the interest of the general welfare.(This control of the strategic industries is so complete, 99 of the largest corporations in China trading in the stock exchanges are majority owned by Chinese government).

And all this ownership - including especially ownership of central, commercial, and investment banking - generates vast wealth and income for government way beyond what mere taxes could bring. This is actually a good thing, since it makes the potential problem of sovereign debt pretty much a problem that never materializes.

Not only that, but ownership of central, commercial, and investment banking results in more credit to credit-worthy business than would otherwise occur, resulting in more economic activity than would otherwise occur, resulting in more tax revenue than would otherwise occur, even without raising tax rates. What this means is that higher rates of non-performing loans can in the long run pay for themselves via the long term accumulating benefits of all this higher level of economic activity that would not occur from private ownership of banking. Note that government ownership of central banking is a backstop to all of this, providing the guarantee of never ending economic growth that is larger than could otherwise be."


"The Beijing Consensus is a very difficult model to emulate for other developing countries let alone the developed world. It takes great leadership and benevolent leaders in the government to think of people's welfare first before themselves. It takes alot of planning for the development of the countries for the betterment of society at large. The central government must be upright and transparent (at least among their politburo) in their actions. Corruption, nepotism, greed, waste and other vices are enemies of society and must be a goal of the central government to destroy and eliminate.

The idea of the Beijing Consensus is very much link to the Confucius ideology wherein the central government is perceive as the strong father and the general population of which must abide by the philosophy of 'felial piety.' The term 'felial piety' is a very difficult concept for people living outside of East Asia to comprehend. That is why I said that the Beijing Consensus is not easy to emulate without first understanding Confucianism. It is not a question of sacrifing one rights but rather if your welfare is taken care of one should not question your father's authority. Most Chinese at this juncture care less of free speech and freedom to elect their leader. The Chinese people thrive in any situation so long as the condition is stable, meaning a strong government that would leave them to do their thing.


"the west gave the concept of "democracy" a structure, i.e. multi-party, electoral, very early on does not mean that "democracy" can have only one form.

Luckily, Chinese characters for "democracy" is not loaded with that structure. Its meaning can be expanded to mean that citizens who have the capability, intelligence and the ability to serve in the government system should have equal access and opportunity to be in the system. In fact, there are better ways to realize this. Western-style, multi-party and electoral system is but one way.

But this Western-style democracy requires a country who adopts this system to have a cultural/religious base (Judeo-Christian combined with Creeko-Roman individualistic thought process) similar to that of the west. Countries that do not have this base have failed to achieve results like that of the west. Worst still, countries that copied this western-style democracy either do not have the capability to critique and to debate its inner working parts, or mangled it with their indigenious stuffs.

Chinese now believe that a government system is not a stagnant system; it needs to be flexible and be modified as situation changes. A system that the people cannot modified or modified successfully is a "failed" system."
 
.
all can see that today's China's investment priorities are infrastructure(China now has the longest roads,railways,subway length ,bridges,shiplanes...tons of new futuristic post modern railway stations and airports sprout around all over the country). education:the government invests heavily in education,now China has most college graduates,post graduates and students studying overseas in the world and recent international test results show that Chinese middle school students are the best in the world.education investment accounts for one third of average Chinese household expenditure due to the long holding Confucian belief that education is everything. Science and Research.China has shot into second place in the world in terms of the number of scientific articles that are published in international magazines and the country's scientists are set to take the top spot from the United States in the next few years, China now is the second largest R&D spender in the world.

all of above show that China does have an eye in the future,all of those government priority money spending are the investment for the country future.so when speaking of sustainable development.China has been always in action,and some country always talks but did nothing to ensure it should happen.we Chinese strongly believe that your future is what you are doing now,there wont be windfall for anyone.
 
.
Expect a lot of that. Some people will say its a western propaganda others will highlight Indian poverty rates and malnutrition

Just curious, do people still judge others by their caste status or religious belief or social status rather than the actually characters of them?
 
.
Part of the reason is simple mathematics. Since the Chinese economy is more than three times the size of India's, the Middle Kingdom's growth rate will inevitably slow, allowing India to close the gap. For a developing economy, China is aging rapidly because of the distortions caused by its controversial one-child policy, giving India a demographic advantage in generating future growth. Much more important, and contrary to what many believe, India possesses a superior economic model to China's — sturdier, healthier and better equipped to maintain rapid progress over the long term.

the west has been saying that for 3 decades,still the Chinese eonomy is racing forward.of cause no country's eonomy can forever grow at double digit speed.it goes without saying and you dont have to tell us this.but it doesnt mean you can follow the same path to catch up,China's past achievement is a sure thing,a fact.your future's development is not,it's too early to take it for granted,it requires hard working people,good government management,peaceful international enviornment....so many factors are so unpredictable in the future.

as for the aging population,yes,in about 20 years China may have the problem.so did it happen to all developed countries.by then,one thing we dont have to worry about is unemployment,ha,and China's huge wealth and high salary rate will attract all surplus laborers from neighboring countries,including India.China has a lot of populous neighbors who have severe unemployment problems especially when the time comes that their young population reach the peak in 10-20 years.

plus,by then,China,just like what happens in other developed countries,can use cheap foreign laborers without burdenning with expensive insurance,medicare,retirement pension....that will save the country huge amount of money.and Indian government also should know,young people will grow old,if you really care long term development.first,what would you do to deal with possible massive unemployment when your working population reach the peak.that will become a very unstable factor for your nation,and what would you do when your young grow old.you can not make them work and kill them all,so how do you manage to support them when the time comes??
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom