U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2016, 06:54 PM
 
276 posts, read 204,296 times
Reputation: 178

Advertisements

I feel as though India when you compare it with China is underperforming. They were both about equal in the 60s, probably India was better in some aspects. Very similar countries - large land masses, populations, rich in history and culture and both suffered at the hands of colonialism in the early 20th century.


Yes, China has it's issues and big issues to boot, but they just seem at the moment, and at least on the surface an overall better country compared to India. Which poses the question, would India would have benefitted with an authoritarian dictatorship like South Korea and Taiwan's before slowly evolving to a multi party, vibrant democracy? Things just seem to go very slowly in India, and whilst it still has the basic British setup, they can't seem to be able to convert that materially.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2016, 08:18 PM
 
1,378 posts, read 1,812,960 times
Reputation: 980
One thing I don't see mentioned in regards to the divergence between China and India is the role of the diaspora and the role that location played in China's more rapid economic advancement over India's. The Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia is extremely wealthy and are disproportionately represented in the business class as CEOs and shareholders. They played a major role early on in investing in China when Deng Xiaoping enacted his economic reforms. Furthermore, Hong Kong was also a major intermediary between China and the West and China was able to gain a lot of knowledge through HK and investment banks in HK helped finance China's rise. The Chinese diaspora was wealthy enough and willing enough to invest in China when it opened up. India's diaspora is also wealthy and successful especially in the West and Africa but they aren't disproportionately represented as CEOs of large companies in the countries they reside in unlike the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia which means they wouldn't have the power to make decisions to invest large amounts of corporate capital in India unlike their Chinese counterpart.

Furthermore, China unlike India has a relatively easier access to wealthy markets. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all just a few hours away from China. The United States is also a major player in East Asia and readily wanted access to the Chinese market. Why do you think China's coastal region is so much wealthier than the rest of China? India on the other hand is surrounded by incredibly poor countries such as Burma, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. None of these poor countries would be suitable for helping India rise rapidly.

I don't think it's really fair to compare India and China's economic development since China has some advantages over India that can't be readily replicated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2016, 04:03 AM
 
5,823 posts, read 10,147,934 times
Reputation: 4531
It's because of the elephant in the room , the pervasive caste system in India , but hush hush, officially India is a "parliamentary democracy" and China "a communist dictatorship"...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2016, 04:28 AM
 
4,665 posts, read 3,607,316 times
Reputation: 7377
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak View Post
One thing I don't see mentioned in regards to the divergence between China and India is the role of the diaspora and the role that location played in China's more rapid economic advancement over India's. The Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia is extremely wealthy and are disproportionately represented in the business class as CEOs and shareholders. They played a major role early on in investing in China when Deng Xiaoping enacted his economic reforms. Furthermore, Hong Kong was also a major intermediary between China and the West and China was able to gain a lot of knowledge through HK and investment banks in HK helped finance China's rise. The Chinese diaspora was wealthy enough and willing enough to invest in China when it opened up. India's diaspora is also wealthy and successful especially in the West and Africa but they aren't disproportionately represented as CEOs of large companies in the countries they reside in unlike the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia which means they wouldn't have the power to make decisions to invest large amounts of corporate capital in India unlike their Chinese counterpart.

Furthermore, China unlike India has a relatively easier access to wealthy markets. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all just a few hours away from China. The United States is also a major player in East Asia and readily wanted access to the Chinese market. Why do you think China's coastal region is so much wealthier than the rest of China? India on the other hand is surrounded by incredibly poor countries such as Burma, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. None of these poor countries would be suitable for helping India rise rapidly.

I don't think it's really fair to compare India and China's economic development since China has some advantages over India that can't be readily replicated.
Of course if the roles were reversed, you would claim that democracy, however creaky the Indian version, is superior to Chinese Authoritarianism.

I think it has a lot to do with historical tradition and mindset. The Chinese have always thought of themselves as a premier power on the global stage. Despite the last few centuries, it has never abandoned the idea that China is a unitary state, China is great and that it will regain its role at the head of the bus. I m not sure India has any of this tradition.

The Chinese always want to take mastery of any technology, while the Indians are happy just to buy it. Looking at their military industrial complex and it's pretty obvious one is destined to be a superpower, and the other might just be a regional power at best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2016, 12:32 PM
 
1,378 posts, read 1,812,960 times
Reputation: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone View Post
Of course if the roles were reversed, you would claim that democracy, however creaky the Indian version, is superior to Chinese Authoritarianism.

I think it has a lot to do with historical tradition and mindset. The Chinese have always thought of themselves as a premier power on the global stage. Despite the last few centuries, it has never abandoned the idea that China is a unitary state, China is great and that it will regain its role at the head of the bus. I m not sure India has any of this tradition.

The Chinese always want to take mastery of any technology, while the Indians are happy just to buy it. Looking at their military industrial complex and it's pretty obvious one is destined to be a superpower, and the other might just be a regional power at best.
I don't think Indian democracy or Chinese authoritarianism are better at generating economic growth. Economic growth is often but not always independent of the type of government. In the past for example, North Korea grew a lot faster than South Korea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2016, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Jersey
2,296 posts, read 3,395,026 times
Reputation: 2031
You guys are looking in the wrong places.

There are several reasons with the main one being that China opened itself up for business in 1978, while India didn't start doing so until 1991. Due to a complex regulations and tax system, India could barely be considered a single market today (although there a few reforms in these areas have recently been implemented or are soon going to be.).

Five things that China does particularly better than India is expidiously mobilizing resources/making decisions, appropriating land, managing/supporting state owned or supported enterprises, injecting capital into it's own economy, and educating its citizens (arguments about indoctrination aside). China had a really winning combo of infrastructure, FDI, state investments, and easy credit.

Some things that India has going for it is an economy that isn't as heavily dependent on the government, has a more transparent/independent markets, has a more transparent banking system, has a more transparent legal system, and it's less reliance on debt to fuel economic growth.

Ultimately, India isn't going to develop with some Chinese style state capitalistism/neo-mercantile system due to differences in political systems but rather one where the government basically creates a good environment for economic growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2016, 06:58 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,509 posts, read 70,430,585 times
Reputation: 76472
Because China moved to secure its energy resources, which is needed for growth. They've been locking up oil sources around the world that haven't already been sewn up by the US. India doesn't have the energy to pursue growth at the near-breakneck speed they'd otherwise have the capacity to do. And weather changes due to global climate change will slow them down, as they will everyone, pretty much, anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2016, 07:21 PM
 
1,089 posts, read 477,070 times
Reputation: 739
A lot has to do with India's national complacency. Indians do not see themselves as backward, and there is lack of motivation to develop their own nation. Then, how can India develop? There are reports of high GDP growth but lack of visible progress.

Read Indian's comments vs non-indians comments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSEW1O0ppxU
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2016, 10:37 AM
 
12,253 posts, read 18,390,529 times
Reputation: 19074
I think the premise is incorrect. The only thing that China and India have in common is the mass of population. Otherwise, right now India is basically where China was about 20 years go - ready to explode economically. On the contrast, China now is about where Japan was 20 years ago - ready to collapse economically.
The future will tell, both countries are overheating somewhat, with inflation and overbuilding roaring it's ugly head. The only difference is we just don't know how much in trouble China is economically, as the information is government controlled. India has infrastructure issues, but it has some stronger ability for growth in the future than China has and has some good solid foundations in IT right now. The future is on India's side - I see it surpassing China economically in a decade
And yes I have been to both countries quite frequently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2016, 11:09 AM
 
1,826 posts, read 1,248,326 times
Reputation: 1822
I believe ethnicity can be playing a large part here. Not because some ethnic cultures are superior for growth, or something else along those lines, but because ethnic ally diverse states have historically done relatively badly with achieving wealth. The only exceptions I can think of are Singapore, which owes a lot to its location, and the Gulf Statues that attract a lot of wealthy and imports a lot of laborers from Southern Asia.

I can't think of many reasons, however, except from colonialism, but countries like Chile, South Korea, Singapore, Bahamas, Israel, Australia, America, and large portions of Eastern Europe are also post-colonial states to an extent. A commonly cited idea is that in some multicultural states ethnic squabble or "competition" between different groups (which don't have to be ethnic but can be) hinder development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak View Post
I don't think Indian democracy or Chinese authoritarianism are better at generating economic growth. Economic growth is often but not always independent of the type of government. In the past for example, North Korea grew a lot faster than South Korea.
Well, keep in mind that both Koreans were dictatorships before the 90s and North Korea's was found unsubstainable, being built upon Soviet aid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top