Can India Overtake China?

EnlightenedMonk

Member of The Month JULY 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
3,831
Likes
24
Can India Overtake China?

What's the fastest route to economic development? Welcome foreign direct investment (FDI), says China, and most policy experts agree. But a comparison with long-time laggard India suggests that FDI is not the only path to prosperity. Indeed, India's homegrown entrepreneurs may give it a long-term advantage over a China hamstrung by inefficient banks and capital markets.

Walk into any Wal-Mart and you won't be surprised to see the shelves sagging with Chinese-made goods-everything from shoes and garments to toys and electronics. But the ubiquitous "Made in China" label obscures an important point: Few of these products are made by indigenous Chinese companies. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a single homegrown Chinese firm that operates on a global scale and markets its own products abroad.

That is because China's export-led manufacturing boom is largely a creation of foreign direct investment (FDI), which effectively serves as a substitute for domestic entrepreneurship. During the last 20 years, the Chinese economy has taken off, but few local firms have followed, leaving the country's private sector with no world-class companies to rival the big multinationals.

India has not attracted anywhere near the amount of FDI that China has. In part, this disparity reflects the confidence international investors have in China's prospects and their skepticism about India's commitment to free-market reforms. But the FDI gap is also a tale of two diasporas. China has a large and wealthy diaspora that has long been eager to help the motherland, and its money has been warmly received. By contrast, the Indian diaspora was, at least until recently, resented for its success and much less willing to invest back home. New Delhi took a dim view of Indians who had gone abroad, and of foreign investment generally, and instead provided a more nurturing environment for domestic entrepreneurs.

In the process, India has managed to spawn a number of companies that now compete internationally with the best that Europe and the United States have to offer. Moreover, many of these firms are in the most cutting-edge, knowledge-based industries-software giants Infosys and Wipro and pharmaceutical and biotechnology powerhouses Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddy's Labs, to name just a few. Last year, the Forbes 200, an annual ranking of the world's best small companies, included 13 Indian firms but just four from mainland China.

India has also developed much stronger infrastructure to support private enterprise. Its capital markets operate with greater efficiency and transparency than do China's. Its legal system, while not without substantial flaws, is considerably more advanced.

China and India are the world's next major powers. They also offer competing models of development. It has long been an article of faith that China is on the faster track, and the economic data bear this out. The "Hindu rate of growth"-a pejorative phrase referring to India's inability to match its economic growth with its population growth-may be a thing of the past, but when it comes to gross domestic product (GDP) figures and other headline numbers, India is still no match for China.

However, the statistics tell only part of the story-the macroeconomic story. At the micro level, things look quite different. There, India displays every bit as much dynamism as China. Indeed, by relying primarily on organic growth, India is making fuller use of its resources and has chosen a path that may well deliver more sustainable progress than China's FDI-driven approach. "Can India surpass China?" is no longer a silly question, and, if it turns out that India has indeed made the wiser bet, the implications-for China's future growth and for how policy experts think about economic development generally-could be enormous.

THE STIFLING STATE

The fact that India is increasingly building from the ground up while China is still pursuing a top-down approach reflects their contrasting political systems: India is a democracy, and China is not. But the different strategies are also a function of history. China's Communist Party came to power in 1949 intent on eradicating private ownership, which it quickly did. Although the country is now in its third decade of free-market reforms, it continues to struggle with the legacy of that period-witness the controversy surrounding the recent decision to officially allow capitalists to join the Communist Party.

India, on the other hand, developed a softer brand of socialism, Fabian socialism, which aimed not to destroy capitalism but merely to mitigate the social ills it caused. It was considered essential that the public sector occupy the economy's "commanding heights," to use a phrase coined by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin but popularized by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. However, that did not prevent entrepreneurship from flourishing where the long arm of the state could not reach.

COMPETING GIANTS

Population (2002): China 1.28 billion; India 1.05 billion

Population Growth Rate percent (2002): China 0.87; India 1.51

Infant Mortality per 1,000 live births (2002): China 27; India 61

Average Annual Real GDP Growth Rate percent (1990-2000): China 9.6 : India 5.5

Foreign Direct Investment (2001): China $44.2 billion; India $3.4 billion

Population in Poverty (2002): China 10 percent; India 25 percent

Labor Force (1999): China 706 million; India 406 million

Fixed Lines and Mobile Phones per 1,000 people (2001): China 247.7; India 43.8

Size of Diaspora: China 55 million; India 20 million

Sources: CIA World Factbook 2002; The Economist Pocket World in Figures; World Development Indicators CD-ROM; Financial Times

Developments at the microeconomic level in China reflect these historical and ideological differences. China has been far bolder with external reforms but has imposed substantial legal and regulatory constraints on indigenous, private firms. In fact, only four years ago, domestic companies were finally granted the same constitutional protections that foreign businesses have enjoyed since the early 1980s. As of the late 1990s, according to the International Finance Corporation, more than two dozen industries, including some of the most important and lucrative sectors of the economy-banking, telecommunications, highways, and railroads-were still off-limits to private local companies.

These restrictions were designed not to keep Chinese entrepreneurs from competing with foreigners but to prevent private domestic businesses from challenging China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Some progress has been made in reforming the bloated, inefficient SOEs during the last 20 years, but Beijing is still not willing to relinquish its control over the largest ones, such as China Telecom.

Instead, the government has ferociously protected them from competition. In the 1990s, numerous Chinese entrepreneurs tried, and failed, to circumvent the restrictions placed on their activities. Some registered their firms as nominal SOEs (all the capital came from private sources, and the companies were privately managed), only to find themselves ensnared in title disputes when financially strapped government agencies sought to seize their assets. More than a few promising businesses have been destroyed this way.

This bias against homegrown firms is widely acknowledged. A report issued in 2000 by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences concluded that, "Because of long-standing prejudices and mistaken beliefs, private and individual enterprises have a lower political status and are discriminated against in numerous policies and regulations. The legal, policy, and market environment is unfair and inconsistent."

Foreign investors have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the constraints placed on local private businesses. One indication of the large payoff they have reaped on the back of China's phenomenal growth: In 1992, the income accruing to foreign investors with equity stakes in Chinese firms was only $5.3 billion; today it totals more than $22 billion. (This money does not necessarily leave the country; it is often reinvested in China.)

THE MOGUL IS HERO

For democratic, postcolonial India, allowing foreign investors huge profits at the expense of indigenous firms is simply unfeasible. Recall, for instance, the controversy that erupted a decade ago when the Enron Corporation made a deal with the state of Maharashtra to build a $2.9 billion power plant there. The project proceeded, but only after several years of acrimonious debate over foreign investment and its role in India's development.

While China has created obstacles for its entrepreneurs, India has been making life easier for local businesses. During the last decade, New Delhi has backed away from micromanaging the economy. True, privatization is proceeding at a glacial pace, but the government has ceded its monopoly over long-distance phone service; some tariffs have been cut; bureaucracy has been trimmed a bit; and a number of industries have been opened to private investment, including investment from abroad.

As a consequence, entrepreneurship and free enterprise are flourishing. A measure of the progress: In a recent survey of leading Asian companies by the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), India registered a higher average score than any other country in the region, including China (the survey polled over 2,500 executives and professionals in a dozen countries; respondents were asked to rate companies on a scale of one to seven for overall leadership performance). Indeed, only two Chinese firms had scores high enough to qualify for India's top 10 list. Tellingly, all of the Indian firms were wholly private initiatives, while most of the Chinese companies had significant state involvement.

Some of the leading Indian firms are true start-ups, notably Infosys, which topped FEER's survey. Others are offshoots of old-line companies. Sundaram Motors, for instance, a leading manufacturer of automotive components and a principal supplier to General Motors, is part of the T.V. Sundaram group, a century-old south Indian business group.

Not only is entrepreneurship thriving in India; entrepreneurs there have become folk heroes. Nehru would surely be appalled at the adulation the Indian public now showers on captains of industry. For instance, Narayana Murthy, the 56-year-old founder of Infosys, is often compared to Microsoft's Bill Gates and has become a revered figure.

These success stories never would have happened if India lacked the infrastructure needed to support Murthy and other would-be moguls. But democracy, a tradition of entrepreneurship, and a decent legal system have given India the underpinnings necessary for free enterprise to flourish. Although India's courts are notoriously inefficient, they at least comprise a functioning independent judiciary. Property rights are not fully secure, but the protection of private ownership is certainly far stronger than in China. The rule of law, a legacy of British rule, generally prevails.

These traditions and institutions have proved an excellent springboard for the emergence and evolution of India's capital markets. Distortions are still commonplace, but the stock and bond markets generally allow firms with solid prospects and reputations to obtain the capital they need to grow. In a World Bank study published last year, only 52 percent of the Indian firms surveyed reported problems obtaining capital, versus 80 percent of the Chinese companies polled. As a result, the Indian firms relied much less on internally generated finances: Only 27 percent of their funding came through operating profits, versus 57 percent for the Chinese firms.

Corporate governance has improved dramatically, thanks in no small part to Murthy, who has made Infosys a paragon of honest accounting and an example for other firms. In a survey of 25 emerging market economies conducted in 2000 by Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia, India ranked sixth in corporate governance, China 19th. The advent of an investor class, coupled with the fact that capital providers, such as development banks, are themselves increasingly subject to market forces, has only bolstered the efficiency and credibility of India's markets. Apart from providing the regulatory framework, the Indian government has taken a back seat to the private sector.

In China, by contrast, bureaucrats remain the gatekeepers, tightly controlling capital allocation and severely restricting the ability of private companies to obtain stock market listings and access the money they need to grow. Indeed, Beijing has used the financial markets mainly as a way of keeping the soes afloat. These policies have produced enormous distortions while preventing China's markets from gaining depth and maturity. (It is widely claimed that China's stock markets have a total capitalization in excess of $400 billion, but factoring out non-tradeable shares owned by the government or by government-owned companies reduces the valuation to just around $150 billion.) Compounding the problem are poor corporate governance and the absence of an independent judiciary.

DOLLARS AND DIASPORAS

If India has so clearly surpassed China at the grass-roots level, why isn't India's superiority reflected in the numbers? Why is the gap in GDP and other benchmarks still so wide? It is worth recalling that India's economic reforms only began in earnest in 1991, more than a decade after China began liberalizing. In addition to the late start, India has had to make do with a national savings rate half that of China's and 90 percent less FDI. Moreover, India is a sprawling, messy democracy riven by ethnic and religious tensions, and it has also had a longstanding, volatile dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. China, on the other hand, has enjoyed two decades of relative tranquility; apart from Tiananmen Square, it has been able to focus almost exclusively on economic development.

That India's annual growth rate is only around 20 percent lower than China's is, then, a remarkable achievement. And, of course, whether the data for China are accurate is an open question. The speed with which India is catching up is due to its own efficient deployment of capital and China's inefficiency, symbolized by all the money that has been frittered away on SOEs. And China's misallocation of resources is likely to become a big drag on the economy in the years ahead.

In the early 1990s, when China was registering double-digit growth rates, Beijing invested massively in the state sector. Most of the investments were not commercially viable, leaving the banking sector with a huge number of nonperforming loans-possibly totaling as much as 50 percent of bank assets. At some point, the capitalization costs of these loans will have to be absorbed, either through write-downs (which means depositors bear the cost) or recapitalization of the banks by the government, which diverts money from other, more productive uses. This could well limit China's future growth trajectory.

India's banks may not be models of financial probity, but they have not made mistakes on nearly the same scale. According to a recent study by the management consulting firm Ernst & Young, about 15 percent of banking assets in India were nonperforming as of 2001. India's economy is thus anchored on more solid footing.

The real issue, of course, isn't where China and India are today but where they will be tomorrow. The answer will be determined in large measure by how well both countries utilize their resources, and on this score, India is doing a superior job. Is it pursuing a better road to development than China? We won't know the answer for many years. However, some evidence indicates that India's ground-up approach may indeed be wiser-and the evidence, ironically, comes from within China itself.

Consider the contrasting strategies of Jiangsu and Zhejiang, two coastal provinces that were at similar levels of economic development when China's reforms began. Jiangsu has relied largely on FDI to fuel its growth. Zhejiang, by contrast, has placed heavier emphasis on indigenous entrepreneurs and organic development. During the last two decades, Zhejiang's economy has grown at an annual rate of about 1 percent faster than Jiangsu's. Twenty years ago, Zhejiang was the poorer of the two provinces; now it is unquestionably more prosperous. India may soon have the best of both worlds: It looks poised to reap significantly more FDI in the coming years than it has attracted to date. After decades of keeping the Indian diaspora at arm's length, New Delhi is now embracing it. In some circles, it used to be jokingly said that nri, an acronym applied to members of the diaspora, stood for "not required Indians." Now, the term is back to meaning just "nonresident Indian." The change in attitude was officially signaled earlier this year when the government held a conference on the diaspora that a number of prominent nris attended.

China's success in attracting FDI is partly a historical accident-it has a wealthy diaspora. During the 1990s, more than half of China's FDI came from overseas Chinese sources. The money appears to have had at least one unintended consequence: The billions of dollars that came from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan may have inadvertently helped Beijing postpone politically difficult internal reforms. For instance, because foreign investors were acquiring assets from loss-making soes, the government was able to drag its feet on privatization.

Until now, the Indian diaspora has accounted for less than 10 percent of the foreign money flowing to India. With the welcome mat now laid out, direct investment from nonresident Indians is likely to increase. And while the Indian diaspora may not be able to match the Chinese diaspora as "hard" capital goes, Indians abroad have substantially more intellectual capital to contribute, which could prove even more valuable.

The Indian diaspora has famously distinguished itself in knowledge-based industries, nowhere more so than in Silicon Valley. Now, India's brightening prospects, as well as the changing attitude vis-à-vis those who have gone abroad, are luring many nonresident Indian engineers and scientists home and are enticing many expatriate business people to open their wallets. With the help of its diaspora, China has won the race to be the world's factory. With the help of its diaspora, India could become the world's technology lab.

China and India have pursued radically different development strategies. India is not outperforming China overall, but it is doing better in certain key areas. That success may enable it to catch up with and perhaps even overtake China. Should that prove to be the case, it will not only demonstrate the importance of homegrown entrepreneurship to long-term economic development; it will also show the limits of the FDI-dependent approach China is pursuing.
Yasheng Huang is an associate professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tarun Khanna is a professor at Harvard Business School.
 

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,730
well this happens to be an article written some 6 years back and back then a lot of things were said of how india would beat prc hands down, this article reminds me of mukesh ambani saying that we will beat prc in economic growth terms is 2yrs time way back in 2005 and one is still waiting for that to happen. in fact before the recession hit the global scene there was this huge surge of such articles where the constant subject was of how, and when india will beat prc in economic growth terms and when would india overtake them in terms of economic size but since the recession happened all such talk has seen a clear slump as prc has risen to heights that at this very moment india cant match. having started my post on a reality check note i would now like to talk about the subject at hand.


a fair assessment presented by the two authors and they do see the situation as it stood then and nothing much has changed since but then there have been giants like lenovo, haier, hutchson and many more that have grown from the land where ideology is extremely suspicious of private players/individuals who have an ability to grow to a position of a strength from where they could interfere in the working of a government. india quite clearly wins this battle of india private companies v/s the chinese private companies hands down and reasons are well sighted in the article. our strength has been the private companies and the secret to our success story so far economically has been because of these very companies and i must say it has nothing to do with the state as a matter of fact it has all to do without the state. 1991 was the year that changed it all for our pvt players and one has to commend their skills set and adaptability who even on the face of stiff competition and an onslaught form those MNCs stood their ground well and not only that, they went to the extent of ascertaining their command by taking over some of the biggest of the names in the global business world. i still recall reading opinions in the early half of 90s how the so called economic experts would say that the old economy companies and mindsets like the TATA's, reliance's, birla's, bajaj's and others of that era would completely loose out and be swallowed by the real sharks of the trade and how wrong they were. indians are highly regarded for their managerial skill sets something that is not in abundance in the chinese and i have seen from my personal experience how people around have moved out of the country purely on the basis of these very skills and mind you i have had a back ground of fmcg and fmcd and i have nothing to do with the IT industry and this outward movement has happened from with in the companies who after seeing the success of these individuals have given then a lead global profile something that is not common with people from prc. as a matter of fact most overseas MNCs in india are headed by indians something which is again not common in prc. india's economic success is a tribute to our pvt companies and to numerous such individuals who have run some very successful businesses for others in our home turf.


if i am not wrong then there were some drastic changes made in prc in lending of loans to the chinese owned pvt companies in 2007 which would give them a fair play ground wrt to the MNCs in that country who till then got a step motherly treatment but as far as i know they still do not quite have a level playground as of date and till the time these hurdles are not removed we can be rest assured that we will rule the roust in this field. in the homegrown companies arena prc's strength are their state owned companies which are massive by any standards and this is because of their huge consumer base they have and precisely for this reason i feel we should resist disinvestment of the PSUs that are performing well because these companies have the potential of growing so huge both because of consumer base in india and overseas that where ever overseas these companies were to invest they would become a tool of furthering our foreign policy as they would hold a lot of clout in the govts in most overseas markets that they would invest in. this is one lesson i would like the GoI to take from the cpc on the state owned companies and as it is our state owned companies are no were as miss managed as the prc state owned companies are, as a result our NPAs are a no match for the chinese where they literally struggle in containing their NPAs though they have made some smart moves on this front off late and have brought the figure down to 7% from once 22%.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
490
Well before we talk about one beating the other, we need to know the actual situation of both. Situation of India is open and transparent(well, as transparent as it can get), but what is the real position of China? Is China riding a huge bubble? Or Is China the success story true? We really dont know. The best we can do is make our guesses based on some random data points. They could be true or mislead. But one needs to wait and watch, maybe we will know the situation in about 5yrs time.
 

gogbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
937
Likes
119
India has always had the potential, only time can tell how much of it is realised.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
736
Well before we talk about one beating the other, we need to know the actual situation of both. Situation of India is open and transparent(well, as transparent as it can get), but what is the real position of China? Is China riding a huge bubble? Or Is China the success story true? We really dont know. The best we can do is make our guesses based on some random data points. They could be true or mislead. But one needs to wait and watch, maybe we will know the situation in about 5yrs time.
why should India "overtake" china?

India has danenged(chinglish,“大能的”,almighty) and glory democracy while CHina is sick totalism.

India is quite ahead of CHina.

It is China that should "overtakes" India.
 
Last edited:

Aruni

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
47
Likes
37
In many years I have seen no other topic spiralling out of control more often that this one. I hope the members keep it sane in this instance.

In pure economic terms there is no comparison. China is richer per capita wise, it has better infrastructure, it scores higher on the human development index and has a higher growth rate (i.e. it is pulling ahead as I type this). There are a few aspects of China which are 'botoxed up', such as slums being easily swept aside to make way for swanky buildings, or beggars being banned from certain parts of cities. India cannot do similar things, and I hope it never comes to that. There have been some worrying emulations of Chinese tactics in India's industrialisation process (e.g. land grabbing) but civil society has held up well so far to ensure that the rule of law prevails.

India has a comparative advantage in certain areas (such as IT and BPO) whereas China commands a massive lead in manufacturing. Over time Chinese wages will rise and labour shortages will mean more business will be attracted by other countries. However, that is at least 15-20 years away and in the medium term China will remain the manufacturing capital of the world.

Often people say democracy has a 'cost'. I don't look at it quite like that. It is an asset on our balance sheet and every asset in a business costs money. Over time when income levels equalise in India and China, would it be preferable to live in a free society where Google isn't harassed? I think so.
 

BunBunCake

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
405
Likes
74
China is in a 'higher' economic status than India, because it's not a Democracy. We cannot compare the ecomomies of these two countries. Yes our population is equally the same, but China is a communist country where almost everyone has jobs (4% unemployment), same wages, and more of all, the Government controls anything.---Credit goes to Chinese government, doing a good job though.

India is a democracy which will face it's up's and downs, because our people aren't ruled by one god.
Dr. Singh said during his last visit to D.C, A democracy may not seem as prosperous as a communist country in the beginning, but in the long term the Democracy is benificial.

And that is true. India is still a young democracy. Think about this before comparing India and China. They are two diffrent forms of government. I'm not a great expert in economics from the definition of what 'communism' is; i do know why China is doing better than India. But I guarantee you, Indian people's lives are much different than Chinese...... (with the exception of the poor, yes we do need to work on literacy rates, poverty)

Hopefully India will become the most prosperous country once again.
=)
 

Necrosis Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
86
Likes
7
Not to distract but a really quick correction. China being a communist country has nothing to do with job employment. It has to do with the types of jobs that exist and the government's willingness to participate in infrastructure building. You can argue that's communism for you, but there are a lot of examples of so called "rich democracies" doing the same. Examples: Japan, the US (post-WWII), it goes on..

More importantly, the wage gap is quite a lot bigger in India that China, but it's not because of government interference. The Chinese political system has basically withdrawn it's finger from touching salaries and let companies manage that themselves for the most part. The more equal wages is because of the specific set of jobs in China. Like they say, China is Communist only in name.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,373
Country flag
Not to distract but a really quick correction. China being a communist country has nothing to do with job employment. It has to do with the types of jobs that exist and the government's willingness to participate in infrastructure building. You can argue that's communism for you, but there are a lot of examples of so called "rich democracies" doing the same. Examples: Japan, the US (post-WWII), it goes on..

More importantly, the wage gap is quite a lot bigger in India that China, but it's not because of government interference. The Chinese political system has basically withdrawn it's finger from touching salaries and let companies manage that themselves for the most part. The more equal wages is because of the specific set of jobs in China. Like they say, China is Communist only in name.
You talk like a Martian.(pun intended)


Income divide in China is much higher than in India. Even regional divide in China is much higher than in India.
 

luke

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
50
Likes
0
When I read the article,I think they just see that China have many problems,but don't see the Problem-solving efforts,so when they predict the future:India become better but China don't have any change.That's their Failures.As for the "Overtake"ï¼ŒI don't know What is regarded as "overtake".Economic growth is the long-term thing,will you compare one years ,ten years or 50years?If you don't have the standard,what's the meaning of "overtake"ï¼ŸChina have kept the high growth for 30 years,but our GDP still can't overtake Japan,as for high tech,the gap still is bigger.China won't keep the high speed forever,there's no wonder the economic growth will decrease,then what's the "overtake" you guys say.Overtake the highest growth China ever create?Or just the economic growth in one year(of course,the next years it should be still overtake).I think everyone have his idea about "overtake"ï¼Œand the future will show us the fact.
 

luke

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
50
Likes
0
China is in a 'higher' economic status than India, because it's not a Democracy.
Then,what about Japan,South Korea,Taiwan?All of them ever created their Economic Myths.I don't think it have too much relationship with the Political system.North Korea still have bad economic.
. Yes our population is equally the same, but China is a communist country where almost everyone has jobs (4% unemployment), same wages, and more of all, the Government controls anything.---Credit goes to Chinese government, doing a good job though.
Don't believe the unemployment rate:it's boring and meaningless.
India is a democracy which will face it's up's and downs, because our people aren't ruled by one god.
Chinese even don't believe the god.(just a joke)
 

shotgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
173
Likes
2
such a growth of 10%+ can not be sustainable.8-10% is enough.
This quarterly growth of 11.9% is nothing big deal, cos the denominator (i.e. 2009Q1) is low. Remember the growth of same quarter last year (2009Q1 YOY) was only about 6.7%? It will come down in following quarters.

BTW, such topics are so misleading, they should talk about "Can China overtake India?" instead. Face the reality, as Wen Jiabao pronounces repeatedly in many public occasions, we are just a poor and under-developed country. Wish India good luck on its fast-track to be global superpower!

"Stay low profile, never take the lead" -- Deng Xiaoping
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
4,003
Likes
824
Country flag
This quarterly growth of 11.9% is nothing big deal, cos the denominator (i.e. 2009Q1) is low. Remember the growth of same quarter last year (2009Q1 YOY) was only about 6.7%? It will come down in following quarters.

BTW, such topics are so misleading, they should talk about "Can China overtake India?" instead. Face the reality, as Wen Jiabao pronounces repeatedly in many public occasions, we are just a poor and under-developed country. Wish India good luck on its fast-track to be global superpower!

"Stay low profile, never take the lead" -- Deng Xiaoping
Welcome back, shotgunner!
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,185
Likes
884
Country flag
Of course India can overtake china. Nothing is impossible.

But the way to reach this goal is that indians must work harder and smarter than chineses. Writting this kind of papers won't resolve any problem in india. Instead, india should focus on its own problems.
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,577
Likes
2,489
Country flag
Of course India can overtake china. Nothing is impossible.

But the way to reach this goal is that indians must work harder and smarter than chineses. Writting this kind of papers won't resolve any problem in india. Instead, india should focus on its own problems.
very true --- my add is that india has to become more lke china in terms of less political parties and more actual work done instead of unproductive politicking . In China the politicking is left to a very few at the very top a minimal number - and the production force at any level is not involved in that , so work goes on as per normal - no excuses and productivity measurement is required monthly or weekly . In india i feel there are too many political parties too much politicking masquerading as "democracy" and too few left to do the actual work as most prefer to do politicking instead . China has the better system for such large populations . FOr india to take democracy , a system used by countries with much smaller populations, it is unsuitable - have to compare like with like and the only other contry like india in population size is china - and they are by far economically more successful so it really ought to be quite obvious - copy china - why require a PhD paper to tell us that ?
 
Last edited:

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,843
In india i feel there are too many political parties too much politicking masquerading as "democracy" and too few left to do the actual work as most prefer to do politicking instead
pls consider different contexts... for example in China religion has never been a big issue in politics. some dynasties claimed to be 'religious' but were always wary of religion meddling with politics; Ethnically China is diversified with many groups/subgroups, but Chinese have a strong identification with the culture since Emporer Qinshihuang uniformed writing script/measurement etc. far befor Christ; India carried over a 'democratic legacy' from British Raj as well as 'pluralism'. Yet China has always been 'totalitarian' since ROC era (despite a transient but chaotic period of 'democracy' during 1911-1920's)

I don't follow that India shall copy China or China copy India. Each has to go their unique way.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top