East Asia Model vs South Asia Model, which one is better?

R

rockdog

Guest
I've got another one for you, how about compare

China = communist 1.4 billion people to:

Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong = democratic 200 million

Communist GDP = $4.5tr Democractic GDP = $7tr

Democracy wins... :dfi-1:
That's typical out dated impression with China, so far China is much more capitalism than lots of nations:

Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics
Amazon.com: Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State (9780521898102): Yasheng Huang: Books

:sporty55:
 

hbogyt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
231
Likes
11
re

"Thats the best you got, go read a book? "

No, this is not the best I have, but why waste time to convince someone who won't believe what he doesn't want to believe, you.

I made a claim and I cited you a source, namely the book "Tigers Tamed". This is different from someone who is losing a debate, trying to spin his way out of embarrassment by throwing a "go read a book".

On the flip side, what have you got?
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,645
Country flag
"Thats the best you got, go read a book? "

No, this is not the best I have, but why waste time to convince someone who won't believe what he doesn't want to believe, you.
I asked what evidence you have, apparently none.

I made a claim and I cited you a source, namely the book "Tigers Tamed". This is different from someone who is losing a debate, trying to spin his way out of embarrassment by throwing a "go read a book".
You didn't produce any information except "go read a book." If you read it, you should be able to explain it.

On the flip side, what have you got?
Dictatorships are ruled by one party or one man that never changes to another ideaology and does not have meaningful elections. There is a clear lineage of parliamentary democracy of these countries where the vote counted and the parties in power changed often, thus not dictatorships but representative democracies.
 

hbogyt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
231
Likes
11
re

I asked what evidence you have, apparently none.


You didn't produce any information except "go read a book." If you read it, you should be able to explain it.

I read it 3 years ago. Don't think too highly of yourself. I won't reread a book just to win an internet debate



Dictatorships are ruled by one party or one man that never changes to another ideaology and does not have meaningful elections. There is a clear lineage of parliamentary democracy of these countries where the vote counted and the parties in power changed often, thus not dictatorships but representative democracies.
There is the lineage, but corruption prevented them from functioning properly as full-fledged democracies, more like dictatorships.

Zimbabwe isn't ruled by one party either.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,645
Country flag
I read it 3 years ago. Don't think too highly of yourself. I won't reread a book just to win an internet debate
So I'm supposed to spend $30, wait ten days for delievery and read a book that doesn't say what you want it to say?

There is the lineage, but corruption prevented them from functioning properly as full-fledged democracies, more like dictatorships.
There is plenty of corruption in India, it doesn't make it a dictatorship.
 

hbogyt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
231
Likes
11
re

So I'm supposed to spend $30, wait ten days for delievery and read a book that doesn't say what you want it to say?

It's up to you, why ask me?

There is plenty of corruption in India, it doesn't make it a dictatorship.
I'm talking about Pakistani kind of corruption that often ensure that a certain group of people get elected. Or the Putin kind of corruption. (I'm not sure if "corruption" is the right word, there's ought to be a more fitting word.)
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,645
Country flag
I'm talking about Pakistani kind of corruption that often ensure that a certain group of people get elected. Or the Putin kind of corruption. (I'm not sure if "corruption" is the right word, there's ought to be a more fitting word.)
Pakistan was a military dictatorship, Russia is a one party dictatorship. None of those applied.
 

hbogyt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
231
Likes
11
re

Pakistan was a military dictatorship, Russia is a one party dictatorship. None of those applied.
No, they are constitutionally democracies. Unfortunately they are exploited by dictators to their advantage.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,645
Country flag
No, they are constitutionally democracies. Unfortunately they are exploited by dictators to their advantage.
If the people elect them freely, they aren't dictators no matter what they do if they don't change the system to stay in power.
 

hbogyt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
231
Likes
11
re

If the people elect them freely, they aren't dictators no matter what they do if they don't change the system to stay in power.
I don't think their situations are what you can call people elect them freely. They don't have to change the system to stay in power. They can do so by corruption, fraud and abusing their power.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,645
Country flag
I don't think their situations are what you can call people elect them freely. They don't have to change the system to stay in power. They can do so by corruption, fraud and abusing their power.
But they didn't, the power blocks changed hands all the time. Corruption, fraud, abuse of power are there in any political system, it doesn't redifine it to a dictatorship. If the people are allowed to change their government through elections, it isn't a dictatorship.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
765
Country flag
While I agree with the premise of your post, and in particular, with India having 'missed the boat' in terms of a mass-scale, systematized 'industrial revolution', I must assert that the Indian model is in many ways unique, perhaps even pioneering in terms of a model for market-based, liberal democracy.

For an insight into what this model is, and in particular how this model escaped, or perceptibly 'delayed' the industrial revolution in comparison to "top-down" economies like China, see the following article by Gurcharan Das for example (a bit dated, but valid still.):

India — Skipping the Industrial Revolution?



India ? Skipping the Industrial Revolution? by Gurcharan Das - The Globalist
Reviving this thread.

Sorry I was away* and couldn't respond earlier; but you've raised some very good points. First, I completely agree with you in regards to India's unique achievement in pioneering this model of an increasingly liberalizing market economy in the backdrop of a liberal democracy.

However, I disagree with you in deeming Das' article relevant now. Das has put forth many compelling arguments in India Unbound, however this projection was faulty. He wrote this essay when consumed by the ecstasy of the percieved boundless potential of the IT revolution in the post Y2K euphoria. Later experiences however have clearly indicated that the impact of the IT revolution (while impressive in empirical numbers) has not been able to- and is unlikely to make a comprehensive impact upon the Indian society at large in its current form.

The fact of the matter is that India, like China, is primarily a peasant society of gargantuan proportions. It is unrealistic to expect a meaningful trickle down effect from an information revolution when a large chunk of the masses live in destitution, and where the divide between them and the urban elite is growing at warp speed. This supposed trickle down is all the more improbable in a society that is notoriously hierarchical, especially when it comes to information sharing.

I believe that the only real equalizer here can be provided by a genuine industrial revolution. I think this topic deserves its own thread so that it can be discussed and debated in more detail.

*My post above is undoubtedly influenced by my recent travels to crisis stricken regions of eastern Maharashtra and Northern Karnataka. This experience has given me a new perspective on this topic, and I really hope there can be more productive discussions about it on DFI
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
107
Agree. India is too big a country to depend just n IT or even services.

We need to have a big chink of our people meaningfully employed in industrial sector that will also drive the demand for services. I don't think we can put our food security at risk by depending on fertilizer imports.

There are certain sectors of economy where you need to be self reliant for strategic reasons even if you are not the most competitive.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
739
Another global industry shift is coming, guy!

coastal China is facing serious shortage of labour,which means that the low-value labour-density industries in coastal china, such as textiles and toys will have to be moved out of coastal China.

However, where will those " low-value-added labour-intensive plants be moved to ?

India?Vietnam?Mexico?Indonisia? or Inland CHina?

It should be the last chance for India's industry revolution. if India were to miss the chance again, then India's industrializaiton would be delayed 2 generations again at least.


However, has India made full preparation for the coming "Great Global Industry Shift"?

Frankly speaking, I don't think so. India could not attract much low-value-added labour-intensive plants from coastal China during the coming global industry shift.

Instead ,Inland China and Vietnam will beat India and attract most "low-value-added labour-intensive plants "moved out of coastal China.
 
Last edited:

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
Energon,

There is not the slightest of the doubts in my mind that the way to move ahead has to be to take a hike the industrial revolution way or else in times to come we will only keep talking about missed opportunities, as has been a habit with us in the past.

Looking at the much talked about IT industry what one forgets is that the sector employs a mere million people out of a 1,160 million populace of this country and as a % the contribution to gdp remains quite measly, though the thing it has helped in is that it has helped in do an image make over to that of a tech savvy country from once perceived as the land of snake charmers, no wonder a movie like slumdog which happens to be a reality staring our faces irritates most of us since it tends to hurt this new found image and status.

For solutions we need to look at the way the prc was able to move out millions and millions out of poverty, a country which when it started its economic liberalization stood just a step ahead of us.

we need to move our growth model from one of consumption based to one of more export oriented, much like what the prc did quite successfully, what it does is it creates huge labour intensive industries, along side the focus has to be on at least 10years of formal education so that the youth passing out is of employable nature, just a mere talk of 80% literacy rate (the supposed figure for 2010) wont help the cause in any which way, and to an extent we have been successful in moving ahead on this front at least since the time UPA-I took to governance for there has been a growth in exports compounding at the rate of over 20% annually and it is hearting to see that even with the increasing base YoY there is no drop in the growth rate, other than a fall out during the global economic meltdown. What is more heartening of course is that if we head in the same direction at that steady rate of over 20% (something that the prc was quite successful in doing), we could be standing at precisely the same export levels that the prc today boasts of and having done that, as a % of gdp we would still not be depending on exports as much the prc depends.

What stands very crucial for this sector is the labour reforms, and if we cant address the issue soon enough, rest assured we will soon scare away a good chunk of investments and I have not the slightest of the doubts that we might already be scaring away a lot of perspective investors away due to this neglected reform and the fear of militant labour unions that our country has, which all benefits some other.

The other thing we need to quite clearly focus on is the agriculture, especially given the fact that a huge 50-60% of our labour force works in this sector, and in here the per hectare yield has to shoot up quite dramatically, again much like what the prc has done where they stand at more than double the per hectare yield than ours at a time when a big chunk of their labour force has moved from agriculture to be a part of industrial revolution.


PS – good to see you post after quite a long time, be regular and keep posting mate.
 
Last edited:

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
BG,

The industrial growth has remained at lower end of double digits for at least 6-7 years other than the recent fall during economic melt down to 16% growth in the month of December, 2009 so the trend has certainly been there thatnks to our growing exports and internal consumption and you can not neglect this has remained so even with those SEZs having seen a no take off (which is all set to take off now) again for the same reason, so irrespective of what happens in the prc, industrial setup will take place in India though the speed will wary since if we can cater to the larger global market then without a doubt the speed will be more, but yes as I have pointed out in my previous post, there does remain quite a significant hindrance.

I think with the base we are sitting on today we do look set to move ahead at least on the short term basis (5odd years) with strong performance, but can we generate enough capabilities to sustain it on long term basis with the growing base needs to be seen, and for the first time we have a set of ministers in the core sectors right from education, {industries (he looks like the odd one out)}, to commerce, to finance who it seems can pull it off.

Lets see how it pans out.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,747
I think India has a self-sustaining model of industrialization and manufacturing because of robust private sector. This is all happening sans government's involvement or encouragement. To leap frog our industrialization all we need is a positive support and little interference form government. The most glaring gap in accomplishing the industrialization is our sagging infrastructure which doesn't serve the needs of our country. Once we mobilize and take up massive build up of infrastructure like roads, railways, basic amenities, power, educational facilities etc, I think there will be no force that will be stopping India from taking its rightful place in the world.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,645
Country flag
Another global industry shift is coming, guy!

coastal China is facing serious shortage of labour,which means that the low-value labour-density industries in coastal china, such as textiles and toys will have to be moved out of coastal China.

However, where will those " low-value-added labour-intensive plants be moved to ?

India?Vietnam?Mexico?Indonisia? or Inland CHina?

It should be the last chance for India's industry revolution. if India were to miss the chance again, then India's industrializaiton would be delayed 2 generations again at least.


However, has India made full preparation for the coming "Great Global Industry Shift"?

Frankly speaking, I don't think so. India could not attract much low-value-added labour-intensive plants from coastal China during the coming global industry shift.

Instead ,Inland China and Vietnam will beat India and attract most "low-value-added labour-intensive plants "moved out of coastal China.
Thats funny. China isn't moving those factories out of the country. They are moving them to the rural areas so they can pollute what little clean air is left. Rural China is the only place they can find peasants to still work in sweatshops. Peasants aren't going to Guadong anymore because it isn't worth it to suffer the abuse for so little money. Now they no longer have to migrate and the abuse and low wages are at their back door!
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,483
Likes
1,231
Country flag
I think India has a self-sustaining model of industrialization and manufacturing because of robust private sector. This is all happening sans government's involvement or encouragement. To leap frog our industrialization all we need is a positive support and little interference form government. The most glaring gap in accomplishing the industrialization is our sagging infrastructure which doesn't serve the needs of our country. Once we mobilize and take up massive build up of infrastructure like roads, railways, basic amenities, power, educational facilities etc, I think there will be no force that will be stopping India from taking its rightful place in the world.
But there are 2 questions to ask about the potential indian government policy:

1. where do you get the money? One of the reason that China get a low return on its investment is a relativly big part of bank loan goes to infrastructure building, china's banks has to provide financial support to this kind of LONG-TERM project under the gov's instruction, can indian bank do the same thing?

2. How fast can you build up infrastructure? It took the chinese 30 years to get its current infrasturcture level in a "Top-down" country. Do you think how fast can india move. The beautiful part about democracy is that any project can be hold or even terminated by any individual.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top