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

[redragon]

If Chinese don't believe something than it's not true? Numbers don't lie. A totalism regime can develop 10 times faster than a democracry simply because people are not part of any equation.

I am sorry, but are you saying a poor democratic country can have the people in equation?
what about the child labours, malnorished people, people with shorter life span, people without running water.... I guess all these are part of the equation in democratic formula

 

[redragon]

The key difference between these countries is that they are almost 100% homogeneous societies where everyone speak the same language and dividing factors such as ethnicity, religion, language, customs, cultural heritage, etc are almost non-existent these countries.

Thats a big, big, deal when it comes to development.

If you think this is not a big deal - then imagine what India would be like if all 800 million people were the same colour, spoke the same language, and had only one major religion, and no caste system had ever existed. India would probably look very different than the country we have today.

When you have a society like that, then you have a very disciplined society with very few internal fissures to side-track the country's development.

Now when you compare these smaller homogeneous societies with a extremely plural multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious societies like India and to a much lesser extent China - its simply a no comparison.

China and India had huge populations and huge problems before they even started their growth track. China is a lot less multi-cultural than India and it is still much more homogeneous than India in terms of population percentage.
That certainly helps China in terms of unity and social problems. The fact that China chose Communism helped them move ahead very fast initally from India in terms of development but India has just started getting on track in the last 20 years. China has also paid a huge price in terms of environmental damage to their country for the rapid break neck development.

But, that's not to say that the Japanese, Koreans and Taiwanese did not work their ass off to get where they are. Anyone who has worked with the japanese know that they have a tremendous work ethic. South Asian work ethic is no match for the Japanese and the Koreans. Some of this stuff is cultural too.

If you want to compare societies like japan, Korea and Taiwan, etc to other countries - then a suitable comparison would be to compare these countries to the Scandinavian countries to see how well they fared.

mattster has a valid point here, but at same time you are saying something discriminating south asian, I am suprised that 2 indian members actually appreciate your comment, because not too long ago a chinese member said similar thing and got banned/warned by mod. May I say the key different here is you are from USA? can I say that is discrimination too?

 

[rockdog]

Question: Would you include Singapore into the comparison? (Also, you may use Hong Kong, Macau, as independent economic entities in E Asian block, for more detailed comparison)

Question: Referring to Hong Kong, Singapre, Macau, are they export-driven economies?

I didn't include those city states, since they are too small and relatively not meaningful too most population. And S.Asia dosen't such kind of city state to compare. Buthan? Nepal? Maldive?

Question: Is the fact that China being a big exporter (I guess either China or Germany will be 2009 world biggest exporter) necessarily defines this country as a export-driven economy? The other fact is that this country is building historic scale of infrastructure every year (half of world's concrete produced, and gazillions of steel, and electricity, and ...), does it mean China is a also a domestic-driven economy?

I think since we are comparing the development model, so we have to look the policy for long term, not only focus on the current data.


In fact, from 1978, China's main policy is copying Japan's model: enlarge manufacturer, de-value currency, export,

Question: When we buy rice here in China, the price is only 1/6 that of international price. Does this in some how underestimate size of domestic economy?

Question: In some part of China (e.g. rural areas, less developed mid-west, ethnic minority dominated, black market, unofficial financing, ...), businesses are done by cash, no bank record, no tax record. Will it also underestimate size of domestic economy?

Agree with your, in fact at 2006, after central government revised the method of GDP calculation, the GDP increased 14%; since large part of service sector didn't been added in the history.

But still lots of people from Western and India think China just blow up the data...

As a railway engineer from Shanghai, after working in numerous remote regions for years, I won't say China is a export-driven economy like other E Asia neighbours who are:
1) much smaller in population & land mass
2) 2nd/3rd-tier-industry-dominated
3) complete dependence on import of energy & raw materials

I still stick my idea, the economy take off was driven by exporting,
Of course, the current China's economy is more comprehensive, consist of three posts: Investment, domestic consumption, export.
But this is the story after that.

After China became relatively rich, now government and civil have money to stimulate local consuming.

I think you are using the outcome to counter the initial input.


Anyway, thanks for your ideas.

 

[mattster]

What I am saying about work ethic is not putting down South Asians, as much as acknowledging that the Japanese have a zeal for work that is quite unmatched by any other nation.

If you look at the small size of Japan and its population, then you will have to admit that it is truly astounding that they have the 2nd or 3rd largest economy in the world. Its not because they are geniuses, they are smart but its because of their discipline and work ethic that they are so economically powerful. Plus like I said earlier they have are homogeneous and that helps because there is nothing dividing them as a people.

Other countries like India, China, and Asean countries will catch up with the Japanese and Koreans because the private sector is now the engine for growth, and they will demand performance unlike state run industries.

Also culture will change with time. The next generation will not accept the laid-back culture.....people from Asia are travelling all over the world now and can compare and contrast systems and bring back what they learn and the values that they see as positive.

 

[musalman]

Hasn't Pakistan been a democratic country for most of its history?

No out of 62 year 10 years of Ayub, 1 Year of Yahya, 11 year of Zia and 8 year of Mushraf were military rules i.e 30 years. rest 32 are civilian rule. So its 50 : 50 nearly

 

[rockdog]

If Chinese don't believe something than it's not true? Numbers don't lie. A totalism regime can develop 10 times faster than a democracry simply because people are not part of any equation.

Talking about people not part of any euqation:
Numbers don't lie

A1. Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 69.89 years
male: 67.46 years
female: 72.61 years (2009 est.)

A2. Literacy:
total population: 61%
male: 73.4%
female: 47.8% (2001 census)



B1. total population: 73.47 years
male: 71.61 years
female: 75.52 years (2009 est.)

B2. Literacy:
total population: 90.9%
male: 95.1%
female: 86.5% (2000 census)


Guess A group or B group belongs to China, the totalism regime which " people are not part of any equation" :twizt:

 

[rockdog]

You guys are all missing some key points about the success of smaller East Asian countries like Taiwan, Japan and S. Korea.

The key difference between these countries is that they are almost 100% homogeneous societies where everyone speaks the same language and dividing factors such as ethnicity, religion, language, customs, cultural heritage, etc are almost non-existent in these countries.

Thats a big, big, deal when it comes to development.

If you think this is not a big deal - then imagine what India would be like if all 800 million people were the same colour, spoke the same language, and had only one major religion, and no caste system had ever existed. India would probably look very different than the country we have today.

When you have a society like that, then you have a very disciplined society with very few internal fissures to side-track the country's development.

Now when you compare these smaller homogeneous societies with a extremely plural multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious societies like India and to a much lesser extent China - its simply a no comparison.

China and India had huge populations and huge problems before they even started their growth track. China is a lot less multi-cultural than India and it is still much more homogeneous than India in terms of population percentage.
That certainly helps China in terms of unity and social problems. The fact that China chose Communism helped them move ahead very fast initally from India in terms of development but India has just started getting on track in the last 20 years. China has also paid a huge price in terms of environmental damage to their country for the rapid break neck development.

Appreciate your point of view as:
the diversity of S.Asia society is one important reason, created gap to E.Asia.

So for S.Asia, is small-nation system like EU would be a good solution?
PS. no offending to our Indian friends...

 

[nimo_cn]

Chinese members here all ignore the culture factor which in fact plays a very important role in the transformation of a country.
I suggest we review mattster's post, i think it does make sense.
Considering the situation in India, i think the temporary model of India is just performing well, maybe that is Indian's the best choice.

For us Chinese, we should be aware success in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan doesn't neccessary means success in China. We can copy their model, but we can't copy their success. Maybe we are ahead of India now, but it is too soon to deem that our model is superior to India's, both of India and China still have a long way to go, time will tell us which one is better.

Good luck to both China and India.

 

[Pintu]

Great discussion is going on , great thread started indeed , but in my opinion we should add Maldives also .

Maldives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards

 

[thakur_ritesh]

Is the life only and only about development, if the answer is yes, well then the rule of governance would certainly be autocratic rule, but if life you want is based on justice, where people are ready to listen to your concerns and they get addressed, where there is respect for human life and values, where there are more stake holders than just the government in the betterment of the state, where the state does not take its populace for granted and keep taking them for a ride without any counter checks in the system and much more, in that case democracy is the way to go.

Are all autocratic ruled countries well developed, there are many examples which suggest otherwise and where even the basic necessity of life are not met, generalizing wont help, there are good and bad in both the systems, imagine a communist china trying their hands with capitalism which should be a proof enough of how if you pick up good from others helps you. Question is more about who is heading the government, at what time and with what set of people, with what kind of majority if it’s a democracy and if there are all healthy indicators then there is no stopping anyone even in a democratic rule where you end up getting a complete package.

It all had to boil down to china India in the end but then no harm if sensibilities are maintained.

Each time one makes a comparison between India and china, inevitably you look at the dates when the reform process was started and there clearly is a 13 year advantage in favor of china and that advantage has been maintained till date. Let us compare today’s India with what china was doing 10years back, let us say in 1999.

gdp figures 1999: PRC – 1000b usd, India – 477b usd
exchange rate 1999 – PRC – 8.9/usd, India – 43/usd
gdp figures 2009: PRC – 4300b usd, India – 1250b usd
exchange rate 2009: PRC – 6.7/usd, India – 47-48/usd
today’s gdp as per 1999’s exchange rate:
PRC: (4300*6.7)/8.9 = 3200b usd
India: (1250*47-48)/43 = 1366 – 1395b usd

In the last one decade India has grown some where between 2.86-2.92 times as compared to 3.20 times for the prc. Is India really doing as badly as some would like to presume and portray (mind you on this very forum I have done a comparative analysis for both the countries since 1980 and even in that case the differentiating factor remained between 10-13 years), as I said india has been successfully able to maintain that gap of 10-13 years even though we happen to be a democratic rule. In real growth rate terms which really matter, china has done better without a doubt but to say a democratic process completely lags behind would be wrong, though yes if we purely focus on statistics, there is a lot that goes for begging and a lot of things if done timely would have certainly yielded better results.

 

[mehwish92]

No out of 62 year 10 years of Ayub, 1 Year of Yahya, 11 year of Zia and 8 year of Mushraf were military rules i.e 30 years. rest 32 are civilian rule. So its 50 : 50 nearly

AFAIK, even during "democratic rule" in Pakistan, the Army had a lot of say in things.

 

[redragon]

mattster
I actually agree with you about delligent is a reason why Japan got where they are right now, but at same time I still believe after the developed countries had their status in this world set up, it's not a good idea for a poor country to adopt democracy system before it gets rich, especially for those big poor countries like India and China, reason is simple, the resources available for these countries to catch up is not enough and control by developed countries, democracy system has negative impact on how a poor country to make use of the resources they have in hands, when you need to catch up, you need to focus, concentrate on the target, can't be distract.
Actually if you read my comment carefully, you will realize I am not blaming you, I am simply point out a chinese member was banned/warned for saying same thing

 

[nitesh]

Comparing India and China - Views - livemint.com

The Legatum Institute recently released its 2009 Prosperity Index (you can find the results at The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index). The purpose of the index is to be able to compare and contrast countries against benchmarks that best reflect the richness and variety of what matters most in people’s lives.

In this index, economic growth and performance matter a lot. But they are not the whole story and not the sum total of what it means to be prosperous. The folks at Legatum understand that while man needs bread to live, and economic growth is indispensable for seeing to it that man has bread to eat, man does not live on bread alone.

And so they compiled an index that ranks countries according to several criteria that are based not just on economic wealth but quality of life issues as well. In other words, it is a measure of overall well-being in an effort to include those elements that make a people not just rich but happy, healthy and free as well. These include economic fundamentals, entrepreneurship and innovation, democratic institutions, education, health, safety and security, governance, personal freedom and social capital.

And as it turns out, India is doing far better than its neighbour to the north-east, ranking 30 places higher than China on the overall global index. Both countries still have large populations of very poor people, so they are much lower down in the rankings than the countries of western Europe and North America, for example. But India ranks 45th on the index while China is far down at 75. China even ranks below pariah state Venezuela.

Ryan Streeter, a fellow at the Legatum Institute, tells me that “India beats China solidly owing to the way that its governance contributes to the economy. That is the democratic institutions index, where India is 36 and China 100. Couple that with other key measures of governance, freedom and social capital—social capital is amazingly high in India, which is ranked fifth in the world—and India is far more prosperous than its rival”.

The social capital component is especially interesting. “Indian citizens report high levels of membership in community organizations, allowing for a broad network of social capital,” the report concludes.

Indians seem to be like Americans in this respect. When Alexis de Tocqueville published his magisterial account of the American experiment, Democracy in America, he was struck by the high degree of social capital he observed during his travels. Americans were a nation of joiners, he witnessed. Indians seem to be similar in that regard—indeed, Indians are even ahead of the US on this metric, which ranks two spots behind, at seventh, in the world. And the report’s authors note that high levels of social capital are needed to bolster human happiness.

“China outperforms India in both of the main economic sub-indices because it provides greater economic certainty to investors, receiving far more foreign investment than India. Still, the overall index implies that trouble is brewing for China as it loses out to India in all other sub-indices, especially in its lack of democracy and personal freedom”

 

[mattster]

I have read the Legatum Prosperity Report but their ranking takes individual freedom and other things into consideration. I think its somewhat deceptive to imply that India is doing better than China based on this report.

To be frank, Foreign investors couldnt care less about how much freedom China gives its people, or how many poor protesting farmers get killed in riots, or how many Falun Gong practitioners or Uyghur Muslims China throws into prison every year.

The only thing that foreign investors want is a stable political environment and a good secure manufacturing "supply chain" that will keep their factories running at full speed and turning out fat profits for them. This is why China has received so much more FDI investment than India

I think most Indians will admit that China has moved far more people out of abject poverty in the last 40 years than India. But the reason they were able to do this is because they adopted a ruthless Communist model where the "end always justifies the means".

Indians would never have accepted such a system, no matter what the rewards were going to be. So India will be slower in reaching a developed nation status but that was the only course that India could take.

 

[no smoking]

I think members are missing a point: the history.

Before the invasion of british, there was no country called india or Pak. We could only find hundreds small states within india sub-continent. The countries in the south Asia are actually new founded for only 60 years. So, they are still in the process of how to build a country. They are facing the various problem: the authority of central gov, the political status of religion, how to deal with foreigners, etc. These problems were related to not only modernization, but also society structure and political regulation.

On the contrary, most of east asian countries have already been existed for thounsands years. Most of problems faced by india already got answered by the elite of these countries. Their attention were concentrated on modernization while south asian countries have to finish 2 course: modernization and new country construction.

So, I think it is unfair to compare these 2 group.

 

[nitesh]

no smoking you are smoking big time man you just put everything upside down

 

[mattster]

I think members are missing a point: the history.

We could only find hundreds small states within india sub-continent. the elite of these countries. Their attention were concentrated on modernization while south asian countries have to finish 2 course: modernization and new country construction.

So, I think it is unfair to compare these 2 group.

I think you got the general point but you oversimplified too much.

India was mainly a set a princely kingdoms ruled by their respective Maharajas before the British and Portugese. But despite all the regional differences, there was a strong common Indian culture that all the different kingdoms and tribes shared. So it was not like the British came in, and just randomly declared a arbitrary area of land to now become the British colony of India.

India existed long before the British but it was a loose coalition of states run by Princes and their subjects and aligned together against enemies. This was true for many countries a few hundred years ago, not only India.

But you are right in saying that India has 2 challenges - Growth and building a strong national identity that goes beyond ethnicity, race and religion. The 2nd part is a work in progress and it is changing quickly as more people around India move from region to region and the ethnic, religious and cultural differences become less pronounced and there is a new all-inclusive Indian culture. This is especially true among educated upper class Indians and it will eventually permeate to the lower levels.

 

[icecoolben]

East asian emphasis on manufacturing sector, south asian, indian on agricultural sect

One of the prime differences between countries that grew dramatically in the immediate post war period was the political impetus. While india wanted to overcome the famine that was caused and initiated a green revolution. It failed to cash in on the manufacturing boom during the 1960s by initiating a revolution in the later sector. Further u cannot club east asian vs south asian countries. It was true that malaysia out grew indian gdp at one time. India was ravaged by 3 crippling wars till the embargo of 1975 complicated matters further. Vietnam was under the same condition though it belonged to east asia. U cannot club japan as a regular east asian economy as it was already industrial at the dawn the 20th century even b4 the great wars. Further socialism crippled the efficiency of indian industry and also placed huge burden of managing industry as well as investments on the state. It was the folly of india's first pm to have initiated this. But the history of soviet resilience of economy must have weiged in this favour, history can also teach the wrong lessons i guess. Further complications were created when indira gandi nationalised banks eroding their capacity to create wealth by directing capital at profit making ventures. The governmance of india still suffers from those mistakes. Our inability to fund R&d also stems from the fact that v provide large subsidies, loan waivers & heavy incentives. The obsession with indigenous growth to shunned the industry from growing to global standards. Our economy has also been grossly mismanaged with above 5% ficial deficit and above 5% considered average, whereas it would topple governments in industrialised economie. The chinese are able to sustain a 8% inflation of currency due to the fact that its whole sale price index in its own currency terms would not fluctuate even above 2%. With even massive stimulus injection the deficit to that economy is only 0.5%. The other problem to investment in india than east asia is land reforms. Currently various laws confront business ventures in india like a specific one toward tribals, one for farmers etc. A simple direct land reform bill needs to be implemented. The naxals themselves stem from this cause of land reforms and poverty, causing internal insecurity. But with south asia opening to the world may be except pakistan due to radicalisation of its society we can catch up too learning from our past mis-adventures.

 

[musalman]

AFAIK, even during "democratic rule" in Pakistan, the Army had a lot of say in things.

No not true.

Nawaz sacked General Jehangir Karamat

Gen Mirza Aslam Baig was sidelined during BB first regime.

Gen Gul Hassan was forced out from office during Bhutto in 73

This time army is not intervening as it is afraid of public backlash

 

[great_han]

Can you imagine in dictorship China, 60% of its population-the farmers have no obligation paying tax. Every farmer has his own farmland. While that's not enough. The dictor offers subsidy for farmers who grow grains. While the govt supply combine agriculture machines services to the farmers with allowance. So few farm works are needed to be done by hands. So the young farmer may find a job in the coastal factories. A rural medical cooperative systems is set up. That means 60% of the poorest Chinese can get access to cheap medical. 99% of Chinese children can enjoy a FREE 9 years compulsory education, even in the remote western mountainous area. How many developing DEMOCRATIC country can achieve these?