Historical “what-if’s” are notoriously difficult to prove but also notoriously delicious to discuss. Would WWII have happened if Hitler had been killed in the trenches of WWI? [W]ith earlier reform, 14.5 million more children would have survived, 261 million more Indians would have become literate, and 109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.Would there have been a WWI if Franz Ferdinand survived the assassination attempt? What if Al Gore got his Florida recount? What would have become of Sonam Kapoor’s career if she skipped the flop that was Saawariya?
Arguably, while many of the most famous what-if’s focus on chance events in history, prominent Indian econ journalist Swaminathan Aiyar, writing for the Cato Institute, decided to take on a far more considered, deliberate economic policy “what-if”. He asks “what if India liberalized its economy 10 yrs earlier
?” Put differently, what if 1970s India followed the economic path pursued by Korea, Japan, and Taiwan?
Until the 80s/90s rounds of liberalization, India followed a Soviet-inspired economic model resulting in stuff like this –
India’s per capita GNP growth was only 1.49 percent in the three decades from 1950 to 1980. In this period, socialism was the avowed policy of the government, the peak income-tax rate rose to a record 97.75 percent, several industries were nationalized, and the government sought to capture the commanding heights of the economy.
To answer his alternative history question, Aiyar does two interesting things. First, instead of trying to come up with a hypothetical “Korean policy mapped to India”, Aiyar simply remaps the growth rates across different decades within India itself –
This paper considers what would have happened if reforms had begun in 1971. It projects an early-reform, high-growth scenario in which the per capita GNP growth rate in each decade would have been as high as that actually achieved one decade later. That is, this scenario envisages that the trend per capita GNP growth rate actually achieved in the 1980s (2.89 percent per year) would have been achieved in the 1970s; the trend rate actually achieved in the 1990s (4.19 percent per year) would have been achieved in the 1980s; and the trend rate actually achieved in the early 21st century (6.78 percent per year) would have been achieved in the 1990s.
While there are a hundred possible issues with remapping growth rates like this, I think Aiyar’s approach is likely the “least bad hack” for estimating some numbers.
Second, while growth rates and their inherent compounding are important academic subjects, they leave the lay audience a little, shall we say, underwhelmed. So, Aiyar mapped those growth rates to a few classic human development indices – infant mortality, literacy, and poverty rates – to guesstimate what the India of today might look like –
…with earlier reform, 14.5 million more children would have survived, 261 million more Indians would have become literate, and 109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.
As Aiyar notes, even if a later, more sophisticated model cuts his projections by half, these results are still in a league of their own. These numbers dwarf the proposed outcomes of even the most optimistic charity / foreign aid / econ development / govt-led initiative / NGO / UN program in existence and demonstrate just how pervasive & important bottoms-up GDP growth is for a population. As Aiyar concludes –
The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy. It drives home the point that India’s socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither.
For an example of this phenomenon in action, we need look no further than the clusterfuck that was the Balkans after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
“…261 million more Indians would have become literate,…”
I have a question (rather than a statement)… Aren’t the states in India with the highest literacy rates the states that established a more extensive government run education system under a socialist or communist political rule?
ArchanaP I agree re the gender ratio, cultural attitudes is partly what holds part of India back..re Punjab, check out the data, you will find it is the 9th richest re GDP, 3 re individual wealth, after Mahashatra and Gujrat, with Chandigarh the second richest city in all India
Akash India just lacks law and order ( chah day paisa system) and cleaniness..maybe it has too much religion ?? before everything it needs to address its population growth. Population & poverty are the biggest polluters. I can’t still digest how a vibrant democracy like India lags way behind the authoritarian China.
Because it is not truly authoritarian and every one has a me first attitude, which in Punjab and Delhi at least you can see in the driving..Chinese have an ordered mind and system, just look at the Oriental respect for authority and rules. A Mental change is required which is not there yet…Social things like the caste system assist Poverty, and ensure the least educated have too many kids..I feel like I’m teaching y’all to suck eggs..I’m sure all this is obvious
Right, but what we’re arguing over is how best to increase the rate of accumulation, not the necessity of accumulation (again, strictly from an economic vantage point) – which is where the question of productivity growth comes in.
What might make sense is to identify a goal (e.g. PC GDP at $15,000 or so whcih is what i’ve seen in some articles as a measure at which ‘happiness’ doesn’t increase after) rather than the implicit measure I’m using, which is convergence of PC GDP with wealthier countries.
“Because it is not truly authoritarian and every one has a me first attitude, which in Punjab and Delhi at least you can see in the driving..Chinese have an ordered mind and system, just look at the Oriental respect for authority and rules.”
“the Oriental”?… Wanderer, I am pretty sure that term is very outdated and also generalized ALL Asians, including Indians.. (And also, from what I have gathered from my East Asian friends, cringe-worthy/negatively used term)
“Orientals” aside, I do agree that India society in general still has a very “me first” attitude. I don’t know who else has had the pleasure to ride the Delhi Metro yet (it’s awesome!) but the only downside I have come accross is that, even though it doesn’t (as yet) get any more packed than the Boston T during rush hour, you still have to run and fight to get on/off the train at the stations… people will not stad aside and let people exit the train, rather both sides must shove and push to get on or off before the train leaves… Also, coming from America where we find standing in lines (and not cutting) a sacred duty, I was all flustered and confused in India to find you can’t just pasively stand in line, but you have to command your space and always constantly be saying “Hey Bhay! I was here first….” etc (something I am not so good at doing, unfortunately for me!)…
It sort of makes sense though, if you are in a country with a high population and a as of yet high poverty rate, that the people who get ahead and stay ahead are the ones who follow the “me first” attitude…because if you don’t go and grab what’s there, someone else will!
“Oriental” is considered okay to describe inanimate objects. They only take umbrage about describing people.
Of course someone, somewhere will always be offended by you no matter what you do. So the general rule is that if it is obvious that no offense is intended then none should be taken unless. To be otherwise is to be a whiny baby.
” So the general rule is that if it is obvious that no offense is intended then none should be taken unless. To be otherwise is to be a whiny baby. “
Oh absolutely, so if I use outdated terms like “Negro”, “Darky” or descriptive terms like “chinky” with offense intended, I’m sure no one would mind at all, right? And if they do, they would most certainly be a whiny baby”
*withOUT offense intended
from wikipedia, my ever-useful quick reference friend:
“The term Orient particularly included regions that used to be known as Persia, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and Egypt.[citation needed] As awareness of other Asian countries grew in European consciousness, the term often came to mean South Asia, Southeast Asia or East Asia. By the late 19th century, the term usually referred to China, Japan, Korea and surrounding nations while the British colonists frequently used it when speaking of India. Remnants of the older conception of the Orient still exist in the English language in such collocations as Oriental studies (now largely replaced by Asian studies), Oriental rug and Oriental harem. It has taken on a specific usage since the publication of Edward Said’s influential book, “Orientalism” (1980).”
Na y’all getting personal
The only ones who use those words without offense intended are almost certainly people with a tenuous grasp of American language and culture. So if you’re getting your knickers in a twist over that then yes, you are being a whiny baby.
@Linzi: It means different things in the American context than it does in the context of more international English. The US had a lot of Chinese immigrants in the 1800s and “Oriental” was used to refer to them and their stuff.
Yes, but most of the people I know who use the term “Oriental” in the U.S. do tend to use it out of lack of knowledge of the specifics of the cultures they are refering too. I don’t think wanderer had that in mind, but I just thought I would point out that people can take offense to that terminology— plus “Oriental” can also be applied to ALL of the ‘east’, India included.. so it is not really the best term for the job anyways….
Personnally speaking, my friends of East Asian descent have very specifically told me that they find the term “Oriental” offending (whether in terms of people or objects) because it over generalizes many different cultures and is often used in a negative way.
“The only ones who use those words without offense intended are almost certainly people with a tenuous grasp of American language and culture.”
Well if someone with a ‘tenuous grasp of American language and culture’ mistakenly uses a term that is inappropriate, wouldn’t it be helpful to let them know the connotation of the word? If I made the same mistake in Hindi, I would be embarassed but glad someone told me the term was innappropriate.
Especially after seeing some of the textbooks of English that still exist in today in India (I have seen some teaching words like “Negro” for example), it would be good for someone to point these things out before the word is used in a situation where offense could be taken!
Why? It’s offensive in the US because we have events very specific to American history that twisted the use of that word to be derogatory. In a country without that history the term won’t be derogatory.
They can, but people get offended over all sorts of meaningless twaddle. That doesn’t automatically confer their claims with merit. It’s a pretty simple rule I live by. “Don’t be a dick and don’t automatically presuppose that everyone else is a dick.” It saves me a lot of conflict over aforementioned meaningless twaddle.
Once again, it’s only generally considered offensive when referring to people. My university dorm list-serv had a long, involved, and heated conversation on this very subject some years ago.
yogafire: “Once again, it’s only generally considered offensive when referring to people.”
That’s your opinion, I guess. I think “Negro” is an offensive term in the English language, not just in American English, if someone is learning a language then they should not what terms are offensive and what are not. If I go around in the U.S. calling people “Harami” and “Chuut” Americans won’t find that offensive because they don’t know what I’m saying, that doesn’t mean they aren’t offensive terms.
Anyways, enough of this back and forth. I am not personally offended or upset for someone using that term, but I just thought to point out the negative connotations of the term. You don’t have to agree with me, but I am basing it on what East Asian friends have told me, and I respect their opinion.
Were these friends “Asian Studies majors” by any chance? Because like I said, most Asians I’ve talked to aren’t really offended by it. At most it’s a tone of “That’s supposed to be offensive” while not really being offended about it themselves.
oh, ok then. that settles it.
In the UK Oriental only refers to far east, that is east of India, encompassing China, Korea Japan et al. As English was invented in the UK, I say we decide what it means, and in that sense it is used to differiate between the far east and Indian sub continent…now stop worrying about semantics and focus on the issue of Indian liberalisation
Lot of academic or observational type comments on this board. As someone whose entire extended family has been in business for the past 5 generations, I can tell you the biggest hurdle was the government back then and is still the hurdle today. Store the intellectuals and communists in Universities, move some Banias/Marwadis into Delhi and see India prosper. The people skills are already in place, the aggressive Northern and Western Indian, the competent from the South and the unskilled labor from the East.
Change the Government mindset, there is no piousness in poverty.
it is piety.
Thank you, and I am sure my Business application was rejected by the intellectual.
I was talking to some Gujarati folks recently about economic progress in that state and one or two quite seriously stated they thought declaring independence from India and going at it alone (under revered Modi’s steady hand) would free them from shackles of (as they put it) populism, communalism, pseudo-secularism and other keep-the-Guju-man-down policies from the Center. They cited figures such as Gujarat contributing 18% of India’s tax revenues in 2000-2001 despite only having 6% of its population.
o·ri·en·tal (ôr’Ä“-Ä›n’tl, År’-)
adj.
1.
2.
3.
4.
n. often Oriental Often Offensive An Asian. o’ri·en’tal·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Cite This Source
American English
While a small number of reference works used in the United States describe Oriental as pejorative, antiquated or offensive in some instances, the American Heritage Book of English Usage notes that
Random House’s Guide to Sensitive Language states “Other words (e.g., Oriental, colored) are outdated or inaccurate.” This Guide to Sensitive Language suggests the use of “Asian or more specific designation such as Pacific Islander, Chinese American, [or] Korean.” [4] Merriam-Webster describes the term as “sometimes offensive,”[5] Encarta states when the term is used as a noun it is considered “a highly offensive term for somebody from East Asia.” [6] [edit] British English
In British English, the term Oriental is usually used to describe Eastern Asian people of Chinese/Japanese/Korean descent and some Southeastern Asian groups such as Vietnamese, whereas the term Asian generally describes the people or descendants of people from the Middle East or the Indian Subcontinent and its surrounding countries.[citation needed] (These latter people are called South Asians in the United States.) [edit] Australian English
In Australian English, the term “Asian” is generally used in reference to people of Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans and Japanese ethnicity. However, the term is sometimes expanded to include South Asians and other Asians of darker skin tone, also. Usage of the term is chiefly regional and often varies according to personal preference.
For example: Australians generally refer to people of: Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese or Chinese descent as Asian(s) and persons of Indian or Sri Lankan descent by their respective demonym(s).
The word Oriental, in place of Asian, is seldom used in colloquial conversation in Australia.[citation needed] [edit] Canadian English
In Canadian English, like Australian English, the term “Asian” is used most often to refer to people of eastern Asian descent and other similar southeastern groups. It can be expanded, however, such as in colonial times, to include the more southern Asian countries such as India and Sri Lanka , which is quite common, especially in use by South Asians themselves. In modern Canadian usage, according to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, the term “Oriental” is considered offensive when applied to a person of East Asian ancestry.[7]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orient
True for Kerala, but false for the other communist state that’s tellingly referred to as Waste Bengal. And all states qualify to be termed socialist states, because every political party pursues an economic agenda that is more left leaning than any found in the USA. That’s just how Indian states will be oriented because of where they’ve been pre-liberalization and due to the acute need for basic government sponsored safety nets.
RC
Actually the Swatantra Party was right of centre. Unfortunately it fizzled out after Rajagopalachari’s death. India was not forced to liberalize after 1991 – a reform process was already in place. 1991 was a major milestone, but I don’t think that it was a ‘kicking-and-screaming’ scenario. After all, Jyoti Basu even jumped on the bandwagon (saying that they had to take advantage of the reforms to benefit WB).
Al beruni
True dat! As you rightly point out, most people also tend to gloss over the influence the Cold War had on Indian economic policy.
Right now, an insidious form of capitalism is taking root within India, and that is the predatory capitalism which enslaves. In India, we have two brothers – the Ambanis – who control about $100B in wealth. This number is about 1/11 the ENTIRE ANNUAL GDP OF INDIA. There are many other billionaires within India, and therefore, power is very concentrated into the hands of a few. The same argument can be made for the USA.
I do see eye-to-eye with the Maoists/Naxalites. These people were historically “low-casted”, and they were denied opportunities. They resent Pepsi and their UK-educated upper-caste Hindu from encroaching on their land and colonising.
India needs a MORE STEEP progressive tax structure, among other things. Liberal should occur more rampantly, and the government should do more ambitious civil engineering projects.
Two related aspects to be remembered here
India had been experiencing a negative growth rate during the last 50 years or so of the colonial rule. It is natural that it may take a while to give life to the economy and hence the < 2% growth of the early decades.
The period of Nehru as the prime minsiter were when institutions of the nation were build such as IITs. Though his ‘temples of modern India’ idea flopper, the investments made in the period has tremendously benefited the country, long term
I guess one needs adjust of these while back-projecting the growth figures.
It seems to me, (mind you, I’m biased since I study education!) that the Indian government really need to focus on infrastructure right now– getting water and proper sanatation, dealing with roads and bridges, and electricity and all that, but especially getting a better run educational system in place. If you look at countries that went from struggling to becoming top competitors in the world, like Japan, one of their BIG changes was focused on their education system– making sure all the children in the country can receive a good solid education.
I think a lot of possible talent and innovations are lot because so many people don’t have access to education and hence don’t have access to contribute to India in a big way– instead they are left to menial tasks. I mean, just look at all the amazing ways Indians who have grown up poor without access to a decent education have used creativity and innovation to carve out a little space for themselves– Imagine what would happen if all of those people had access to education- and therefore to the internet– to books– to the world at large– to the latest scientific discoveries– etc. Right now even being literate is a far away dream for so many– let alone a quality education that would allow them the access to the innovation, design, and development of new ideas going on in the world today.
Personnally, I think education is one of the most important keys to success in a country– providing education for all children will raise access, help raise incomes, allow people to take advantage of knowledge they didn’t have access to before, organize and communicate, and also allows more and more children the chance to stand out and make important contributions to the world.
Honestly, I don’t understand why the Indian government is dragging it’s feet so much in this regard, and letting the state of the gov’t schools continue to fade into corruption or disrepair. As a nation, I really think they need to invest the time and money into creating a GOOD, well-run (I know, it’s a dream, but hey, they could actually create some checks and balances to root out corruption) system that reaches all the children atleast until 14 years old. If they did that, I don’t see how the country’s economy could NOT raise insanely. (Also poverty reduction, protection of human rights, health… all these things would improve along with it)
I mean, what’s to lose, really?
“Education” is a fuzzy word. Every kid in India gets an “education.” They don’t learn to read or write, but they learn survival skills and the family trade. Before we can say “education” we need to actually define what that means. What goals are we pursuing, what kinds of citizens do we want to raise, and how are we going to distribute the responsibility of raising them to be what we want them to be?
In my book the minimum bar is basic literacy and numeracy. If we want to be ambitious we can ramp that up to literacy in at least 3 languages (Regional, official/standardized Hindi, and English), math skills up to algebra, and basic knowledge of how to use a computer and research things on the internet. From there, you can pursue an education in any other area you want through private teachers, thereby saving the country money.
boston_mahesh wrote:
Mukesh Ambani took a 2/3 pay cut in order to set an example of moderation.
LinZi wrote:
LinZi, Japan didn’t exactly start out “struggling”. Unlike India, Japan was never colonized by another country. For that matter, I don’t think any of the Tiger countries were under foreign rule for as long as we were…
Also, focusing solely on education might not be such a good idea. Graduate unemployment is already high– can the economy really absorb a sudden influx of new graduates?
Caste-ism. So obvious, yet so taboo to mention. But it’s why India is so far behind China on literacy and economy.
That’s very true IMO, Yoga Fire. I would also add a well devised and relevant civics syllabus including basic rights and duties of citizens, knowledge of important acts like RTI etc so that it becomes less likely for voters to be taken for a ride by those whom they elect. Also, I feel that a year or two spent in compulsory military/defense service at some stage might not be a bad idea.It need not be an active field/combat type job, but any kind of organised, regimented service. It will promote interaction between people from different regions of the country, would free many minds from caste prejudices and improve the overall fitness and discipline of the youth. Of course the logistics of this exercise would be huge.
So what? Just for context, at a similar stage of development, Rockefeller’s wealth exceeded the entire GDP of the USA. Things didn’t work out so badly then did they?
Uh huh. And I suppose these upper-caste Hindus must be hand in glove with some Christian missionaries?
Simple. The state is incompetent in the extreme. These days the Indian Right is continuously increasing the education funding started by the Hindu Right earlier this decade. But the incompetence of the state is a huge roadblock even if the money doesn’t end up in an offshore account. Further, citizens unfortunately believe that every problem will be solved by the government, and have to be weaned off dependence on the government.
Yes. But isn’t the incompetence endogenous?
Not endogenous, but endemic, like Malaria. Could be eradicated in a lifetime, or could linger on for centuries.
To an extent, you’re mixing up capacity and competence.
What do you mean by that–that the Indian state is competent, but lacks capacity? How many years of independence does it need before it can be as good as the government of freaking Peru??
I figured, learning Hindi was useless except to watch the Bollywood movies
ArchanaP wrote:
You know, Archana, if you’re dissatisfied with the performance of the Indian government, you could always try joining the IAS and changing things… Just wanted to put that out there…
Thanx for the suggestion, but I hate India (the nation, not the people)–that’s why we left.
Representing the diaspora, yours truly.
My 2 grandfathers wasted their lives working for the Indian state–thanks, but no thanks. I aim to invest my human capital where it matters.
Thanks for offering to represent us! But actually you dont represent anyone except your hatefilled (hateful?) self. So be off and enjoy your hate someplace else !
Not true. I represent generations of mistreated desi gals. But, don’t worry, I’ll work it out with my gori boyfriend while you go sulk.
Because financial resources are not as much of a problem these days, it is becoming clear that the issue is competence NOT capacity. Take the case of infant mortality in Delhi – this stat has not budged in 11 years! Surely it is not the case that the capital territory lacks either urban infrastructure or funding.
Yes,yes, yes–I hate the communists, but, as bad as they are, they at least recognize the right to life of little babies . . .. sometimes, in the dark of the ngiht, I hate being desi, because I’m not sure what’s good there–after the woman-hatrred, what. . . .
oh common, did the ‘nation of free’ ever had a woman president? India being so diverse, you can’t generalize this.
So, you’re asking what might have happened if an Indian investment bank started the global financial meltdown instead of a U.S. one?
P.S.
Love the historicism, Vinod. Read alternate World War II novels much?
kisses, brownstone
“LinZi, Japan didn’t exactly start out “struggling”. Unlike India, Japan was never colonized by another country.”
Except when A-bombs were rained down upon and it it’s economy went to crap during WWII:
“The war cost Japan and countries part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere millions of lives and left much of the country’s industry and infrastructure destroyed.”
“In 1947, Japan adopted a new pacifist constitution emphasizing liberal democratic practices. The Allied occupation ended by the Treaty of San Francisco in 1952[37] and Japan was granted membership in the United Nations in 1956. Japan later achieved spectacular growth to become the second largest economy in the world, with an annual growth rate averaging 10% for four decades. This ended in the mid-1990s when Japan suffered a major recession. Positive growth in the early twenty-first century has signaled a gradual recovery.[38]” (wikipedia: Japan: History)
From what I know…up until that time Japanese society was largely based on the ancient feudal system.