Economic Development of India and China

ABSTRACT
This study looks at the factors that have shaped the
economic development of India and China. Starting in the 1990s, a gap emerged
in the economic development between the comparable countries. This gap can be
attributed to many factors including: China’s authoritarian government and
focus on infrastructure, India’s focus on the service sector rather than
manufacturing, and India’s late embrace of the market economy. Although this
gap has been consistent since the 1990s, there is a possibility to close the economic
developmental gap between the two Asian countries.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

INTRODUCTION
India and China are both leaders in Asia’s emerging market. However, currently, China gets ten times more foreign direct investment than India. This paradox is so intriguing because up until the 1990s, India’s highway and railway infrastructure system was far beyond that of China, and until 1993, the two countries had similar GDPs. However, beginning in the 1990s, a gap emerged in the economic development between the two countries. This study will look at the economic performance, path to modernization, and political similarities and differences. All of these factors play a role in the gap that has emerged.  The globalization process has played a large role in the development of countries worldwide. Firstly, this study will delve into globalization and how the process has impacted each country differently. Secondly, we will look at what factors indicate why China has developed at a much faster pace than India. Finally, it will look at the possibility of bridging the gap.  
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Assumption
1: The transformation of development has
changed due to globalization. Less developed countries do not have to invest
time and capital in research and development; borrowing technology creates
faster development.
Hypothesis
1: China and India have vastly different
markets and political strategies. Globalization had led to massive economic
growth in both, however, the different economic and political choices made by
both countries have impacted their speeds of development 
Theoretical
Lens: This study will utilize the liberalist
theoretical lens to analyze this study. This theoretical approach abides by the
assumption that the driving force behind economic integration is globalization.
Therefore, implemented it will lead to increased trade and investment. Globalization
has played a heavy role in the development of both India and China, and can
assist in the explanation of the gap that has occurred. Globalization is
supported by classical economic liberals because they adhere to what
globalization essentially stands for. Because this study focuses primarily on
economic development, this study will utilize the focus that the liberal school
of international relations has on the economic benefits of globalization.  Globalization has assisted in the worldwide
spread of large companies, democratic values (India), and skill sets. China is
a perfect example of the benefits globalization can offer. Their growth can be
attributed to their large manufacturing export sector and the market incentives
that came when they opened their economy.  
METHODOLOGY
Research
Question:
How
are China and India’s different choices responsible for India’s lag behind
China?
Thesis
Statement:
The gap that has occurred between India
and China can be attributed to various factors including India’s focus on the
service sector, the lack of government cohesiveness, and their late opening to
the global market.  
Data
Collection:
I chose these two specific countries for a
few reasons. These neighboring countries share a 2000-kilometer border. They
each have a large population and similar objectives. Their relationship has
transformed in many ways in modern history; transitioning from ally to rival
and back to allies again. They both endured devastating famines and they are
both historically very similar. One of the biggest gaps that I noticed is that
their pace to development differs greatly. This gap began to occur in the
1990’s, therefore my study will focus on 1990-now.
This paper will rely primarily on
qualitative research found in scholarly journal articles and books. The sources
are available on the internet.  The
Journals utilized includes: Journal of Indian Business Research, Modern Asian
Studies, The China Quarterly, Asian Survey, Comparative Politics, and
International Affairs. This study also used data from the World Bank, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
BACKGROUND
When looking at each countries’ current
state, it is important to acknowledge their respective histories and the role
that they played. Both China and India have a long history, however, their
histories vary. Both were major exporters of textiles and largely dominated the
seas until 1500. Both countries have vast territories and utilized this in the
agricultural sector. However, China’s history drove it towards mass
industrialization. China is a large, centrally run state and has a history of
stability and single authority. Their country views itself as a unitary, hard
state. This allows them to pursue single goals with ease and mobilize resources
effectively. India endured foreign rule from the British until their Independence
in 1947. India struggled to find unity within diversity and articulating an
integrated vision of Indian nationhood. They had issues because they were
trying to accommodate different languages and religions within a democratic
framework. However, the average Indian was slightly better off than the average
Chinese the first few years after India’s independence. These historical
legacies have greatly influenced the political and economics of China and
India.
CHAPTER I: GLOBALIZATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
The globalization process has introduced
numerous opportunities and threats to India and China. Both countries have
extensively liberalized their economies in recent years and they have seen
rapid economic growth in the past two decades. However, these two countries
have benefited from these opportunities at very different rates and responded
to the process in different ways. This is where our study’s first questions is
introduced:
The
globalization has effected developing countries differently, why?
The ambassador to the Geneva Center for
Security Policy defines globalization as, “A complex process that involves
economic integration, transfer of policies across borders, and the transmission
of knowledge.” [1] It
is a process that encompasses the causes, course, and consequences of
transitional and transcultural integration of human and non-human activities.
Therefore, it is evident that this concept plays an integral role in this
study.
Global integration has decreased poverty in China more so than in India. However, there has been an overall decline in poverty for both countries. The main difference between China and India is the inequality that has developed in India due to the change in economic status within the society. Overall, globalization and economic integration has increased the number of people living in extreme poverty in the world’s richest and poorest countries.  
India
India is still in the ongoing process of
globalization and economic integration into the world economy.  Most scholars believe that the starting point
for economic liberalization in India is began in 1991.[2]
This is when the government openly sought integration into the economy and
their orientation shifted. This included the removal of tariffs and restrictions
on foreign trade. The Indian government also liberalized their foreign direct
investment and cut taxes during this time. Although there was an orientation
shift in 1991, regions within India experienced very different growth rates.
This is mostly a result of the differences in foreign direct investment flow.
During this time, only 4 regions accounted for 43.74% of FDI in the country.[3]
Globalization caused uneven growth
regionally as well as in different sectors. Growth in the agriculture sector
declined significantly in comparison to the manufacturing and service sectors.
If growth would have been spread more evenly throughout the various sectors,
inequality and poverty would decrease across the country.
China
China’s rapid growth is associated with
them being one of the first Asian countries to integrate the globalization
process and open up to the world economy. In the past 40 years, China’s
approach to development has been so successful that they are now ranked as the
second most important economy. They began their economic reform in 1970s which
gave them a head start in growth rate in comparison to other countries in the
region. Currently China’s service sector is much broader than India’s. This
includes tourism, business, and transport services.
Globalization has led to rapid economic
development within China.  In the 1990s,
China focused on being labor intensive. They diversified their export sector to
include computer equipment and telecommunications. Their manufacturing
increased from 72% of merchandise exports to 91%.[4]
This demonstrated China’s importance in the world economy and the manufacturing
sector. Overall, the globalization process sped up the GDP growth rate in
China. It also decreased their vulnerability to economic crises. It actually
protected them from the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s.
Different choices in history by China and
India have resulted in China being a leader in economic development. This is
because China opened up their markets earlier and India started in 1991. India
also did not focus on industrialization. They specialized in services and IT.
Unfortunately, the IT-sector does not contribute a large benefit to GDP,
therefore, this growth did not result in significant growth within India.
CHAPTER 2: FACTORS THAT STIMULATE DEVELOPMENT INEQUALITY
This chapter will look factors that have
encouraged the rise of China and lag of India. This puzzle is specifically
intriguing because the countries’ GDPs were so similar up until the 1990s. This
is where the second question within this study is introduced:
Why
has China developed so much faster?
Below are the main reasons why China is so far ahead
of India:
China
is an Autocracy. The Chinese authoritarian government
owns all of the land. China’s government allows for quick land acquisition for
development of infrastructure projects and to restore and rehabilitate the
displaced people. This leads to faster decision making and faster
implementation.  In the 1990’s China had
a rapid infrastructure push and roads, railways, and airports were built. Rather
than waiting for the need to arise, China’s government built for their
country’s projected needs. For the most part, the policy decisions decided on
are not altered by different party politics, ideology or leadership change. This
allows the government to stay committed to a focus on their economic growth. One
of the most successful government implemented policies is the encouragement of
resource mobilization.
China
has an extremely strong savings culture.
There are four large state banks that citizens deposit their money into.
Overall, China has a faster growth of capital stock which results in rapid
growth of capital intensity. This high savings rate has transformed into
available capital. This capital is directed by the leadership into various key
projects. This correlates to China’s focus on infrastructure projects. This
capital has financed the majority of the government infrastructure projects in
China.
China embraced a market economy early.
China experienced one of the greatest comparative advantages in economics’
history. In the 1990’s, China began to focus more on their relations with
strong global powers like the United States, Russia, Japan, and European
countries. They embraced market economy in 1992 and utilized their massive
amounts of land. Land reform led to equitable distribution of income and wealth
throughout the country.
China
has a strong manufacturing base. When China
invaded the world market, they focused on labor-intensive manufacturing sectors
like textile and apparel. They successfully transitioned from agriculture into
high productivity sectors. They began to focus their orientation largely on
exporting manufacturing goods. China successfully became the world’s
manufacturing hub by creating low-cost electronic and hardware products. This
provided a much needed boost to their economy and a substantial amount of jobs
were provided.
China
has favorable demographics. China’s population
provides them with a massive market making their current demographics favorable
for a strong economy. China currently has more people in working age which
leads to higher productivity and a higher GDP. However, due to the One Child
Policy, this is expected to decline in the future. That being said, China’s
population has been one of their best selling points. Chinese leaders organized
delegations, hosted conferences, and successfully convinced foreign investors
that China was stable and committed to an open-door policy. They essentially
used their massive size as a selling point to increase foreign investment. Additionally,
China’s population has a high literacy rate compared to India. Mao rapidly
increased literacy rates within China, particularly in women. In 2012, the
adult literacy rate was 96.4% in China and 71.2% in India.[5]
China
has a hidden source of income: the tourism industry.
They host almost 6 times more tourists every year in comparison to India. This
industry creates over 60 million jobs in China. This hidden source of income
dominates their service sector.
China has a flexible investment zone.
They have a highly developed bond market where investors can easily hedge their
risks against deviations. They also have the China Development Bank which
heavily finances their infrastructure development. Their government has
successfully created flexible investment zones, and export processing zones
that are combined with tax incentives and strong infrastructure. China has a
much higher FDI from OECD countries due to its large domestic market.[6]
They also have stronger international trade ties with these countries.
Below are the main reasons why India’s growth has been
stunted in comparison to China’s:
India’s
growth model: India has focused predominately on
an idiosyncratic pattern of development. However, they have emphasized services
and skill-intensive manufacturing rather than labor- intensive manufacturing.[7]
India
is a democracy. India’s government politicians’ policy
decision are often driven by what will get them the most votes rather than what
is necessarily right for the country. Winning elections is prioritized, and
things like subsidies take precedence over large infrastructure projects. This
causes delays and the result is ineffective decision making. They have multiple
political parties with no coherent approach to development. Additionally, the
government has not provided a stable macro-economic environment.
India’s
main focus is on the service sector.
India never experienced mass industrialization or a boost in the manufacturing
sector. They still currently focus on the service sector which includes skill
and knowledge.  The service IT-sector
which India has focused on does not contribute a large benefit to GDP.
India’s
economy opened up much later than China.
The economy is currently largely closed and trade is a much smaller part of its
economy. Their country fosters a sense of protectionism that prohibits
companies from owning a majority of a company within India. The intention of
this policy was to foster native companies, however, it has stifled their
growth and economy. However, in 1991, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao implemented
reforms to accelerate Indian economic growth.[8]
These results were short lived, and due to political paralysis of policies,
economic growth was stunted once again. 
India
has a poor methodology towards infrastructure. India’s
approach to infrastructure is to wait for the demand to arise before building.
China is the opposite. India’s mall infrastructure projects have been funded by
private companies. India is in dire need of a development finance institution
(a lender solely for long-term infrastructure projects).
India
lacks the business-above-all attitude.
Unlike China, India has extremely stringent environmental protection laws. This
often leads to cost escalation. It has been referenced as a third world country
with first world ambitions and resources but outrageous environmental ethics.[9]
Trade and economic growth have not been paramount in India. Their focus on
native companies and local industry has curbed and restricted foreign
investment.
CHAPTER 3: LESSONS TO BE LEARNED AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
What
are some policy lessons to be learned?
The education system needs to be at the
forefront. It is important for India to maintain the current comparative
advantage over China within the IT-sector. In order to do that, India must
continue to reform the educational system and promote education throughout the
country. Overall, the average level of education needs to increase.
Additionally, specialized training can further strengthen their labor force.
Finally, India’s government needs to realize that industrialization rather than
service specialization is needed to reach high growth rates.
Is
it possible to bridge the gap?
Demographically, India’s population and
market will soon be the size of China’s. By 2020, India’s working age
population is projected to overtake China. This is partially a result of
China’s One Child Policy. The UN projected that India will have more than 1
billion people in working age by 2050. As of 2012, India’s fertility rate was
at 2.5 compared to China’s 1.7.[10] India
also offers cheaper labor costs, geographic closeness to many OECD investor
countries, and lower country risk. This can increase their prospects for
increased FDI investment.
In efforts to boost tourism, India is
implemented a new policy that allows for visa on arrival without the need to
visit an Indian consulate or visa center. This policy has the opportunity to
increase country revenue and support job growth within the service industry.
Since the election of Prime Minister
Narendra Modi in 2014, foreign investment has been increasing in India. PM Mobi
has pledged to banish India’s reputation as a hard place to invest and do
business. He also plans to invest heavily in rail, roadway and energy
infrastructures. He promises to create efficient bureaucracy, develop the
necessary infrastructure to support profitable industries, and work side by
side with foreign and domestic investors to efficiently implement their
projects.[11]
CONCLUSION
There are various economic and political
choices made by both countries in the past that have largely effected their
developmental success today. This study identifies these reasons as specific
pieces to the gap puzzle. When we look at these as a whole we can see why there
is such a large gap in the economic development of India and China.
China’s began their orientation towards
the world economy in 1978, while India did not shift their orientation until
1991. It is possible to successfully bridge the gap between the two countries.
However, considering the 15 year head start that China has on India, this
process will take time. That being said, India’s new Prime Minister Narendra
Modi offers a glimmer of consistency and productive policies to ensure India’s
continued development.
REFERENCES
DeLong, J.
B. (2003). India since independence: An analytic growth narrative. In
search of prosperity: analytic narratives on economic growth, 184-204.
G.K. Kalyanaram,
(2009) “India’s economic growth and market potential: benchmarked against
China”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 1 Issue: 1,
pp.57-65, https://doi.org/10.1108/17554190910963208
Fravel, M. (2010). International Relations
Theory and China’s Rise: Assessing China’s Potential for Territorial
Expansion. International Studies Review, 12(4),
505-532. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.library3.webster.edu/stable/40931355
Hall, I.
(2017). Narendra Modi and India’s normative power. International
Affairs, 93(1), 113-131.
Malik, J. (1995). China-India Relations in
the Post-Soviet Era: The Continuing Rivalry. The China Quarterly, (142),
317-355. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.library3.webster.edu/stable/655419
Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan and Gerard Stoudmann,
(2006) “Definitions of Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and A Proposed
Definition”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy, available at http://www.gcsp.ch/e/publications/Globalization/index.htm.
Reich, M. R., & Bowonder, B. (1992). Environmental Policy in
India. Policy Studies Journal, 20(4), 643-661.
The World Bank, World Development Indicators (2012). Fertility rate, total (births per woman).
Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN. 
UNICEF (2012). State
of the World – Statistics, Retrieved from
https://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html
Wenhui Wei, (2005) “China and India: Any difference in
their FDI performances?”, Journal of
Asian Economics, Volume 16, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 719-736, ISSN 1049-0078,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2005.06.004.
[1] Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan and Gerard Stoudmann, “Definitions of
Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and A Proposed Definition”, Geneva
Centre for Security Policy, 2006, available at
http://www.gcsp.ch/e/publications/Globalization/index.htm.
[2] G.K. Kalyanaram,
(2009) “India’s economic growth and market potential: benchmarked against
China”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 1 Issue: 1,
pp.57-65, https://doi.org/10.1108/17554190910963208
[3] G.K. Kalynarma, (2009).
[4] Fravel, M. (2010). International Relations Theory and China’s Rise:
Assessing China’s Potential for Territorial Expansion. International
Studies Review, 12(4), 505-532. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.library3.webster.edu/stable/40931355
[5] UNICEF (2012). State of the
World – Statistics, Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html
[6] Wenhui Wei, (2005) “China and India: Any difference in their FDI
performances?”, Journal of Asian
Economics, Volume 16, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 719-736, ISSN 1049-0078,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2005.06.004.
[7] Malik, J. (1995). China-India Relations in the
Post-Soviet Era: The Continuing Rivalry. The China Quarterly, (142),
317-355. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.library3.webster.edu/stable/655419
[8]
DeLong, J. B. (2003). India since
independence: An analytic growth narrative. In search of prosperity:
analytic narratives on economic growth, 184-204.
[9] Reich,
M. R., & Bowonder, B. (1992). Environmental Policy in India. Policy
Studies Journal, 20(4), 643-661
[10] The World Bank, World Development Indicators
(2012). Fertility rate, total (births per
woman). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN. 
[11]
Hall, I. (2017). Narendra Modi and
India’s normative power. International Affairs, 93(1),
113-131.