I find Arvind Subramanian's article "India’s weak state will not overhaul China" (August 16, 2010) pretty amusing. It seems that the writer is not happy with India's 8.5% growth as he is not able to truly explain it within the framework of his understanding.
It is true that India is not progressing as fast as China. But then who is? Nevertheless, it is the second fastest growing economy and the fastest growing democratic nation. It is one of the few countries that can make supercomputers, lauch satellites, and build nuclear reactors. It has some truly international corporations and a vibrant capital market. As far as market friendliness is concerned, I would recommend the writer to read Joseph Stiglitz's "Globalization and its Discontent" so as he gets a more balanced view about the "benefits" of textbook liberalization that destroyed economies of Russia, Czech Republic and Argentina, to name a few. India is perfectly justified in taking it nice and easy. Post 1990 it has been wise to avoid the mistakes of star IMF pupils, and the results speak for themselves.
India is a relatively young nation and has its shares of problems, including corruption, terrorism, naxalites and poverty, to name a few. However, to term a nation with the third largest standing army weak smacks of intellectual arrogance. Perhaps India will not overhaul China. But in its current form I doubt if any nation, including US or UK, is capable of overhauling China. What is that supposed to mean?
It is true that India is not progressing as fast as China. But then who is? Nevertheless, it is the second fastest growing economy and the fastest growing democratic nation. It is one of the few countries that can make supercomputers, lauch satellites, and build nuclear reactors. It has some truly international corporations and a vibrant capital market. As far as market friendliness is concerned, I would recommend the writer to read Joseph Stiglitz's "Globalization and its Discontent" so as he gets a more balanced view about the "benefits" of textbook liberalization that destroyed economies of Russia, Czech Republic and Argentina, to name a few. India is perfectly justified in taking it nice and easy. Post 1990 it has been wise to avoid the mistakes of star IMF pupils, and the results speak for themselves.
India is a relatively young nation and has its shares of problems, including corruption, terrorism, naxalites and poverty, to name a few. However, to term a nation with the third largest standing army weak smacks of intellectual arrogance. Perhaps India will not overhaul China. But in its current form I doubt if any nation, including US or UK, is capable of overhauling China. What is that supposed to mean?
No comments:
Post a Comment