印度网友讨论：印度能像中国一样发展吗？ [美国媒体]

Can India develop like China？

印度网友讨论：印度能像中国一样发展吗？

Alex, studied at China
India is democratic country, and China has a most powerful central government. They are quite different countries, and as far as I can see, India can never grow like China.
If we narrow the topic, and discuss whether India can grow like China in economic, my answer is of course they will sooner or later, but it is not likely to happen in recent decades. The GDP per capita of India is about USD2000.00, and it is similar to 2005 of China, it seems to be optimistic, but the distance is much longer. They seem to have a lot of advantages, but they are not good at seizing the opportunity and make fully use of it.
1. Abundant human resources with poor education
They have 1.2 billion people, and most of them are young. English also seems to be an advantage of India. However, their literacy is only 74% (2011). This is a proper reflection of their weakness in Education, which in addition seriously limits their future potential. This weakness in Education made their human resources advantage heavily discounted.
There is an old saying in China: To be a scholar is to be the top of society. Chinese character seems to be the most difficult language to master, but the literacy of China in 1990 was 77%, and after 2000, this grows to more than 90%.
2. Superior international environment but shortsighted policy
In 1990, the economic level of India and China are almost the same.
China soon got sanctions from the US, EU, and most of the powerful countries. However, we soon made compromise with Taiwan, Japan, US, and UN, and tried our best to make friends, and do business with them. China are surrounded by Russia, Japan, and southeast Asia countries, and maritime lifeline can easily be cut off. However, In 2001, China strived to join WTO, and became the No. 143 numbers, and soon we changed all the world with international trade. Now the total volume of international trade of China is more than US, almost equals to all EU countries.
As a democratic country, India has a much better relationship with the most powerful countries. However, even now, they cannot live in peace with Pakistan. India joined WTO since its foundation, but even now, their total volume of foreign trade is still less than Hong Kong.
3. A terrible competitor in front of India.
Will China be a competitor of India in economic?
China would say NO, but India would say YES.
China devoted most of the country’s resource to manufacturing industry, and defected most of the competitor such as Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America, or even Eastern Europe in the first decade of 21 century. US, EU (Germany), and Japan fight each other in upscale market, and China become a tyrant for primary and ordinary product.
In the recent future, China would devote most efforts to increase product quality and technology. And if China runs fast enough, India would undertake the industrial transfer from China. If China does not, India would definitely meet the competition from China. Someone may insist India would find another way. Well, in my opinion, the road would not be so wide, especially the two counties occupy over 40% of the world’s population.
Let’s hope China would run faster.
4. Resources
The size of China is three times as large as India, and many of the resources rank first or in front of the world. Yet we still made a One Child Policy, because we believe there would not be so much resources for us. This is cruelty but not irrational.
Since 2010, China is consuming half of the world’s iron and concrete, we are lucky these resources seem to be renewable or inexhaustible. However, many of the essential resources are not.
You must know oil.
China is abundant in coal, but not so much oil. In 2014, China consumed 12% of the world’s oil, and more than half of them are imported. With the development of China, the demands are still increasing terribly. Every day when we watch the news, we would see the President or Premier traveling all around the world and dealing with all the dangerous countries to buy oil.
The future of India seems to be worse. They are neither abundant in coal, oil or gas.
Let’s see what they would do in the future.
Abov all, I see it is a hard topic for me. I just list some of the points, and I would like to see more answers who are interested in this topic.

印度是皿煮国家，中国则有一个最强大的国家。他们是完全不同的国家，在我看来，印度永远不可能像中国那样增长。
如果我们缩小话题范围，讨论印度经济能否像中国那样增长，我的回答当然是迟早会这样，但近几十年来不太可能发生。印度的人均GDP约为2000美元，与中国的2005年差不多，这似乎是乐观的，但差距要大得多。他们似乎有很多优势，但他们不善于抓住机会，充分利用它。



3.在印度面前的可怕竞争者
中国会成为印度在经济上的竞争对手吗?中国会说不，但印度会说是的。
在21世纪的头10年，中国将大部分资源投入到制造业，并击败了非洲、东南亚、拉丁美洲甚至东欧等竞争对手。美国、欧盟(德国)、日本在高端市场上你争我夺，中国则成为初级和普通产品的暴君。
在不久的将来，中国将致力于提高产品质量和技术。如果中国跑得足够快，印度将承担中国的产业转移。如果中国不这样做，印度肯定会面临来自中国的竞争。有人可能坚持认为印度会找到另一种方式。嗯，在我看来，这条路不会那么宽，特别是这两个国家占世界人口的40%以上。
让我们希望中国能跑得更快。



Alfred W Croucher, has lived and worked in China since 1978. His post-graduate thesis was on GPCR.
One of the main impediments to infrastructure development in India is the complexities of land ownership title. In addition to the Common Law titles there are also different systems of traditional ownership title, both at the individual and village level.
I recall when Tata set out to build three factories in India to produce their brilliant cheap mini car, they had to abandon one site due to a bun fight between several villages who each claimed ownership of the land and eventually made it impossible for the acquisition to go ahead. Multiply that by the difficulty of acquiring a whole corridor of land for a road or rail system and I can see why little has happened so far.
Nevertheless I have faith in Modi and I believe he has introduced a Land Aquisition Bill to try and override all title in the national interest. I would be grateful for more information on this bill. For the sake of India's future development, I hope he is successful.
It is well known that China has little problem acquiring land as ultimate title resides in the state. But Chinese now have legally defined land use rights and so the methods of acquisition and compensation are clearly defined by law. But of course China is still "perfecting" it's legal system and the "rule of law" varies from place to place. So implementation is patchy and you do hear horror stories of gangs who specialise in moving recalcitrants. China is a big country.
But the CCP is interested in stability so each government In charge of a project must give residents affected by the development several years and appropriate compensation to relocate. Stories are legion of recalcitrant owners, and even renters, holding out as the project is completed around them. They even have a name: nail houses -they stand out like a nail sticking out of the floor.
I have spoken to some of these hold-outs. Either they appear to be unsound of mind, or are just holding out for a big "nuisance" pay off. Sometimes they only moved into the village/house after it was marked for demolition.

印度基础设施发展的主要障碍之一是土地所有权的复杂性。除了普通法律上的所有权外，在个人和村庄一级，传统的所有权也有不同的制度。
我记得当塔塔开始在印度建立三个工厂生产他们的才华横溢的便宜的迷你车时,他们不得不放弃一个站点，因为几个村庄相聚的茶会上，他们都主张土地收购的所有权,最终使这个项目无法进行下去。
再加上为修建公路或铁路系统而获得一整条土地走廊的困难，我明白为什么到目前为止几乎没有发生什么事情的原因。

尽管如此，我对莫迪有信心，我相信他已经提出了一项土地征用法案，试图从国家利益的角度推翻所有所有权。如能提供更多有关该法案的信息，我将不胜感激。为了印度未来的发展，我希望他能成功。
众所周知，中国在获得土地方面没有什么问题，因为土地的最终所有权属于国家。但是，中国人现在已经对土地使用权有了法律上的定义，因此，土地征用和补偿的方式也有法律明确规定。
但当然了，中国仍在“完善”其法律体系，“法治”也因地而异。所以执行是不完整的，你确实听到过犯罪团伙专门从事转移反抗者的恐怖故事。中国是一个大国。



Maheswar Deka, studied at Gauhati University
China is among middle and low income level countries. In China, around 150 million people are caught in poverty according to the UN standard, living on less than 1 US dollar a day. However, China has a good record in the fields of manufacture and technology. With an annual growth of 8-9%, China has had the fastest growing major economy for the last 30 years. Overall, China holds the record for the fastest developing major country in the history of the world, with no signs of a slowdown at present.
India needs not copy others- only it needs to be developed. India' ‘future lies in the hands of the central government and the state governments of 29 states ( 7 unx territories are there too).The Indian central government as well as the state governments will have to be efficient, smart and transparent if any development is to be obtained for the 128 Indians. By showing smartness and transperancy, the government has to be a role model for those Indians who are lazy and inefficient.The government has to ensure and enforce work culture in offices. The plans that the government intends to execute need to be completed on time. Certain loopholes like lands acquiring etc are there in the country- these will have to be tackled by framing laws. Overall, efficiency, smartness, transparency, work culture, public co-operation etc can lift India from the bottom to the top. In the last analysis, India will have to work with efficiency and to remove rampant corruption.

中国是中低收入国家之一。在中国，根据联合国的标准，大约有1.5亿人处于贫困之中，每天生活费不足1美元。然而，中国在制造和技术方面有着良好的记录。
基于8-9%的年增长率，过去30年来，中国一直是主要经济体增长最快的国家。总体而言，中国是世界历史上发展最快的大国，目前没有放缓的迹象。
印度不需要复制其他国家，只需要发展。印度的未来掌握在中央ZF和29个邦的州ZF手中。



这是个有趣的问题。印度目前的人均GDP是1581美元(2015年)。中国目前的人均GDP是8141美元(2015年)。
这意味着，一个印度人平均年收入为1581美元，相当于每个月131美元。而中国人的年收入是8141美元，相当于一个月678美元。这是一个巨大的差异。巨大的!
这意味着中国人的平均收入几乎是印度人的6倍。或者一个中国家庭的收入相当于6个印度家庭的收入。



（中印两国人均GDP对比图）

上图中的差距是扩大了还是缩小了?你有答案了。

Shashank Reddy
Dude, just comparing per capita incomes is a wrong measure, the right estimate would be per capita per ppp terms which would also take into account the cost of living in a country.

伙计，仅仅比较人均收入是错误的，考虑到一个国家的生活成本正确的估计应该是人均购买力平价。



Vikram Malik, Student at St. Johns Academy (2005-present)
The bulls say India is the 'next China'. Odds are they are right, if not today then within a decade or so. But even if this proves to be right in terms of growth, India is a very different country than China on many fundamental dimensions, demography and democracy being key. But most importantly, China has been built on infrastructure, investment and manufacturing, while India has barely scratched the surface on all three.
India began its economic reform in the early 1990s, more than a decade after China. But in the past 25 years, China has turbocharged its economy while India has languished in relative terms. Why?
Chinese growth has been driven by some of the world's highest investment rates. This has, in turn, made possible an infrastructure revolution of new cities, high-speed rail lines, airports and ports and manufacturing muscle that is the envy of the world. China has also been the world's factory for 20 years. Its ability to quickly and efficiently move what it produces domestically and around the world has been a critical ingredient in its growth miracle.
Today, India lags far behind China on all three dimensions. India invests about 30% of its GDP, compared with about 50% in China. Manufacturing is about 20% of the Indian economy, compared to China's about 30%. China has arguably the best physical infrastructure outside the western world. India's looks more like the poor country that it still is.
But this is a real opportunity for India. Increase investment. Improve infrastructure. Grow economic output. This is a tried and true path to growth, and it is one India is poised to follow.
Consider India's vaunted tech sector. We all know about the incredible Indian talent running some of America's tech icons. Google's CEO Sundar Pichai did his undergraduate degree in India before coming to the US for a Stanford Masters and a Wharton MBA. Likewise, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella received his undergraduate degree in India and followed up with diplomas from US graduate schools. These and so many other Indian-American tech sector executives are testament to the power of the immigration-innovation nexus in the US.
However, don't let these rock star CEOs fool anyone into thinking the only way for Indian technologists to succeed is to work in the US for American firms. Homegrown, and still home-centered, companies like Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Infosys and Wipro are real world leaders when it comes to information technology. And Indian entrepreneurs are killing it today in startups with people like Punit Soni at FlipKart and Kunal Bahl at SnapDeal.
The growth of Indian tech has been fuelled by large-scale private sector investment, from both India and abroad. These companies needed infrastructure to thrive, but the infrastructure was digital not physical — allowing Indian IT firms to beam information and analysis from India to the world and back, long before anyone was talking about 'the Cloud'. They didn't need to ship widgets because their products were all in bits.
About a decade ago, some optimists thought India could leapfrog over the manufacturing and physical infrastructure stage of development (widgets) to build the whole economy around digital (bits). Today, it is clear that while India's tech sector is fantastic and growing, the country will have to develop the old-fashioned way, with better infrastructure and more manufacturing.
What will determine whether India can become a bit more 'Chinese' when it comes to infrastructure and manufacturing? Unlike China, the answer will not be government investment, because the Indian state is hamstrung by endemic budget deficits of big subsidies and limited taxation.
The 'Make in India' initiative is so promising because it does not rely on the Indian government. Boldly launched with a goal of India surpassing China in direct foreign investment, 'Make in India' is a clarion call for global firms to increase their financial commitment to India. Now innovative firms as diverse as Samsung, Lenovo and Boeing have publically supported the initiative proving that the private sector is ready to step in.
Yet it seems that the private sector won't act until it is more confident about politics. Nowhere is India more different from China than in the world of politics. But this doesn't mean that India won't go on a growth charge the way China has. The raw material India has to work with is so rich. The challenge now is to catalyse it.
In India’s noisy political democracy, the problems are compounded by the existence of multiple political parties with no coherent approach to development
The average Indian was slightly better off than the average Chinese in the initial years after Indian independence. But China’s approach to development has varied markedly over the last 40 years and has been so successful that it now ranks as the second most important economy in the world. India has made good progress but is still substantially behind China.
In the first decade of this century, India’s growth reached a take off stage that prompted many people to ask when India would catch up with its neighbour. It was also thought that democratic India may even overtake China
China and India, despite being such large countries, accounted for only 4.5 per cent and 4.2 per cent of global GDP in 1950 in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP$) terms. The ratio of China’s GDP to India’s was 1.18 in 1913 ($241 billion/$204 billion); in 1950 it was 1.08 ($239 billion/$222 billion). Estimates of per capita income made by Angus Maddison and Dharma Kumar suggest that India might have had a higher per capita income. However, there was not a marked difference in the level of human development.
Both countries, in the course of history, have feared foreign domination, have considered the state as the driver of growth and have suspected the private sector’s initiatives. For India, the problems were achieving unity in diversity and accommodating various languages and religions in a democratic set up. On the contrary, China’s hard state enabled it to pursue a single goal with determination and mobilise maximum resources to achieve its goals.
Growth in China
China experienced many problems in initiating industrialisation, but after some hitches, it switched to an all-round emphasis on heavy and light industries, and had a more successful resource mobilisation strategy than India did. As a result, Chinese manufacturing grew at 9.5 per cent, twice as much as India’s rate, from 1965-80. Also, China managed its agrarian reform better than India did.
On the whole, estimates by Richard Herd and Sean Dougherty suggest that China grew at a much faster rate than India did during 1950-79, and Chinese per capita GDP was more than twice the rate of India’s. This is largely due to higher growth in Chinese labour productivity and capital deepening. By 1978, the per capita income of China was estimated at $979; India’s at $966. China had caught up with India over the 30 years, but not dramatically surpassed it.
“China has outrun India in every area of economic endeavour in the last 35 years, except in computer software industry and agricultural research ”
Few people in 1978 could have imagined the monumental economic progress that China would make because of the economic reforms pushed by Deng Xiaoping. The reforms stressed the principle of “each according to his work” rather than “each according to his need,” professionalism and efficient economic management at all levels and the gradual introduction of policy changes to avoid problems in implementation.
Deng transformed agriculture first and then took on the industrial sector. He opened up the latter to foreign capital while making room for the growth of village and local enterprises. Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and now Xi Jinping have continued to follow Deng’s principles, but with some adjustments. China’s economic growth was also made possible by a very large net inflow of foreign direct investment, a sign of confidence in the Chinese economy by outside investors. China is the leading nation in exports and the second largest economy in the world. The country’s per capita income more than quadrupled, ($5,720 equivalent to about PPP $13,000) and abject poverty was completely eliminated (though income inequality increased). China’s Human Development Index has also risen from .423 in 1980 to .719 in 2013, according to the United Nations Development Programme 2014.
Against China’s success, India’s achievement, though significant compared to what it was before independence, is modest. India also took tentative steps to modernise its economy in the early 1980s, but these petered out. Freed from the constraint of food grain availability thanks to the Green Revolution, India did not manage to apply to its industrial sector the lessons it learnt in its agricultural revolution — using foreign knowledge, relying on the private sector and deploying subsidies sextively. Instead, foreign borrowing was used to ease the consumption constraint in the public sector and to cushion loss-making public enterprises.
Indian policy underwent directional changes in 1991. Prime Minister Narasimha Rao ushered in reforms which were implemented well by his Finance Minister Manmohan Singh, who then became the second-longest serving Prime Minister of India. Indian economic growth accelerated during the period 1995-2008, but could not maintain the momentum due to political paralysis of policies that were necessary for economic growth. Gross national income per capita in 2013 was $1,550 and India’s HDI increased from 0.369 in 1980 to 0.586 in 2013.
Primary difference
The primary difference between the performance of the Indian and Chinese economy has been the faster growth of capital stock in China. With only a slight difference in the growth of employment, this translated into a more rapid growth of capital intensity. The growth of total factor productivity has also been faster in China. This appears to reflect a greater ease for labour to move out of agriculture into higher productivity sectors in China than in India. China has outdistanced India in every area of economic endeavour in the last 35 years, except in computer software industry and agricultural research.
Despite international border issues that still exist between India and China, the two countries are trying to create a cooperative relationship — China has become India’s largest trading partner in 2013, India’s trade deficit with China is about $38 billion, President Xi has offered $20 billion for investment in Indian infrastructure and other industries, and a 100-person delegation of Zhejiang province has signed MoUs with India totalling about $2.46 billion.
India will most probably overtake China as the most populous country in the world in 2030. China is better placed structurally than India for a good economic performance, but it is most likely to be much lower than its recent average performance of about 10 per cent a year. How much lower it would be would depend on its ability to maintain current labour productivity levels and the benefits likely to flow from its proposed trans-continental rail system and other transport-related activities. Troubles in China’s financial markets, a declining young and increasing older population as a proportion of the working age population, increasing wages in general and export industries in particular, costs associated with cleaning up serious environmental pollution, increasing competition from other countries in export industries using low-skill and semi-skill labour, lower savings rate and a possibly lower investment rate will have a negative effect on its growth.


但这对印度来说是一个真正的机会。增加投资。改善基础设施。经济产出增长。这是一条经过考验的、真正的增长之路，也是印度准备追随的道路。
以印度引以为豪的科技行业为例。我们都知道不可思议的印度人才管理着美国的一些科技偶像。谷歌首席执行官桑达尔•皮查伊(Sundar Pichai)在来到美国攻读斯坦福大学(Stanford)硕士学位和沃顿商学院(Wharton) MBA学位之前，曾在印度攻读本科学位。同样，微软首席执行官萨蒂亚•纳德拉(Satya Nadella)在印度获得了本科学位，随后又获得了美国研究生院的文凭。这些人和其他许多印度裔美国科技行业高管，证明了美国移民创新关系的力量。

然而，不要让这些摇滚明星首席执行官愚弄任何人，让他们以为印度技术专家成功的唯一途径就是在美国为美国公司工作。
像塔塔咨询服务公司(Tata Consultancy Services, TCS)、印孚瑟斯(Infosys)和威普罗(Wipro)这样的本土企业，在信息技术领域仍以本土为中心，是真正的世界领先企业。如今，印度的企业家们正在扼杀它，他们的创业伙伴包括FlipKart的Punit Soni和SnapDeal的Kunal Bahl。

印度科技的增长一直受到来自国内外的大规模私人部门投资的推动。这些公司需要基础设施才能蓬勃发展，但基础设施是数字化的，而非实体的——这使得印度的IT公司能够将信息和分析从印度传送到世界，然后再传回来，远远早于人们谈论的“云”。他们不需要运送小部件，因为他们的产品都是比特。
大约十年前，一些乐观主义者认为，印度可以跨越制造业和实体基础设施发展阶段(widget)，围绕数字(bits)构建整个经济。如今，很明显，尽管印度的科技行业非常出色，而且还在不断增长，但该国将不得不走老路——拥有更好的基础设施和更多的制造业。

在基础设施和制造业方面，印度能否变得更“中国化”，又将取决于什么? 与中国不同，答案不会是投资，因为印度ZF受到巨额补贴和有限税收的普遍预算赤字的束缚。
“印度制造”计划很有希望，因为它不依赖印度ZF。大胆启动的目标是印度在外国直接投资方面超过中国，“印度制造”是全球企业加大对印度财政投入的响亮呼吁。
如今，三星、联想和波音等创新企业公开支持这一举措，证明私营部门已准备好介入。
然而，在对政治更有信心之前，私营部门似乎不会采取行动。在政治世界里，印度与中国最不同。但这并不意味着印度不会像中国那样进行经济增长。印度必须使用的原材料非常丰富。现在的挑战是如何促进它。



在1978年，很少有人能想到中国推动的经济改革而取得如此巨大的经济进步。改革强调了“按劳分配”而不是“按需分配”的原则，强调了各级ZF的专业精神和高效的经济管理，以及逐步实行政策改革，以避免执行中出现问题。
首先改变了农业，然后进入工业领域。他向外资开放后一种模式，同时为乡村和当地企业的发展腾出空间。
中国的经济增长也得益于外国直接投资的大量净流入，这是外部投资者对中国经济充满信心的一个迹象。中国是世界第二大经济体，也是世界第一大出口国。该国的人均收入翻了两番多(5,720美元相当于购买力平价的1.3万美元)，赤贫完全消除(尽管收入不平等加剧)。据联合国开发计划署(United Nations Development Programme) 2014年的数据，中国的人类发展指数(Human Development Index)也从1980年的0.423升至2013年的0.719。

与中国的成功相比，印度的成就虽然与独立前相比很显着，但也不算太大。印度还在上世纪80年代初采取了一些尝试性的措施来实现经济现代化，但这些措施逐渐消失。得益于绿色革命，印度摆脱了粮食供应的限制，没有把农业革命的教训应用到工业部门——利用外国知识，依靠私营部门，有选择地使用补贴。相反，外国借款被用来缓解公共部门的消费约束，并缓冲亏损的公共企业。
印度的政策在1991年发生了方向性的变化。拉奥(Narasimha Rao)总理启动了改革，他的财政部长曼莫汉•辛格(Manmohan Singh)实施了良好的改革。辛格后来成为印度任期第二长的总理。印度经济在1995-2008年期间加速增长，但由于经济增长所必需的政策的政治瘫痪，无法保持增长势头。2013年人均国民总收入为1550美元，印度的人均国民生产总值从1980年的0.369增加到2013年的0.586。



印度的问题一直存在。在一个嘈杂的政治皿煮制度中，多个政党的存在使问题更加复杂，它们对发展没有一致的办法。在议会占多数的莫迪总理有机会重新点燃经济增长的引擎。甚至能让印度经济以每年10%的速度增长，到2030年，以2011年购买力平价计算其GDP将仅达到26万亿美元左右;到2022年，中国很容易实现这一目标。我不认为印度会在未来25年赶上中国，当然，除非中国出现某种大规模的失败。