印度2万亿GDP美元相当于中国04年的经济水平，但是我却看不到相当于中国04年的生活水平和基础设施。我们该怎么办？ [美国媒体]

India’s economy is 2 trillion dollars, which China had in 2004, but I don't see the same living standard/infrastructure in India as China had in 2004. What should we correct?

印度2万亿GDP美元相当于中国04年的经济水平，但是我却看不到相当于中国04年的生活水平和基础设施。我们该怎么办？


Shashank Kamath, Critical Indian, Inquisitive Indian
Really. This is an amazing comparison between India and China. At-least for a change, we are focusing on comparison between two apples.
See some shocking images of Beijing which no media covers

真的。印度和中国之间的差距是惊人的。无论如何，作为对照，我们看看两者之间的差距。
看看北京的一些令人震惊的图片，没有媒体会报道这些图片。





Beijing is one of the oldest cities in the world. It has been the seat of power for the Empires in China since olden times. It hosted the largest population even during the 1500s, while today the rank is taken over by Tokyo.
Some areas of Beijing has improved drastically, while downtown areas are still the same, they were 20–30 years back.[1]
Now why does the world media speak only about this in China

北京是世界上最古老的城市之一。自古以来，它一直是中华帝国的权力中心。它甚至在16世纪时拥有世界上最多的人口，当然，如今这个排名被东京所取代。
北京的一些地区已经有了很大的改善，然而在市区有很多地区仍然还是老样子，跟20-30年前一样。
现在，为什么世界媒体只谈论这样的中国：





But when it comes to India, it is only about this

但是提到印度的时候，就变成下面这种样子：





China is the world’s factory where most companies placed across the globe, want to get their share of profit due to low-labor cost and upsetting such a government would be catastrophic for its businesses. China always supports its people and doesn’t give a damn to outsiders. With most media outlets across the globe are backed by influential people, this is what comes as the output.
Coming to India, any media outlet opposes the country, they will surely find a supporter in the form of Arvind Kejriwal, or Rahul Gandhi or the famous Mamata Banerjee who could go to any extent for their personal gains. While China shares soured relations with India, it is very good to degrade India to keep them happy. Simple right. This is what the Global Media lacks. Read blogs and video documentaries to know the truth of any nation. Don’t blindly follow any news.
Coming to the economy concept, China did have a $2 trillion economy out of the $46 trillion world economy in 2004, while today has $11.5 trillion economy out of $ 76 trillion economy. Yes their percentage share has increased higher compared to all nations, but it was natural growth as it has a upward trending economy unlike countries like Japan and Greece.
Infrastructure. Each village in China manufactures only one product to serve as cheap labor for the goods. All students fight to get the few pricey seats for higher education through Gaokao, which is an ultra-torture compare to JEE and NEET in India. Law system is completely paralyzed in favor of the Government’s wishes. They ban access to Internet on sites which speak the truth about China. The list is endless. And you think, they provide infrastructure to all its citizens? Without proper freedom, infrastructure doesn’t come easy for the population. India does have this problem, but there are leaders (for their selfish gains), try to push some deals for the needy. This isn’t the case in China.
It is easy to say from a distance that China is doing great, but the saying goes true
“Birds well-fed in cages gives satisfaction to the owner, not the bird”

中国是世界工厂，全世界大多数跨国公司都在此设厂，他们想利用这里的廉价劳动力成本赚取利润，却因中国政府对企业的绝对影响力而感到苦恼。中国一贯不在乎外来者，只关心本国人民。考虑到全球大多数媒体都掌握在有权势的人手中，这就是为何会有上面的情况。

再来说说印度，任何媒体都反对这个国家，他们一定会以阿尔文德·克里瓦尔（Arvind Kejriwal），拉胡尔·甘地（Rahul Gandhi）或着名的班纳吉（Mamata Banerjee）之名找到一个支持者，他们可以为了谋取私利做任何事情。当中国与印度的关系恶劣时，他们很乐意贬低印度让中国感到高兴。就是这么简单。这是全球性媒体的缺点。多看看博客和视频纪录片，以此了解任何国家的真相。不要盲目听信任何消息。
谈到经济方面，中国在2004年的46万亿美元的世界经济中确实占有2万亿美元的经济体量，而今天的世界经济总量为76万亿美元，中国的经济总量为11.5万亿美元。是的，中国在所有国家经济总量中所占的份额更高了，但这是自然增长，因为不像日本和希腊，中国的经济呈现上升趋势。
基础设施方面。作为廉价劳动力，中国的每个村庄只生产一种产品。所有的学生都争着通过高考来获得一些珍贵的高等教育名额，与印度的JEE和NEET相比高考简直是一种折磨。为了支持政府的想法，法律体系完全就是个摆设。他们禁止人们在那些讲述中国真相的网站上上网。禁止名单无穷无尽。而且你认为，他们会为所有公民都提供基础设施?没有适当的自由，对人口来说，使用基础设施并不容易。印度确实也有这样的问题，但有一些领导人(为了他们的私利)会为了穷人试图做些事情。而在中国，这种情况是不存在的。
在远离中国的地方夸中国做得很好很容易，但俗话说得好。

“笼中鸟被喂的很好，因此感到满意的是鸟主人而不是这只鸟。”

------

Kapil Jain
Shashank thanks for the answer. My concern here is China may have our darker side (Beijing slums) but we don't have their brighter side. Moreover China as per independent international reports has eradicated poverty fastest in human history. It's not only that Chinese media is posing all rosy picture. Again coming back to my question my concern being that even if we tomorrow we double our economy but lives of ppl don't change on ground what use will that increased economy be of. So is it failure of successive govts or smthing wrong with the mindset of us as Indians collectively and why despite having everything we are lagging behind

感谢你的回答。我关心的是中国可能有我们的阴暗面(北京贫民窟)，但我们没有他们优秀的一面。此外，根据独立的国际报告，中国在人类历史上最快的根除了贫困。这可不仅仅是中国媒体摆出的一片美好景象。再次回到我的问题，我的担忧是即使明天我们的经济会翻一番但是穷人们的生活也不会改变，那样我们的经济增长有什么用。所以这是历届政府的失败还是因为我们印度人整体的思维方式有什么问题，还有为什么尽管我们拥有一切条件结果还是落在后面。

-------

Shashank Kamath
Hello
I understand your point. They are better but we are not bad as the world shows. That’s what I meant.

我明白你的意思。他们更好，但我们并不像外界展示的那样糟糕。这就是我的意思

-------

Lei Liu
I am a Chinese, but I have a lot of India colleague. AFAIK, they are hardworking and pretty smart. Although I have never been to India, but I believe no matter if it is Chinese or India, for human kind, the wish is the same. You work for a better future and also for the well-being of your family.
I am also frustrated about the giant wealth disparity here in China now. We have to work together to create a world which more equal. It does not makes sense to fight or anything.

我是中国人，但我有很多印度同事。据我所知，他们工作勤奋，而且非常聪明。虽然我从未去过印度，但我相信无论是中国还是印度，作为人类，大家愿望都是一样的。你为一个更美好的未来而工作，也为你的家庭的幸福而努力。
我也对中国现在巨大的贫富差距感到失望。我们必须共同努力，创造一个更加平等的世界。战斗或任何事情都没有意义。

-------

Kiran Pandiyan
We have improved a lot and not lagging behind as the world media portrays. I'm yet to find a single state that has stagnant indicators like HDI, Toilet access, GDP growth etc. Industrialization has been tremendous rising. IT is growing exponentially. Yes poverty still exists , we are doing a decent job. Comparing any African country, India is doing a great job.

我们进步了很多，也并不像世界媒体所描绘的那样落后。我还没发现有哪一个州在像HDI、厕所接入、GDP增长等指标方面是停滞不前的。工业化正在飞速发展。 IT正在成倍增长。是的，贫穷仍然存在，我们正在做一份体面的工作。与任何非洲国家相比，印度的工作都做得很好。

------

Terry Zhang
争辩啥啊，让黑三蒙在鼓里吧

------

Abhijeet Mishra
Hi I didn't understand. Could you write in English.

嗨，我不明白你的意思。你能用英语评论吗

------

Brenden Louis
This is what I found

这是我搜索到的



(谷歌大意：争辩什么啊，让黑色的三在鼓里面)

Still Don’t know what that phrase means.

还是不明白他说的什么意思

------

Abhijeet Mishra
Which is why I wrote my comment. I did the Google translate too.

这就是我为什么留下我的评论，我的谷歌翻译结果也是这个。

------

Xingkun Yin
xiaoxin dian, bie baolu le

小心点，别暴露了

-------

Nelson Li

战忽局南亚处的同志，政委让我转告你：这次停薪查看，下次再暴露就关你禁闭！

-------

Guohu

这塔嘛嗨能翻易的出来不？

----------------------

Kushal Choudhary, Love Economics, know how money works.
That most probably is because of the system of governance China has.
The government in China is authoritarian. That means the decision making is a lot faster in China, compared to India with all its bureaucratic and democratic hurdles.
For instance, if China sees a small colony right in middle of where they intend to make an expressway, what they would do is they would give those people a notice, pay them a reasonable compensation, and raze that place down within a few days. Now those people have no choice but to comply with those orders. Even if they try to resist, the government just wouldn't care. When government says there is going to be a skyscraper in the place of this slum, there will be a skyscraper there, whether those slum dwellers like it or not.
But for a similar scenario in India, you and I both know what would happen. There will be dharnas, bhukh hadtals, stone peltings and whatnot, but there won't be a road.
The same thing goes with narrow streets, old houses and pretty much everything in India. People just don't care. And they know no one can force them against their will.
So, basically infrastructure development is a nightmare for Indian government, as long as people don't cooperate.
It is very well known fact that Authoritarian regime is always better than democracy to pull poor and destitute out of their poverty. Because poor people don't understand what is good for them and what is bad and you can't really blame them for that as they never had the opportunity to learn all those things and thereby make sound decisons. In India it's even worse because when government tries to take some extremely necessary steps, the political parties in the oppostion take advantage of the ignorance of poor, feed them all sorts of BS so that the ruling government does not succeed. You can see a very recent example of that in the failure of land acquisition bill which is extremely important for the infrastructure devepment.
So, there has to be someone to make decisions for the poor and that's exactly what Chinese government did for its people.

这很可能是因为中国的治理体系。

中国的政府是专制的。这意味着中国的决策速度要快得多，而与之相比，印度的官僚和民主则成为了障碍。

举个例子，如果中国在他们打算修建高速公路的地方看到一个小聚居点，他们会给那些人一个通知，给他们一个合理的补偿，并在几天内把那个地方夷为平地。现在，这些人除了遵守这些命令别无选择。即使他们试图反抗，政府也不会在意。当政府说这个贫民窟将会有一座摩天大楼时，那里就会有一座摩天大楼，不管那些贫民窟居民是否喜欢。
但是在印度，你和我都知道会发生什么。这里将会出现静坐绝食，扔石头等等，但不会有路。

同样的情况会出现在狭窄的街道，老房子和印度发生的一切事情里。人们一点也不在乎。他们知道没有人可以强迫他们违背自己的意愿。

因此，只要人们不合作，基础设施建设对于印度政府来说是一场噩梦。

众所周知，专制政权总是比民主更能让穷人和赤贫者摆脱贫困。因为穷人不知道什么对他们有好处，什么对他们有害处，你不能责怪他们，因为他们从来没有机会去学习所有这些东西以做出正确的决定。在印度，情况更糟，因为当政府试图采取一些极其必要的措施时，反对党政党会利用穷人的无知，为他们提供各种各样的福利，这样执政的政府就不会成功。以最近发生的对发展基础设施非常重要的土地收购法案的失败为例，你从中可以看到这一点。

因此，必须有人为穷人做决定，这正是中国政府为其人民所做的。

----------------

Aditi Sawant, lives in India
It's because China started earlier than India as free market economy. Even though it may be government controlled , their was heavy importance given to investments in infrastructure.
1.The basic fundamentals was constructing more will earn government more revenue (China now has largest number of ghost cities were nobody lives and the prices are not marked down). Infrastructure would also boost global image of the Chinese .As we can see with OBOR project.
2.Infrastructure that is bridges, roads ,tunnels ,railways are important for a big country. When it came to China they knew what to do ,they grabbed land from peasants, poors and constructed at massive pace.
3.On other hand India had protectionist policies meant to protect farmers/adivasis tribals from exploitation. So we had laws such as land aquisition bill,which makes it difficult for government to grab land and infrastructure pace is slower in India. Most of GDP however increased due to boom in service sector.
4.Again if you look at India most of GDP is generated by internal consumption and not due to exports.So unless government increases pace of urbanisation and encourage investments Indians won't be more globally connected.
Cultural differences in India and China also comes into play.
Cleanliness ,crime rates ,women empowerment,sanitation has not improved up to the mark which gives much clearer picture of standard of living.
And most important is how media has shown India and China to the world.
Almost all major global channels BBC,CNN ,Russia insider ,All Jazeera have a problem of showing positive picture of India. Whenever one switches to Indian news all you can see is Stone pelting in India ,lack of toilets or women issues .
China on other hand is less accessible to journalists.They have their own global channel which portrays China in extremely positive light as huge investor in poor country. It won't have negetive news on any other country including India which creates a positive image in the mind of people
As far as what should we correct:
I feel Modi government is on right track here
1.Increase foreign investment.
2.Disinvest in government institutions slowly(government should only govern)
3.Remove protectionist policies for Indian entrepreneurs
4.Pay lesser and lesser heeds to patents and steal technology by reverse engineering (this is only way to catch up on technology front _(used by the chinese))
5.Reduce subsidies slowly and use the money to create capital assets.
6.Make adhaar mandatory slowly for most of transactions .This will check corruption
7.Have a global mouth piece(media channel), to show the achievements of country and cancel out negative publicity.

这是因为中国比印度更早开始自由市场经济。尽管这可能是受政府控制的，但他们对基础设施的投资非常重视。

1，基础设施建设越多，政府收入越多（中国目前鬼城数量最多，无人居住，价格没有下调）。基础设施也将提升中国的全球形象。正如我们在“一带一路”项目中所看到的那样。
2.桥梁，公路，隧道，铁路等基础设施对于一个大国来说很重要。当中国建设这些基础设施的时候，他们知道该怎么办，他们从农民、穷人手里抢来了土地，并且飞速的进行建设。
3.另一方面，印度有保护主义的政策，意在保护农民/贱民部落免遭剥削。所以我们制定了土地征用法案等法律，这使得政府难以抢地，印度的基础设施建设速度较慢。然而，随着服务业的蓬勃发展，大部分地区的GDP都在增加。
4.再一次的，如果你看看印度，其GDP的大部分是由内部消费而不是由于出口所产生的。因此，除非政府加快城市化进程并鼓励投资，否则印度人将无法在全球范围内建立更多的联系。
印度和中国的文化差异也有影响。

清洁、犯罪率、妇女赋权、卫生条件的改善程度都没有达到使人们能清晰的感觉到的生活水准。

而且最重要的是媒体如何向世界展示印度和中国。

几乎所有主要的全球频道BBC,CNN，俄罗斯内幕，所有的半岛电视台都没有很好的展示印度的正面形象。当你看到印度新闻时，你能看到的是印度的投掷石头，缺少厕所和妇女问题。

而另一方面，记者们则不那么容易接近中国。他们有自己的全球频道，把中国极其积极地描绘成其他穷国的巨大投资者。在包括印度在内的任何其他国家都不会有它的什么新消息，这在人们的脑海中形成了一种积极的形象。

至于我们应该纠正什么:
我
觉得莫迪政府的做法是正确的。

1。增加外商投资。

2。减少政府机构的投资(政府只应管理)

3。取消保护印度企业家的保护主义政策。

4。通过逆向工程来获得专利和窃取技术(这是达到技术前沿的唯一途径，也是中国人使用的手段）。。

5.慢慢减少补贴，用这笔钱创造资本资产。
6.对于大部分交易，慢慢强制执行。这将检查出腐败

7。获得全球口碑(媒体渠道)，展示国家的成就，消除负面宣传。

---------------------

Vijeet D Deliwala, Software Engineer & Web Application Developer
Two points
1.World GDP in 2004 was about 43 trillion whereas now its about 76 trillion which is nearly 1.75 times - so 2 trillion at that time carried more value
2.China is communist inclined whereas India is democratic - where the wealth difference between rich & poor is much ,all the money is concentrated with the rich and hence there’s great infrastructure at some places but as a whole - it doesnt look great or developed.

两点
1，2004年世界GDP约为43万亿，而现在约76万亿，接近1.75万亿，那么当时的2万亿价值更高
2.中国是共产主义倾向，而印度是民主的 - 这里贫富差距很大，所有的钱都集中在富人身上，因此在一些地方也有很好的基础设施，但是总体来说，看起来不是很好，也不是很发达。

-------------------

Martin Andrews, China watcher.
Greater emphasis is needed on infrastructure, for example a tier 2 city in China has better infrastructure than even Mumbai, that automatically translates to better living standards, better infrastructure leads to better living standards and it is a fact that China has a far better living standard than India because of its infrastructure.
China spends a higher percentage of GDP on infrastructure than India and India’s spending on infrastructure is still far too low thats why India doesn’t have the infrastructure China had back in 2004, with the new Modi government things are getting much better but it will still be a while before India gets the level of infrastructure and living standard that China had in 2004.

基础设施需要更加重视，举个例子，一个中国的二线城市都比孟买拥有更好的基础设施，这自动转化为更好的生活水平，更好的基础设施带来更好的生活水平，事实上因为它的基础设施，中国的生活水平要比印度好得多。

中国花费在基础设施方面的GDP占比高于印度，印度在基础设施方面的支出仍然太低，这就是为什么印度没有中国在2004年的基础设施，随着新的莫迪政府上台，事情正在好转，但印度仍然要花一段时间才能达到2004年时中国拥有的基础设施和生活水平。


------------------

Gautam Goyal, why worry
first of all china earns a lot by export especially from india and pakisan
India’s economy was disturbed by many political leaders due to which growth hindered
now to overcome this problem we require time

首先，中国通过出口特别是对印度和巴基斯坦的出口赚取了大量的利润。

由于受到许多政治领导人的干扰，印度经济增长受阻。

现在要克服这个问题，我们需要时间。

---------------------

Evan Sun, Structural Engineer (2011-present)
US have bought Alaska with only 7.2 millions US dollars in 1867, Can China now buy Alaska with same price?
the 2 Trillion dollars are not the same value between 2004 and 2017.

美国在1867年以720万美元购买了阿拉斯加，中国现在能以同样的价格购买阿拉斯加吗?

二万亿美元在2004年到2017年之间的价值不一样。

-------------------

Crowly Mathew Arackal, Indian by birth, Indian by heart.
You have noted only those cities and did not know what is behind and beyond them.
Why China does not allow tourists travelling free in China?
I heard even for chinese citizens travelling proince to province is a problem.
I am not rejecting the good things in China. But there are many unknown terrains that we do not know anything about.
This makes a true judgement impossible.

你只注意到那些城市，不知道它们背后隐藏着什么。

为什么中国不允许游客在中国自由旅游?

我听说即使是中国公民出省旅游也是个问题。

我不是在否认中国好的方面。但是有太多未知的地方，我们对那里一无所知。

这使人们不可能做出真正的判断。

---------------------

Anonymous
The main reason behind this is democracy.
India has not been able to bridge the infrastructure gap with China even after 20 years of opening up its economy is one of the most staggering failures of a country that wishes to become the next manufacturing superpower. This question has intrigued me since the time I started studying economics and the answer is not as simple as 'land acquisition is difficult' that most people answer when asked this question. Pranab Bardhan has an entire chapter dedicated to this question in his book Awakening Giants Feet of Clay : Assessing The Economic Rise of India and China.
Bardhan writes that from the beginning of Chinese economic reforms till the early 1990's,
India was ahead of China in terms of the standard indexes of many of the infrastructural facilities. For example, at the beginning of the 1990s India’s highway and railway infrastructure was ahead of that in China in terms of route kilometers. [1]
That China can leap past ahead an India well intentioned to develop infrastructure shows both a glaring mismatch between national priorities and a difference in national cultures in India and China with China's national culture heavily skewed towards what it takes to build infrastructure projects despite its short term drawbacks.
A simple comparison of India's Geert Hofstede national culture with China and South Korea, two of this century's biggest infrastructure led growth stories makes the glaring distinction clear.
India scores the lowest among the three in long term cultural orientation which reflects in the way India is governed and what drives policymaking.[2] It is intuitive, India is the only major economy to de facto democratize before becoming rich on a per capita basis.
'Democracy with Indian characteristics'** comes with the need to think short term. In India where winning elections is prioritized, steps that appease the largest possible number of the electorate is prioritized, things like subsidies take precedence over large infrastructure projects that will take years to build and to break even and generate profit. Only when the need to build a highway is glaringly obvious and is covered by the media ad nauseum and that the general public start to complain about the lack of certain infrastructure is when an election prioritizing regime thinks it is safe enough to build or start building the project.
Projects such as the Delhi metro were not started because the government felt the need to do so, if that were the case, the government would have started them in 1990, they were started when the capital was overrun with cars and it was obvious (and hence safe) to build the metro. The present  government led by Narendra Modi is the only government that has a different outlook and it investing in infrastructure, possibly because the stories of India's disastrous infrastructure are covered widely by the international media and it is clear than China has taken a lead which is near impossible to bridge if we do not start soon.
India's approach to infrastructure and its drawbacks
The Indian approach to infrastructure is criticized to an extent that The Economic Times (newspaper) a few years back had a slide show titled How China built these and why India never does with photographs of large infrastructure projects in China. The most common differences between the Chinese and Indian approach to infrastructure and why India has lagged behind are:
1.Government's Spending Priorities: China has aggressively invested its infrastructure so that infrastructure is never a bottleneck for business. It's high savings rate has helped it in the process which the government has channeled to infrastructure by policy measures. Consequently, China's spending on infrastructure as a percentage of GDP, a clear indicator of government's spending priorities is the highest in the world [3].
India's expenditure on infrastructure at 3.9 % of GDP is a little more than what it spends on subsidies at 2.4 % of GDP. This should be four times this to build internationally competitive infrastructure. Unlike China, our household savings go into gold, Indian households own over $1 trillion worth of gold [4].
This is changing if Modi government's recent policies are to go by with promised investment of over 70,000 crores in infrastructure and plans to monetize gold which will free further cash [5].

这背后的主要原因是民主。
印度一直未能弥合与中国之间的基础设施差距，即使在经过了20年的经济开放之后，印度仍是希望成为下一个制造业超级大国的国家中最令人震惊的失败者之一。从我开始学习经济学的时候起，这个问题就引起了我的兴趣，答案并不像大多数人回答的“土地收购难”那么简单。Pranab Bardhan在他的着作《觉醒的巨人之足:评估印度和中国的经济崛起》一书中，有整整一章专门讨论这个问题。
Bardhan写道，从中国经济改革开始到1990年代初，

印度在许多基础设施的标准指标方面领先于中国。例如，在20世纪90年代初，印度的公路和铁路基础设施在里程数上超过了中国。
中国能够超越印度，发展基础设施，这显示了印度和中国在国家优先事项和国家文化上的差异。中国的民族文化严重倾向于建设基础设施项目，尽管这在短期内存在缺陷。

简单的对比一下印度的吉尔特·霍夫斯泰德民族文化与中国和韩国的民族文化，这两者是本世纪最大的基础设施领域的两个发展故事，这样一对比区别就很明显了。

三者中，印度在长期文化取向中得分最低，这反映出印度的治理方式和决策的驱动因素。印度是唯一一个在人均富裕前实际上实现民主化的主要经济体。
“印度特色的民主”始于考虑短期因素的需求。在印度，赢得选举是首要任务，因此能安抚尽可能多的选民的措施会受到优先考虑，比如补贴优先于大型基础设施项目，这些项目需要数年时间才能建成并实现盈亏平衡。只有当建设高速公路的需求非常明显，受到媒体报道的影响，公众开始抱怨缺乏某种基础设施的时候。这时候一个选举优先的政权才会认为足够安全去建设或开始建设这个项目。

德里地铁等项目没有因为政府觉得有必要建设而开工,像这种政府本应该在1990年就建设开工的情况,他们在首都到处都是汽车,并且需求很明显(因此安全)时才开始建造地铁。现在纳伦德拉?莫迪领导的政府是唯一有不同看法的一届政府,这届政府对基础设施进行投资,这可能是因为印度灾难性基础设施的故事已被国际媒体广泛报道，显然中国已经领先，如果我们再不尽快开始追赶的话就不太可能赶上中国了。
印度的基础设施建设及其弊端。

印度在基础设施方面的做法在一定程度上受到了批评。印度基建方案饱受批评，以至于《经济时报》专门发布了一系列中国大型基础设施的照片，题目是：“中国如何建造（这些项目），印度为什么没有”。
中国和印度在基础设施建设上的最常见的差异，以及印度落后的原因是:

1。政府的支出重点:中国大力投资基础设施，使基础设施永远不会成为企业发展的瓶颈。中国的高储蓄率帮助其政府通过政策措施将这些资金引导到建设基础设施的过程中。因此，中国在基础设施建设上的支出占GDP的比例，在世界上所有政府支出优先级指标上是最高的。

印度在基础设施建设方面的支出占GDP的3.9%，略高于其在GDP中占2.4%的补贴。要建立具有国际竞争力的基础设施，这个数字应该提高到现在的四倍。与中国不同，我们的家庭储蓄黄金，印度家庭拥有价值超过1万亿美元的黄金。

如果莫迪政府最近承诺投资超过7万个基础设施项目，并计划将黄金货币化，从而获得更多现金的计划能够实施，那么这种情况就会发生变化。

2.Eminent Domain Over Land: Chinese government maintains eminent domain over all land. The state considers it its responsibility to peacefully/forcefully acquire land for development of infrastructure projects, restore and rehabilitate the displaced people. The state uses its power to deter holdouts so that land acquisition does not come in the way of nation building.
For example, when there we talks to develop Pudong in Shanghai into an international financial center, the Shanghai government acquired all the land, rehabilitated the displaced citizens in other parts of Shanghai, employed them in construction companies that were redeveloping Pudong, issued them housing rights in the upcoming housing projects etc. There was resistance but the government's offer was not one to refuse. In contrast, I have seen slums in the middle of Delhi and Bombay and plans to develop Dharavi have not moved on for two decades. The new LARR Ordinance that wishes to make land acquisition easier for both the government and private corporations is vehemently opposed by most concerned parties [6][7]
Land acquisition however draconian it might be is necessary for infrastructure development. This rent-seeking behavior has to be addressed if India wishes to build large infrastructure projects. India needs strong laws to deter holding on to property in this nascent stage of nation building. China allowed its citizens to sue the government over land acquisition for the first time in 2014 when it can afford to slow down infrastructure growth to accommodate personal liberties [8]
3.A Focus on Pan-India Development : Deng Xiaoping, the architect of China's economic reforms once said that some people will get rich first before others. China's focus on infrastructure development has been regional, they have developed regions that have a comparative advantage over other regions, the easter coast and pearl river delta was developed first and the inland later [9]
*China's investment clusters. [10]
The intuition is simple, once you develop a cluster, say Shanghai, it starts generating economic output the surplus of which can easily be invested in developing the next best region. India's infrastructure policy has at least at the central level been pan-Indian, a government cannot deviate from it without being deemed 'discriminatory'.
Interestingly, Indian infrastructure development is also clustered despite the governments policies. New Delhi-Gurgaon IT belt is the only speck of development in the otherwise rural cow belt, Southern states lead Northern ones by 25 years etc. If this regional development is further supported and prioritized, we can develop infrastructure faster.
4.Financing Methods: Large scale infrastructure projects need sustainable lines of credit some of which can go upto 15 years, only two options can provide this, a national development bank and a well developed bond market. China's infrastructure development has been heavily financed by China Development Bank the bank that raised funds for the Three Gorges Dam and Shanghai Pudong Airport. It was described as "the engine that powers the national government’s economic development policies". China also has a better developed bond market where investors can easily hedge their risks against derivatives [11]
India needs both. For the past decade, small infrastructure projects have been funded by private companies but the resources of these corporations are limited and the lump in economic growth has left them highly distressed financially, the PPP model cannot work if the present system of financing remains the same.
Infrastructure firms just do not have enough money [12]
India needs its development finance institution, an India Development Bank, a lender solely for long term infrastructure projects. India has also relied on small state owned banks to lend for infrastructure. An unsustainable policy which brings me to 

2。土地征用权:中国政府拥有所有土地的土地征用权。国家认为，它有责任以和平方式/强制性地获得土地发展基础设施项目，并恢复流离失所者的生活。政府利用国家力量来让人们让步，这样土地征用就不会成为国家建设的绊脚石。

例如,当我们谈到把上海浦东发展成为国际金融中心时，上海政府收购了全部土地，将流离失所者安置到上海其他地方生活，在重建浦东的建筑公司雇佣他们，在即将到来的住房项目等。,其他地方使用在建筑公司重新开发浦东,许诺他们在即将建成的住房项目中的住房权力等。有阻力,但政府的条件让人难以拒绝。相比之下，我在德里和孟买的中心看到过贫民窟，计划发展达拉维的计划已经有二十年了。新的LARR条例旨在让政府和私营企业更容易获得土地收购，但大多数有关方面对此强烈反对。

无论如何，土地征用对于基础设施建设都是必要的。如果印度想要建设大型基础设施项目，这种寻租行为必须得到解决。在这个新兴的国家建设阶段，印度需要强有力的法律来消除人们对财产所有权的坚持。2014年，中国首次允许公民在土地征用问题上对政府提起诉讼，因为中国有能力减缓基础设施的增长，以适应个人自由。
3。关注泛印度发展:中国经济改革的设计师邓小平曾经说过，有些人会先致富。中国对基础设施建设的关注一直是区域性的，他们开发的区域比其他地区具有比较优势，东部沿海和珠江三角洲是最先发展起来的，内陆地区后来发展起来。
中国的投资集群。

接下来就很简单了，一旦你开发了一个集群，比如上海地区，它就开始产生经济产出，剩余的资金很容易就可以投资于开发下一个最好的地区。印度的基础设施政策至少在中央层面上是泛印度的，政府不能在不被视为“歧视性”的情况下偏离它。

有趣的是，尽管政府出台了政策，但印度的基础设施建设也聚集在一起。新德里-古尔加翁 IT带是除了农村的养牛带之外唯一一处发展的地带，南部的州在25年之前就领先了北方。如果这个区域的发展得到进一步支持和优先支持，我们就可以更快地发展基础设施。
4。融资方式:大型基础设施项目需要可持续的信贷额度，其中一些项目可能长达15年，只有两种选择可以提供，一是国家开发银行，二是发达的债券市场。中国的基础设施建设得到了中国发展银行的大力资助，该银行为三峡大坝和上海浦东机场筹集资金。它被描述为“为国家政府的经济发展政策提供动力的引擎”。中国还有一个更发达的债券市场，投资者可以很容易地对冲衍生品的风险。

这两者印度都需要。在过去十年中，小型基础设施项目得到了私营企业的资助，但这些公司的资源有限，经济增长缓慢使它们在财政上陷入困境，如果目前的融资体系保持不变，PPP模式(政府和社会资本合作，是公共基础设施中的一种项目运作模式)就无法运作。
基础设施公司没有足够的资金.

印度需要有自己的发展金融机构，一个印度开发银行，一个专门为长期基础设施项目提供贷款的银行。印度还在依靠小型国有银行为基础设施提供贷款。这是一个不可持续的政策。

5.Return on Investment: Large infrastructure projects take years to build and decades to break even. The Chinese government has created ways to channel household savings into long term infrastructure bonds and other investment vehicles so that the government won't have to worry about short and medium term rate of return on any infrastructure project.
Indian household savings go into unproductive assets. Infrastructure is finance either by deficit or by government banks or by the PPP method. Fiscal prudence is compromised if the deficit remains for a long time, the short term nature of deposits with the government banks makes it not feasible for them to fund large infrastructure projects with no short term returns and the PPP model is suited for projects where some money that starts to flow in is reinvested to make more infrastructure such as highways etc, not for projects such as dams and power plants, short term rate of return is important for all the three.
Dhiraj Nayyar in an excellent editorial in Livemint wrote,
It was always a bad idea to force banks to lend for infrastructure projects. There is a fundamental mismatch between the short-term nature of bank deposits and the long-term nature of infrastructure funding. [13]
India's political system also deters large scale infrastructure projects. Investing without any tangible rate of return is a common poll issue with which the opposition corners the incumbent regularly. In China, despite the fact that the high speed rail will run in losses for another decade, nobody bats an eye.
6.Catching upto demand: China has always adopted a model of building infrastructure before the demand for it arises. China's growth has been infrastructure led, not the other way around.
Indian approach to infrastructure on the other hand has been to catch up with demand overtime. India build a four lane diamond quadrilateral and by the time it was over, the demand was for a six lane one, India doubled all major rail lines and the demand increased for a four line track.
7.Development v/s Environment: The Chinese approach to the environment v/s development debate is pretty standard, pollute now, clear the mess later. This is standard economics, environmental damage follows Kuznet's Inverted U curve, pollutants rise first and as per capita income rises and the country becomes rich, shifts to alternate energy sources and reduces its energy consumption, adopts better technology to treat the effluents, pollutants decline. Economic growth and environmental protection is an old economic trade off that large countries have to make. [15][16]
India on the other hand has some of the most stringent environment protection laws in the world. Focusing too much on the environment leads to cost escalation, cost escalation makes large projects unfeasible. India's independent judiciary takes special interest in their implementation. It is easy to get a large infrastructure project shelved because of it, the best example being the issue around raising the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujrat [17].
During a seminar on challenges to India's growth in Hong Kong, one of the speakers said, 'India is a third world country with first world ambitions and resources but out of this world environmental ethics'. I am not justifying Chinese approach to the environment, the lax environmental rules have been misused too but the it would not have been able to create the infrastructure needed to sustain such a large population with it. Now that infrastructure is in place, the government is investing heavily in cleaning up the environment. 
Conclusion: India cannot build large scale infrastructure projects and China can because their approach towards infrastructure is totally different. For China, it is an engine to economic growth, for India, it has been a consequence of economic growth till now.
India's pluralistic democracy makes it both tedious and difficult to reach a consensus hence delaying large infrastructure projects.

5.投资回报:大型基础设施项目需要数年时间才能建成，甚至需要数十年才能实现收支平衡。中国政府创造了将家庭储蓄引入长期基础设施债券和其他投资工具的方式，这样政府就不必担心任何基础设施项目的短期和中期回报率。

印度家庭储蓄都投资了非生产性资产。基础设施要么是赤字，要么是政府银行融资，要么是PPP。如果赤字长期存在，财政审慎性就会受到损害，由于政府银行存款的短期性使得它们在没有短期回报的情况下不可能为大型基础设施项目提供资金，PPP模式适合于那些资金流入后可以再投资的项目，例如增加更多的高速公路等基础设施,而不是大坝和电站等项目,短期回报率对于这三者都很重要。

Dhiraj Nayyar在Livemint的一篇优秀社论中写道，
迫使银行为基础设施项目放贷一直是个馊主意。银行存款的短期性质与基础设施融资的长期性质之间存在根本性的不匹配。

印度的政治体制也阻碍了大规模基础设施项目的发展。没有任何实际回报率的投资是民意调查中遇到的一个常见问题，反对党经常会在这个问题上与在任总统针锋相对。在中国，尽管高速铁路将在未来10年内亏损，但所有人都能保持镇定。
6。追赶需求:中国一直采用一种在需求出现之前就进行基础设施建设的模式。中国的增长是由基础设施建设带动的，而不是相反。

另一方面，印度在基础设施方面的做法是在需求出现之后才赶紧建设。印度建设了一个名为“钻石四边行”的四条铁路线的计划，当计划结束的时候，需求已经变成了六车道，印度将所有主要的铁路线路车道变成了双轨道，这时候需求又变成了四线轨道。
7.发展vs环境:中国对环境vs发展的讨论是相当标准的，现在污染，以后清理。这是标准的经济学，环境的破坏遵循了Kuznet的倒U曲线，污染物首先上升，随着人均收入的增加，国家变得富裕，转向替代能源，减少能源消耗，采用更好的技术来处理废水，污染物减少。经济增长和环境保护是大国必须做的一项古老的经济活动。

另一方面，印度拥有世界上最严格的环境保护法。过于关注环境会导致成本的增加，成本的增加使得大型项目变得不可行。印度的独立司法机构对大型项目的实施特别感兴趣。一个大型的基础设施项目很容易被搁置，最好的例子就是提高在Gujrat的Sardar Sarovar大坝的高度。
在香港举行的一个关于印度发展挑战的研讨会上，其中一位发言人说：“印度是第三世界国家，拥有第一世界的野心和资源，但超出了这个世界的环境条件。 我不是说中国人对待环境的做法是正确的，环境规则也不公平，不然也不可能创造出维持这么大的人口所需要的基础设施。 现在基础设施已经到位，政府正在大力投资于清理环境。 

结论:结论：印度不能建设大型基础设施项目，而中国能，因为他们对基础设施的做法完全不同。 对中国来说，这是经济增长的引擎，对印度来说，这是经济增长的一个后果。
印度的多元民主使得达成共识变得既乏味又困难，因此拖延了大型基础设施项目的建设。