Comments on: China vs. India

By: Ohad

Ohad — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:39:51 +0000

The fundamental question that is always looked at is, what kind of a society is optimal for a fast growing market: a free, liberal but disorganized society or a disciplined non-democratic society.
I’ve always been under the impression that political freedom is a necessity for sustainable economic growth. China, India and Singapore are examples things are much more complicated than we’d like to think.
Although India is the world’s largest democracy it is deeply religious and has draconian regulations in many fields like land owning. China, on the other hand, is not civil rights heaven but has plenty of economical freedom and very welcoming when it comes to innovation and modernization.

Personally, i believe that India represents a better opportunity since it’s still a little bit behind China in the growth curve.

BTW
one shouldn’t underestimate china biotech industry. they’ve got quite a few promising achievements across all the major fields. For example, a small chinese company managed to develop and prove the efficacy of what is thought as the first gene therapy treatment for cancer.

By: Badri

Badri — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:52:00 +0000

Interesting read:

I’d suggest also Edward Luce’s “In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India” just out recently.

http://www.amazon.com/Spite-Gods-Strange-Modern-India/dp/0385514743

India v. China comparisons abound in the blogosphere today, but Luce in my view is able to construct a detailed (and critical) view of the rich-poor income gap in India by simply walking up to whomever and interviewing them. I’d blow my annual book purchase budget on something like this book vis a vis China.

By: Andrew Schmitt

Andrew Schmitt — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:07:38 +0000

I agree 100% Mike and the article certainly glosses over this.

By: mike

mike — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:01:54 +0000

China is busy making knock off computer hardware, India is making knockoff drugs. India will remain forever an also-ran in biotech until it can figure out intellectual property.

By: yf

yf — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:39:25 +0000

I think the Chinese are more disciplined than the Indians. And plus side of the equation is that it is not a democratic country. To achieve anything in a large scale, endless bickering will always impede progress. (It is unimaginable that the foundation of United States Constitution would have invited people on street into the debate).My analogy is that China will be built like the old industry like DOW Jones Index, India will be the Nasdaq. Which one you prefer is in the eye of the beholder.

By: m@

m@ — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:05:40 +0000

i think that cg’s comment was just carrying forward the germany analogy up to ww2. it is an interesting comment given that china’s defense budget is cranking up faster than the economy in general.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/03/04/afx3482497.html

the thing that is most unsettling here is the taiwan question. i’ve spoken to a number of chinese nationals about this and they have all indicated that taiwan MUST be re-incorporated into the country as a whole weather this is what taiwan wants or not. i should mention that the people that i talk to are not hard line commies. on the contrary, they are smart, talented people who are competing (and winning) in very technical fields. when the taiwan question comes up though, their is a tone that emerges that can best be characterized as militancy.

By: Andrew Schmitt

Andrew Schmitt — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:52:03 +0000

Poland? Poland in the 21st century looks much better than the 20th. Poland and the resurgence of Eastern Europe will only make Western Europe better.

Worry for those nations who don’t feel sufficient pressure to improve.

By: chuck goolsbee

chuck goolsbee — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:46:51 +0000

The analysis begs the question: So who plays Poland & France in the 21st Century? =\

–chuck