Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why China got rich and India didn't

davidoks.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 84 posts

Re: Why China got rich and India didn't

#21

Post by toomuchtodo »

tecoholic wrote: post #20
broken_clock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is China (or any other country) any different except the same thing shifted upward? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisio...

In case of China, the extend to which the central government can set laws and policies far exceeds what’s possible in India. India’s powers are split into Federal, State and “Concurrent” lists. Health and education for example is a state and concurrent list subject respectively, to which the “Indian Government” has only very limited say. So it’s apples to oranges when it comes to comparing investments in those domain…

India even has a state, Kerala, with strong communist political presence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Kerala

Re: Why China got rich and India didn't

#22

Post by jnaina »

China used an iron-fisted central authority to impose unity from above. China’s model created cohesion mostly through forced coercion and cultural flattening. “Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend” provided, of course, that every flower grows in the approved direction and every school arrives at the correct answer.

On the other hand, India’s progress continues to be hobbled by deep-rooted social challenges, including religious extremism, caste-based inequality, utter breakdown of civic culture, social fragmentation, linguistic chauvinism and regional rivalries.

Forced order or complete chaos. Choose your pick.

Re: Why China got rich and India didn't

#24

Post by rayiner »

arjie wrote: post #15

The comment under does make sense. We have to explain Taiwan, Korea, and Japan as well. If the difference is 1950s actions then Taiwan in particular is unexplained, having diverged in 1949. Though the cotton mill productivity does challenge the idea that it’s genetics or something inherent. Interesting problem for sure.

Orderly east asian culture versus disorderly south asian culture? Countries with cold weather and resource constraints that require long-term planning, versus countries that have three planting seasons annually?

Re: Why China got rich and India didn't

#26

Post by newsicanuse »

jnaina wrote: post #22

China used an iron-fisted central authority to impose unity from above. China’s model created cohesion mostly through forced coercion and cultural flattening. “Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend” provided, of course, that every flower grows in the approved direction and every school arrives at the correct answer. On the other hand, India’s progress continues to be hobbled by deep-ro…

Corruption, red-tapism and colonial-mindset had and still has more part to play than thr reasons you have stated.

Re: Why China got rich and India didn't

#27

Post by rayiner »

api wrote: post #11

It’s been kind of obvious to me that China did it by copying what America was doing from the post Civil War era until we abandoned the formula in the 1970s. China calls it “iron and salt” I think. The state makes very large investments in infrastructure and helps build huge globally competitive conglomerates in strategic and bedrock industries. The state builds the “iron.” Then it allows the free market to do the “sa…

I agree. It’s worth remembering that the Lincoln GOP was an interventionist party. That history was retconned by the Reagan GOP.

Re: Why China got rich and India didn't

#29

Post by mc32 »

arjie wrote: post #15

The comment under does make sense. We have to explain Taiwan, Korea, and Japan as well. If the difference is 1950s actions then Taiwan in particular is unexplained, having diverged in 1949. Though the cotton mill productivity does challenge the idea that it’s genetics or something inherent. Interesting problem for sure.

According to Lee Kwan Yew[1], apparently he identified two big factors:

India's diversity is not its strength -whereas China's relative homogeneity allows for easier governance(no contending non-pluralistic factions)

India's federation is not its strength either. India's central government, unlike the Chinese, cannot unilaterally execute national plans. [in his example, they can't modernize a single international hub without having a fight that engenders delay and even kills projects]

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaTNpw0-wAk

Re: Why China got rich and India didn't

#30

Post by fragmede »

smlavine wrote: post #9
iberator wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has more political parties in parliament than the USA. Stop spreading FUD

And how often do they vote against each other?

What would that tell you? The US only has two major parties and they vote against each other all the time.
Post reply on HN