India’s democratic credentials do not impress Francis Fukuyama, who two decades ago prophesied the “end of history,” as being a catalyst for the country’s economic growth. Fukuyama finds excessive “patronage politics and fractiousness” in India — flaws that stand in stark contrast to China’s speedier, though not necessarily cleaner, political system.
The reality is, however, somewhat different. China’s local governments have been accumulating mountains of debt to fund their construction binges, raising serious concerns about potential defaults.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) himself recognizes the urgent need to address the country’s inequitable growth, calling for means to be found to “share prosperity evenly,” and thus to reduce the widening gaps between “rich and poor, cities and countryside.”
Illustration: Constance Chou
Economist Nouriel Roubini has predicted that China’s economy will most likely slow sometime between 2013 and 2015, the point at which its fixed-asset investments of nearly 50 percent of GDP will demand social and monetary returns.
Until now, Roubini says, China’s export-led growth has depended on “making things that the rest of the world wants, at a price that no other country can match,” a consequence of cheap labor and economies of scale.
This cost advantage is diminishing fast.
India is facing severe difficulties as well, but of a different nature. For example, outward investment by Indian companies is expanding fast. Some believe that this is a natural development for a rising power, but critics view outward investment as a reflection of the scarcity of opportunities at home.
Rising interest rates, high inflation and severe policy gridlock amid a spate of government corruption scandals have impeded both foreign and domestic investment in India, thus slowing economic growth to a level that is below its potential. An unpredictable regulatory environment, inadequate infrastructure and a sluggish, monsoon-dependent agricultural sector are adding to the economy’s problems.
Clearly, economic turbulence is roiling both of Asia’s major economies, the giants of the so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).
Consider inflation. On July 6, the People’s Bank of China raised its benchmark interest rate for the fifth time since October last year. This has generated apprehension about property markets and fear that local governments could default on part of their staggering debt of US$1.65 trillion.
In India, the government’s failure to contain rising prices, pursue structural economic reforms vigorously, attract foreign direct investment, advance infrastructure development, manage expenditure and avoid liquidity crunches underscores the many challenges it faces. Moreover, a continued standoff between the government and the opposition has weakened political effectiveness, further undermining India’s growth prospects.
Indeed, India’s core challenge remains political. With food prices rising sharply, the poor are being hit the hardest, fueling greater poverty, inequality and resentment. However, the same is true in China: Anti-inflation protests are now roiling both countries, owing mainly to rising energy, food and raw-material prices, with food accounting for one-third of household spending in China and about 45 percent in India.
The fear now in both countries is that inflation shocks could turn into a self-reinforcing price spiral. As the IMF cautions, “core inflation — excluding commodities — has risen from 2 percent to 3.75 percent, suggesting that inflation is broadening.”
One reason that Indian prices are rising is that infrastructure growth remains sluggish. Progress on roads, railways and power projects — all of which could prevent food from perishing prematurely and energy and commodities from being unnecessarily wasted — is essential to stabilizing prices.
China, meanwhile, finds itself at a critical juncture. Its leadership will change next year — at a time when income inequality is on the march and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) lacks any consensus on how to stop it. Given that less than 9 percent of CCP members are actually “workers” nowadays, the regime’s leaders must be even more uncomfortable with growing inequality. However, in the absence of serious political reform, income inequality will widen as crony capitalism sinks its roots more deeply.
India and China both need a renewed commitment to structural reform to sustain their economic growth. Cheap labor and monetary management will not do the trick on their own. The credibility that both governments gained after their countries avoided the worst of the global financial crisis of 2008 is beginning to wear thin. For, as inflationary fears in the BRICS giants grow, second thoughts about the shift in the world economy’s center of gravity are beginning to gain currency.
What both countries need are short-term corrections and long-term structural changes. China needs to prepare itself for an economy whose performance is not dependent on exports and low domestic wages. India must find other drivers of economic modernization than new information technologies (as welcome as these are). Workers in both countries are now demanding better living standards — a demand that even China’s tightly controlled political system cannot ignore.
India, for its part, needs to open up its economy further in order to take advantage of its continuing rapid population growth and the ongoing changes in the structure of the global economy. It must recommit itself to feeding its population — and thus to attaining its stated objective of a “Second Green Revolution” in agriculture.
China and India have used very different political models to achieve their ambitious GDP growth targets. Nonetheless, as their economies mature, both will need to embrace structural change — and to address the challenges of overdue political reforms.
Jaswant Singh has served as finance, foreign and defense minister of India.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under