In an impressive exercise in democracy, about 551.3 million out of 814 million eligible eligible voters participated in India’s 16th general election. Narendra Modi of the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who presided over rapid economic growth in his 13 years as chief minister of the state of Gujarat on India’s northwest coast was elected. Modi won because most Indians believe that he can deliver further rapid growth in the country as a whole.
The election once again demonstrated how different in political terms India is from its giant neighbor, autocratic China. Now, however, the new government must try to match the superior economic progress that China has achieved over the last three decades. To do so, it will have to foster — in a different political context — two key ingredients of China’s economic success.
The first is a robust industrial sector composed of manufacturing industries that use unskilled labor, which would offer a route out of poverty for India’s hundreds of millions of rural laborers and their families. It is the route that China and other countries before it have taken. By contrast, the underdevelopment of the industrial sector has kept India from realizing its full economic potential.
The second ingredient is the infrastructure that all economic growth requires: roads, bridges, ports and schools, as well as reliable supplies of electricity and clean water. Poor infrastructure constrains the industry that India does have. Factories need reliable supplies of power to operate effectively, good roads and railways to source inputs and distribute products and, if they are to export those products, ports for cargo ships and airports for high-value items and business travel. China has these things in abundance. India does not.
Power outages are routine in India, nearly half the country’s households lack any electricity at all, and modern highways are scarce. While a trucker in the US can haul a load 1,600km in about 20 hours, in India the equivalent trip takes four to five days.
The underlying cause of these two shortcomings is one of the fundamental features of Indian democracy — and indeed of all democracies: The power of minorities.
In democracies, people are free to organize themselves and often do so on the basis of common economic interests. Such groups work politically to bring benefits to their members, but the benefits can come at the expense of the general welfare — and in India they have blocked the development of low-skilled industries and high-quality infrastructure.
While India abounds in workers with low or no skills, laws governing employment make it all but impossible for large firms to fire workers, discouraging hiring in the first place. The most efficient companies tend to avoid precisely the industries that could lift millions of Indians out of poverty if established on a large scale.
Similarly, laws restricting land use make it difficult to build facilities such as factories and hotels, which could employ large numbers of people.
It is a particular kind of interest group — trade unions — that promotes and defends the laws that discourage large firms from entering industries that employ unskilled workers. While these laws benefit union members, who make up a very small fraction of the total workforce, they penalize India as a whole. Other interest groups obstruct the growth of employment-creating businesses. Local protesters, for example, sometimes prevent the use of land for industrial and other commercial purposes.
Political minorities also inhibit the construction of infrastructure and the development of the educational system that India needs by using the democratic process to divert resources to themselves, which then cannot be used to build roads or pay teachers. Subsidies of various kinds, all of them legislative achievements of interest groups, account for fully 2.4 percent of India’s GDP.
The Indian bureaucracy itself is a large, powerful and voracious interest group. Its salaries consume resources that would be better devoted to more productive uses. Special-interest spending leads to budget deficits, while the borrowing needed to finance these deficits drains yet more money from infrastructure and education.
Modi’s new government cannot — indeed, must not — abolish the democratic rules that permit minorities to flourish. With its various ethnic groups, religions, castes and 30 languages used by more than 1 million native speakers each (and another 105 spoken by at least 10,000 people), India is more culturally diverse than the entire EU — but with twice as many people. Without the emphasis on compromise, peaceful dispute resolution and minority rights inherent to democracy, a united India could not exist.
So Modi’s challenge is to overcome the obstacles to growth-promoting polices using democratic methods. The election has brought good news: the growing strength of India’s growing middle class, a potent ally in the cause of pursuing the needed economic reforms.
That middle class consists of propertied, salaried people, many of them young, who see government as an impersonal enforcer of the law and a neutral arbiter of disputes, rather than as a source of funds and favors. The votes of such people helped Modi win the election. His success in office will depend on how well he can harness the power of the middle class to overcome the political obstacles to the economic growth that its members demand.
Michael Mandelbaum is the author of The Road to Global Prosperity.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs