Comparing China and India has happened as long as I can remember. When I studied history in the 1970s, it was one of the key debates at universities. Since in those days the information about both countries was rather scarce compared to today, the academic trenches followed political preferences, some defending India, some China. Some defending capitalism, some defending communism, whatever both terms might mean in reality.
Why would you try to compare both countries anyway, I already asked myself in those days. India and China had basically three things in common: they were huge, had a large population and they were not the United States. Otherwise there were more differences than similarities that could explain the different economic routes both countries were taking. The different political systems were singled out as the main criteria to compare both countries. An organic link was suggested between political and economic systems. [font=宋体]（[/font]www.guoxinb2b.com[font=宋体]）[/font]
China has put some cold water on this originally heated debate by taking a capitalist road without engaging into political changes.
Other Asian countries than China and India went in the past decades through more profound political changes than China and India. Their economic development has been very diverse, to put it mildly, as also Andrew Lih points out in a comment on my weblog on this subject. So, if one conclusion should be justified, it is that political systems do not define the success of an economy. Elections do not save a country from economic disaster, but also do not necessarily cause that disaster. Maybe bad politicians can destroy an economy under any system.
Why would you try to compare both countries anyway, I already asked myself in those days. India and China had basically three things in common: they were huge, had a large population and they were not the United States. Otherwise there were more differences than similarities that could explain the different economic routes both countries were taking. The different political systems were singled out as the main criteria to compare both countries. An organic link was suggested between political and economic systems. [font=宋体]（[/font]www.guoxinb2b.com[font=宋体]）[/font]
China has put some cold water on this originally heated debate by taking a capitalist road without engaging into political changes.
Other Asian countries than China and India went in the past decades through more profound political changes than China and India. Their economic development has been very diverse, to put it mildly, as also Andrew Lih points out in a comment on my weblog on this subject. So, if one conclusion should be justified, it is that political systems do not define the success of an economy. Elections do not save a country from economic disaster, but also do not necessarily cause that disaster. Maybe bad politicians can destroy an economy under any system.
So, why would we continue to compare China and India? Because it is easier to compare statistics? The question what works and what does not work in organizing a country is a too important question to be ignored. It is also too simple to come with lazy comparisons like we made them in the past.[font=宋][/font]