Some of you may know that Indians are the highest-income ethnic group in the United States.
I was surprised to learn that in Singapore, Indians have been earning more than ethnic Chinese since 2010.
On the other hand, there have been been several Chinese-majority states that have modernized. The only Indian-majority state outside India I know of is Guyana, and it’s still pretty much third-world. And a World Bank guy told me back around 2007 that India itself was about twenty years behind China. This is probably due to the fact that the state was invented in China about 200 BC. (See Francis Fukuyama’s Origins of Political Order).
Well, aside from having the most amount of railroad workers (like 1mn or more from what I remember reading), India’s infrastructure sucks. Any society/culture in the world that has grown needs it. Europe and their rivers for 100s/1000s of years. The U.S. and first its canals, then major rivers everywhere and then the railroad. Finally the ports. India just doesn’t have that. China has the rivers and now HSRails.
Pretty sure Mauritius is majority Indian. Also that’s not how it works. China had the some external factors going for it mainly proximity other advanced economies (the four tigers, states and Japan) and on top of that it shared a language with three of the Asian tigers.
Yeah but why?
This one is due to the fact that it’s a democracy, in contrast with China, which just removes people at will if they want to build a road.
Other than Singapore? You mean Taiwan and Hong Kong?
If the reason China is twenty years ahead of India is that it invented the state in 200BC, why are countries in Europe and North America at least twenty years ahead of China? For that matter, why are Japan and South Korea ahead?
Why in 1980 was China’s GDP $195, and India’s $267? I suspect looking at policies adopted in 1990 AD would tell us more than looking at policies in 200 BC.
All the countries that compressed the revolution in one generation under authoritarian governments are in East Asia or SE Asia, as Fukuyama pointed out.
Like Teddy Ruxbin said, the mayor of Kaohsiung can leave and the city still runs.
Japan and Korea adopted the same bureaucratic administration as China.
China was mired in collective ownership, obviously. India was mired in trade protectionism.
*Chinese Malaysians, Indian Malaysians, Malay Malaysians
Do the data refer to Indian Singaporeans vs. Chinese Singaporeans or Indians vs Chinese in general? It might make a difference because Indian non-Singaporeans are mostly professionals, while Chinese non-Singaporeans tend to be workers or students with no income.
Are you comparing India or Indians? Indians abroad are a force to be reckoned with! No doubt. India, however, seems to be a prime example of why overpopulation and destruction of environment are not ideal.
I am sure that has zero to do with CCP and previous Malay governments corruption at all…meaning, its not just domestic income…meaning, it is a hard comparison but probably objectively true.
To be fair there was a time, a long long time ago, when China was the most advanced place in the region (arguably the world). Of course the people of present day Korea and Japan borrowed a lot from China, as the Greeks borrowed from the Egyptians. But the problem with this line of thinking is it inevitably leads to the fact the West has more recently dominated the world more completely.
What does this have to do with anything? I’m explaining why Indians have been more successful in a third state while Chinese have been more successful at building their own.
That is why the only countries to modernize fast under authoritarian governments are found in East or SE Asia.
