Which huge Asian country is set to become a dominant global economic force powered by the world's largest population? If you said China, you may yet be proved wrong. The answer is just as likely to be India.

China is firmly on the road to having the world's second-biggest population. Its current number-one ranking will be overtaken by India by around 2030 - partly as a result of the demographic consequences of China's "one-child policy". The rise in south Asia's population - tracked by the United Nations Population Division - is likely to see India's neighbour Pakistan become the fourth-most-populous country on the planet by 2050. By then, India is projected to have 1,593 million people to China's 1,392 million.

But even if it is conceded that India may become more populous than China, many argue that it will never be richer (the recent vagaries of the dispute can be traced in the contrast between two stories in the Economist: "China v India: A Tiger, Falling Behind a Dragon" [June 2003] and "The Tiger in Front" [March 2005]).

This debate has been raging for years, and more recent cover stories in Time and Newsweek, as well as exchanges in thousands of internet chat rooms, are keeping it alive. The latest development to enliven the discourse is India's dramatic decision on 20 March 2006 to allow a freer flow of cash in and out of the country.

There are many grounds on which the debate can proceed. The most common analytical technique has been to compare the growth in each nation's gross domestic product (GDP), where China is currently in the lead; it is also ahead in infrastructure, though India leads in personal freedoms.

Even if it is conceded that India may become more populous than China, many argue that it will never be richer.

Arguably the most intriguing of these grounds, although the hardest to pin down, is each country's place in the race to create free, self-governing, independent societies. India is undeniably ahead on democracy, widely seen as a force which adds creativity and dynamism to an economy. But there are two differences of view as to whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage.

First, economists such as Thailand-based Marc Faber have said that Chinese leaders can demonstrate that their imperviousness to individual rights is an advantage. If they want to clear a residential district and rebuild it as a business park, they go ahead and do it. Changes in public policy are implemented by rubber-stamp legislatures.

In contrast, India follows a western system of law which respects property and individual rights. Things take longer, and involve consultations, campaigns and potential delays. Yet a big-picture macro-examination of historical development across the globe indicates that democracy, freedom of speech and the rule of law are strongly associated with long-term, steady, sustainable economic growth.

For example, inflexible China may have a huge population and resource base, but its economy has only recently overtaken that of Britain. In terms of population and resources, it is tiny compared with China, but Britain has all of the economic dynamism associated with free societies.

The second difficulty in comparing India and China is the entrenched emotion involved in a relationship between two giant neighbours. This is compounded by a lack of debating experience on the Chinese side. While Indians often engage in self-criticism, Chinese contributors to physical or virtual forums are conditioned never to criticise their motherland. "Very soon you will find out how far behind India will be", threatens a writer who signs himself "Chinese" in a typical online forum on the topic.

How it feels

Since my own immediate family is almost equally south Asian and Chinese, I may be better placed than most commentators to offer an unbiased view. In this regard, I offer the following informal, impressionistic and totally arbitrary list of comparisons:

• Roads in Chinese cities get you where you are going; roads in Indian cities are often interrupted by bullocks, demonstrations or encampments.
• In China, most English-speaking business visitors need a translator; in India, officials and business people are dazzlingly fluent in English.
• Chinese hotels have a talent for fleecing guests; Indian hotels are friendlier but noticeably less efficient.
• In China, officials know how their system works; Indian executives have more of a feel for how the world works.
• Buildings are erected in China seemingly overnight; in India, they often take years to creep into place.
• China's bureaucracy seems more efficient than India's on the surface, but is more mysterious and labyrinthine once you get under the skin.
• In China, you feel your freedom is limited by government power; in India, you feel it is limited by corruption.
• In China, people are nihilistic, unable to shape their own society; in India, people come across as empowered by the ballot-box.
• People in China come across as anxious and restless; in India, they appear happier, comforted by religion and ritual.
• Huge swathes of China are locked in a timeless, rural way of life; in this respect, India is exactly the same.

It is impossible to referee this particular prize-fight; the variables are too many and too diverse. A number of commentators say India's rate of economic growth will overtake China's as early as 2008; at least an equal number say China's will remain ahead indefinitely.

Although I live in China, I cannot help but notice one intriguing factor: there's a clear link between creativity and societal freedom. India has both, in large measure; China has neither.




Contributed by Nury Vittachi, a journalist and author based in China. Reprinted with permission from openDemocracy.

To read another Global Envision article about China vs. India, see The Indian Tortoise and the Chinese Hare.



Return to top

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit
• Facebook
• Google
• Yahoo