Nick Kristof on India Vs China
The latest columnist to join the India Vs China debate is Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. The column itself is mind-numbingly boring, except possibly to readers who are only just waking up to the India/China story. Nonetheless, Kristof is one of 2-3 of the most influential columnists at the Times and that is reason enough to at least bookmark this story. After all, the book by that other influential columnist has proved pretty darned beneficial in promoting the India story, no matter what else you think of Friedmanomics. So, keeping that in mind, here’s Kristof.
President Bush’s trip to India next month is important, for we in America must brace ourselves to see not only China looming in our rear-view mirror, but eventually India as well. India was the world’s great disappointment of the 20th century, but now it’s moving jerkily forward with economic reforms, reminding me of China around 1990.
…
India has a solid financial system, while China’s banking system is a catastrophe. And India is in better shape demographically for long-term growth: China has already reaped most of the economic benefits of population control and is now rapidly aging, but India’s population will be disproportionately working-age for many decades to come (a factor that strongly correlates with economic growth). India’s democracy, free press and civil society also provide a measure of political stability.
…
Yet if democracy is one of India’s strengths, it’s also a weakness. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh knows exactly what to do, and I’ve rarely met a leader more competent (or less charismatic). But his reforms are stalled or slowed in the Indian political labyrinth. India’s basic problem is that its economic policy-making isn’t nearly as shrewd, pro-growth or farsighted as China’s. That’s a tragedy: we should all want India to demonstrate that democracy is an advantage. But Indian lawmakers aren’t helping. Foreigners are still blocked from directly investing in some sectors in India, like retailing. Privatization is lethargic. Food subsidies are soaring and are so inefficient that it costs 6.6 rupees to transfer 1 rupee’s worth of food to the poor. Restrictive labor laws mean that companies hesitate to hire, and regulations tend to suffocate entrepreneurship.
The Verdict?
Over all, my bet is that China will still grow faster and win the race of the century. I’m going to tell my kids to keep studying Chinese, rather than switch to Hindi.
As per Kristof…I’m going to tell my kids to keep studying Chinese, rather than switch to Hindi.
This shows the amt of research (or lack, thereof) that Kristof has done re India…
Hindi may be the most popular language but knowledge of English is far more valuable, economically, in India. This was true even before the outsourcing boom. Since offshoring took off, the economic premium accorded to English has gone up even more so…
I’m not saying that one can’t make money w/o knowing English in India. There’s lots of people that don’t know English and are extremely affluent.
My point is that the number of Indians who are extremely fluent in English AND also poor (say, in the bottom decile of the income distribution) is likely to be small.
Caveat: This is an anecdotal observation (what economists call casual empiricism). Wonder if there’s any research done on this?
This is not something I’m happy about — but it’s a reality that we have to live with.
Comment by Prashant Kothari — January 18, 2006 @ 10:22 am
Prashant, I did consider pointing out Kristof’s obvious error with Hindi, but I figured some else would, and you have pointed it out far more eloquently. As Brad deLong once said, English will remain the most widely spoken language of the world, not because of a larger American population, but because of rising numbers of Indians who use it.
Comment by Reuben Abraham — January 18, 2006 @ 10:54 am
It’s just a Rapidex China / India guide for people recovering from 9/11
Comment by SloganMurugan — January 18, 2006 @ 11:02 am
LOL @ Rapidex Guide, Murugan. That’s exactly right! :))
Comment by Reuben Abraham — January 18, 2006 @ 11:44 am
Well, there’s not much to say, is there? But do check out the reaction to this article on the Chinese side. http://pekingduck.org/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3381
If this is representative of the level of intelligence out there - it’s one of the better China blogs - then I don’t know why Indians keep fretting about the Chinese.
Comment by Samir — January 19, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
While Kristoff always writes human rights and democracy, but apparently only economy matters. He is an old China hat. He lived and worked and knows more about China probably than another country (other than US) - in a word a Sinophile. So his conclusions should not unexpected.
Comment by Chandra — January 20, 2006 @ 2:22 am
Prashant,
I read somewhere only 8% of the population could read & write in English in India :-)
So I guess Christos is not way off the mark….
also its a minor point to counter… there are other important points he raised. Its nonsense to denounce his research based on this silly point.
Comment by Navin — January 20, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
Navin
Kristof’s point was about the need to learn Hindi vs Chinese. And my take was that knowledge of Hindi wasn’t a big deal for foreigners because the urban elites & the businessmen, the ones that any foreigner would encounter would most likely know English.
Another point: the fastest-growing/ most affluent states in India re Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Delhi. Apart from Haryana and Delhi, in all other states you’re much better off knowing English (for the urban crowd) or the regional language (everyone else) as compared to Hindi.
BTW, I’m not “denouncing his research” — just pointing out his fallacy about Hindi’s importance (or, lack thereof) in India
And at least, I got his name right ;-)
Comment by Prashant Kothari — January 20, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
Prashant - You couldn’t resist that dig, could you?! :-)
Chandra - You forgot to mention that Kristof’s wife is Chinese. He wrote a book with her about the China\economy story a few years ago. I agree with you about Kristof: So he thinks China’s where it’s at?… Ho hum.
On the other hand, I must admit that I like most of what Kristof has written on American issues. Like a lot - but not all - of US commentators, the further they stray from home the further off the mark they tend to be.
Comment by Samir — January 20, 2006 @ 10:35 pm
Prashant - I stand corrected on the name.. was typing that late into the night ;-)
I still don’t understand why a foreigner would only have to deal with URBAN ELITES ?
THERE IS WEALTH AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PYRAMID isnt it ? If I were to concentrate on BOP wouldn’t I be interested in learning the language as well ?
You wrote “As per Kristof…I’m going to tell my kids to keep studying Chinese, rather than switch to Hindi. —> This shows the amt of research (or lack, thereof) that Kristof has done re India…
Comment by Navin — January 21, 2006 @ 12:21 am
Samir, I knew that about Kristof’s wife - just didn’t want to make that an issue :)
I do agree with you that Kristof’s columns are pretty good - he pretty much single handedly put Pakistani rape victim being hushed up by the General on global map; and his numerous columns on Sudan refugees, which were (and continue to be) to be of no avail, are great.
Comment by Chandra — January 21, 2006 @ 1:40 am
Why do Indians love boasting so much when there is nothing to boast about? If anything, Kristof is too optimistic about India’s future. The trouble with all this whooping optimism about India is that it is based on the relative success of a few sectors of the Indian economy - especially IT - that employ ony a small proportion of the population. Some middle and upper class Indians are making money. But there is no sign whatever that the great and growing mass of Indians is getting anything out of the present economic growth. In fact, by pushing up prices for essentials and many raw materials, the poor depend on like wood, current economic growth is often making life WORSE for the poor. India has one of the world’s lowest levels of spending on mass education and healthcare, and there is no sign that this will change. Ministers make promises, but this is as far as it goes. China, on the other hand, did a huge amount for public health and mass education BEFORE it began market-led growth. Also, China bases its growth on mass manufacturing, employing large numbers of people, not the small-employment IT sector like the Indians. Then there is the nonsense about how India has a “population dividend”, because its population growth is out of control…..This is real nonsense. Huge increases in population are wrecking the Indian environment. They create political tensions that hinder all serious development. And it is forgotten that a very high proportion of the future Indian population growth will be Muslims, which will push India back to the kind of bloody conflict that led to Partition.
No, friends. I am very sorry, but India will not only not catch up with China by 2100, but in my opinion it won’t even exist.
Comment by Krishnan Nayar — January 23, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Dear Mr Nayar,
I can feel that with how much pain you are forced to say something which might sound so anti-patriotic.
Th eproblem with India is not with its rulers or democracy but the “Indian attitude”. We are a society of short sighted people who fail to see beyond “me, my family and my people (caste and religion!)”
and our politicians make it a five year plan to earn as much so that there generations dont have to work.
I completely agree with you that we might not exist as a country in 2100 (well if it sounds good to some, then so would Pakistan and other muslim countries!). The reason is very straight forward, even after 50+ years of Independance, we have yet to develope a sense of belonging and comittment to the country. We are so fractured and self centred that Mitrochin could dare to write that “as though the whole country was on sale!”
Dear Prashant- the issue of language is worth debating but let me remind you that only after Pepsi and coke got the hindi slogans for their campaign, they could reap the benefit.
also as per a new study, there are more rich in rural India than urban (surprising, yes even to me!)
and you just can not ignore the 70+% population because they are poor.
Indians make much noise about their English knowledge which is just another example of their character.
No country with a respected name in the world does not speak a foreign language but has implemented its own language in UN.
also pointing out to the spelling mistake does not speak well about your discussion skills !!!!
Comment by Dr Anupam Gupta — January 27, 2006 @ 3:56 am
India has a stable banking sector? I think India doesn’t have a real banking sector, and this is why it is “stable”. Well, Chinese banking sector is certainly very problemetic, this I agree.
see my article about why India doesn’t have a banking sector: “Fix Mexico’s banks, not China’s”
Comment by R-Squared — January 27, 2006 @ 11:19 am
I think 2100 is far away and the race is too close to call it shots. A lot can happen
(and will happen) in between. Democracy , no democracy , autocracy or whatever…the fundamental reason these two nations are shaking the west is because they at population giants. However important the other factors may be - at the end the population factor dominates over all. Thats what makes these two nation fundamentally different from Japan, other east and SE Asian tigers, etc. Never in the history of earth have 2-billion+ people - all under just two flags- together dreamt of becoming prosperous.
If the population mass of China and more likely India were divided under many more flags , say like in africa, we wouldnt have had such a china vs india debate.
To generalise- from a econophysicist’s perspective -In any planet, once its dominant intelligent species reaches that point in time where distance no longer matters-be it in transport, communication, or whatever- with time the state(s) that survive with the biggest population masses will inevitably become the biggest. In our planet, at the moment we have 2 such nations- china and india. So long they keep surviving as the biggest nations, they will inevitably become the largest economic weights. Other factors (resource scarcity, bad governance,culture, etc) may slow the process by decades or centuries, but eventually economic weight will become proportional to population size.
After this whatever I am saying is mere wild speculation but I optimistically believe in it, because i believe in survival of humanity (basic instincts)-
Technology will keep making every kind of miracles a reality. The fast rise of asia -china, india, others and hopefully in long run of sub-saharan africa will create the most severest(many times greater than ever in history) crunch in energy and other resources. It will become obvious that no large population mass can live at the same standards as in the developed world now. Environment will be the worst homo-sapiens have seen. Many will predict scenarios of doom, resource wars, end of civilization,etc. Some may even get close to happening. But we will keep becoming dependent on each other in practically every matter . However we try to blame each other, it will become increasingly difficult and inevitably impossible to segregate ourselves into us and they. And then will dawn - “global conciousness”. Maybe in 2100 we will be still debating west-east, china-india or whatever but just ~ 8-10 generation later global conciousness will prevail over all.
Thus in rise of china, india or any banana-istan for that matter, I dont just see the rise of another great power(s), but I also see creation of bigger catalysers. I think this conciousness is already, albiet slowly, seeping into europe. Slowly it will also seep into america, asia, africa and the rest of the world.
Comment by avi — February 1, 2006 @ 5:51 am
I agree that about one third of the rural population in China are still living in poverty, mostly those in the interior. But here is the situation of most rural hourseholds in coastal and much of East China: almost every rural family has a color TV, a gas stove, a motor cycle, a telephone (and most adults in the rural area each have a cell phone). About two thirds of rural households each have a refrigerator. More than two thirds of the adults in the rural area are now working in the factories as wage earners; only females and the elderly stay home to take care of their farms. Farming is largely machinized in most of East China. This is THE REALITY in today’s China - I mean rural China, not Shanghai or Beijing. To promote education, beginning this year, the government announced absolutely free education to all children - no tuition and no payment for books for all children in the countryside. Think about these before comparing India to China.
one more remark. many Indian friends boast about their democracy at home. democracy is no doubt what everyone desires. however, for a developing country, i’m convinced that democracy MEANS inefficiency, chaos, and corruption. remember, there is no example in the non-western world where a country can modernize under democracy; S. Korea, Taiwan, and other tigers all modernized while they were under authoritarianism or a strong government. democracy came to them only when they were already industrialized. in my opinion, the key to China’s faster growth today is precisely its strong government. the government is in the hands of the CCP, but it is wrong to say that China is a communist state; China is absolutely more capitalistic today than India. people there today indeed have no freedom of speach in mass media; but they are free to criticise anybody in all kinds of informal occasions. i believe in 10 or 20 years, the CCP will eventually introduce some form of democracy to its country, just like what happened to korea and taiwan 10 years ago. i hope India and China, the two great civilizations, would work togather to make the asian age happen.
Comment by harry — February 5, 2006 @ 7:46 am
In response to all the above let me recount a small story.
My ancestors were from deep south of india. Caste Discrimination and poverty forced them to flee to norhtern india where they found suitable employment in a steel making city to survive with dignity. They worked as manual labourers most of thier lives and brought up offspring who were only barely educated and nurtured an inferiority complex. Inspite of all this I am the third generation of my family - and am possibily the first to step abroad. I have also the good fortune of being amongst the better-off people amongst our times.
From this vantage point all I can see is that it is India’s democracy and it’s way of empowering its citizens has worked for me. And I am convinced that it will work for everyone - it will just take a bit of hard work and good faith.
India has invested its faith on its people. It is just a matter of how we reciprocate.
Comment by raj-chan — February 5, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
Indians are too idealistic. We talk about democracy, we brag that we are better off than the Chinese for we have freedom and democracy. But what does freedom mean when 50% of our female population are illiterate? When our child malnutrition rate is over 40%? Our population is growing and young, yes, and China’s population is aging… but our young population are undereducated and undernourished. China’s youth are increasingly educated and healthy. Chinese life expectancy is 8 years longer! The Chinese are more practical people, and for that reason alone, they will succeed where India will fail.
Comment by Santosh Shah — April 3, 2006 @ 5:17 am
I have just spent a month travelling all around China, and it was a good reality check after reading all the heady articles about the Chinese economic miracle. Yes, China is growing very fast, and their infrastructure is top-notch. But poverty is still the norm in the countryside, and it will take many years before these people enjoy anything close to a western living standard. The Shanghais and Beijings of China are certainly impressive, but they are only part of the story.
The one thing I did notice in China (which I do not find a lot of when I talk to my Indian friends in the US) is their level of optimism. Almost everyone, from the grumbling taxi driver to salesgirl at the airport, truly believes that China will do well. Maybe not immediately, and certainly not everybody. But in the long-term, they sincerely believe that China will prosper (while very slowly democratising) and take its place among the great powers.
This is very different from a lot of the pessimistic comments on this site or those from my Indian friends. Indians need to recognize the tremendous achievements of their country. India has a marvelous culture, one of the finest literary traditions of any country, and a strong democratic institution (which I agree can sometimes be a bureaucratic nightmare). Sure India has many challenges, but I do not doubt the ability and intelligence of the Indian people to put aside their differences and overcome their difficulties. I’m proud of India (and I’m Chinese), and you should be too. Besides, India vs. China should really be more India & China because we are all going to be part of the Asian Century!
Comment by ray — April 7, 2006 @ 4:57 am
C’mon, I think we all know that at this point of the game India has lost out badly to China, in most fronts. This is why instead of using concrete numbers, people rooting for India mostly point to the “potential” of India. And all of a sudden an unchecked growth of population (most of which living in dire poverty) is a good thing. As for India’s democracy, it’s a sham. When people are dirt poor democracy doesn’t mean much. Bombastic talks about India’s democracy will not lift Indians out of poverty.
For those of you who like to dismiss the prosperity of the Chinese east coast by pointing to the relative poverty of the inland, and in the process making India look good, I suggest that you make the comparison fair. Let’s compare apples to apples. List top five India cities, and compare them with the top five Chinese cities. Then compare the rural areas of China with the rural India.
The most recent comprehensive comparison of these two countries’ economies that I am aware of is here:
http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm
China has many problems, and so does India. But if comparisons of the two countries are to be made, they should be done fairly.
Comment by Andy — April 15, 2006 @ 6:19 am
The mentality between chinese and indian are very different. The indians talk about it all the time, about competing and comparing to China. Meanwhile the Chinese have been comparing their situation with Japan and the Western world. Some of you may not know that the Chinese name for their nation literal means “The center of the world”. It has been called that for 3000 years. And in the Chinese people’s mind, only the ‘CENTER OF THE WORLD’ is the rightful place for their country. Note that this mentality has never changed even at their darkest and poorest days.
In time, it is not the government that develops the economy. It is people themselves. And the government’s job is to free the productivity of the people. When you see a nation of people with vision, drive and education(like China), the nation will do well in the long run. It maybe 50 years or 150 years, but eventually the China will come back to the center of the world. After all it has been the largest economically for majority of the human history.
Comment by Su Li — June 15, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
I think there is a long way to go before 2100. The big issue is dealing with Islamic radicals. I think the problems in the middle east are gonna get worse. And India and China will both have to deal with it. I fear the middle east conflict will spill over to India, because of its large muslim population, and to a much lesser degree China. China will be able to deal with it better, primary because of its dictator style government. India on the other hand will suffer greater because of its democracy and the unwillingness of the government to stop militants. India can still come out on top in 2100, but it must be willing to deal with terriorist as a real nation should.
Comment by Thej — December 29, 2006 @ 5:01 am
Public schools in California has instituted Chinese language programs. Even here in cowtown USA (Columbus, OH), the public schools have offered Chinese, and many kids are taking up on it. As far as I know, no school systems in the US has yet to offer Hindi, or any Indian language for that matter. When a country grows in economic importance, foreigners will flock to learn its language. Japan has the luxury of not learning English because those who want to do business with it will eagerly learn Japanese. I see the same thing happening to China. India is just nowhere on the radar screen of my fellow Americans. I know what my kids will learn, and it won’t be Hindi. I don’t care about all the stuff said about Indian democracy and freedoms, but I already enjoy it in the US, and my kids sure won’t care about them either. So Chinese it is.
Comment by Bo — August 18, 2008 @ 7:06 am