That's ridiculous. They're two completely different countries, with different histories, ethnic groups, cultures, belief systems, etc. Simply comparing them by population and developing nation status doesn't get you anywhere. You also can't just take the only country you think is similar and take a view simply based on that. Didn't you pay any attention during science lessons at school? If you perform a comparative experiment you have to run it many, many times. Otherwise you might get freak results influenced by other factors.
You are now evading into unrelated subject of scientific investigation that had nothing to do with empirical method of social and political study.Even Nobel prize winner Amartha Sen use the same comparison
"For me," Sen noted, "the most important thing is that they were so very similar in the 1940s, so very similar in economic and social development until the 1970s. That makes it very natural to ask how they have progressed since then."
Autocracy is not the only condition to achieve economic growth but Autocracy and capitalism combined with efficient government can achieve miracle
I think it is commonsense to accept the reality that democracy does indeed slow down moves towards economic efficiency. Some people have a problem accepting this.That why all those excuses and bogus reason why they couldn't achieve the promised land.The literature is littered with book title like Hare and tortoise, Dragon and swan.Reality is something else
Democracy is not a system designed for fast progress. At least not all the time. Its institutions are intended to check the excessive concentration of power in a few hands.
When it comes to making painful economic choices, democracies take longer to decide precisely because so many people need convincing and vested interests need neutralisation.
The history of the Asian tigers tells us that higher growth and reforms were always more easily pushed through in autocratic environments — South Korea, Singapore, Philippines, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and China. When these countries were on the road to tigerhood, they were all autocracies. Some still are
At different times in their histories and to far differing degrees. China was ruled by "non-Chinese" dynasties, but modern "colonialism" was restricted to cities and small areas, apart from when the Japanese invaded. On the other hand India was under direct and almost complete British rule for a long time right up until independence.
I think it should benefit India more because they inherited modern and best civil service in the world. Excellent country wide network of modern public school and University. Or the best infrastructure in continental Asia at that time
China has none of those At the end of Qing dynasty there is no modern public school, Civil servant is selected based on rote learning of Confucius analect.
Qing dynasty inhibit modernization exactly because they are non Han dynasty clinging too long to outdated system of government because they are afraid any loosening of control will result in revolution.
Easy, economic policy. India remained Socialist until fairly recently, whereas China went capitalism decades ago. China didn't invent a miracle economic policy from CCP political thought. Remember that Maoist economic policies almost ruined China. It was adoption of foreign ideas (and technology). You don't have to be a one-party state to reform economically!
People can always find excused I can also say that India doesn't suffer from debilitating economic embargo from 1950 to 1970. And how you explain the economic malaise that India suffer now
Nothing that sort. What the CCP did is retreating themselves from the sphere of Economy and private life of citizen. And releasing the economic drive and entrepreneurship power of the Chinese people.that were always there just submerge during period of intoxication with foreign ideology of Marxism. Chine didn't learn commerce from the west.The commerce tradition in China is century old . It is in their gene. It is not for nothing that Chinese are called the Jew of Asia
You can go to all countries in South East Asia and see that so much of the economy is dominated by Ethnic Chinese enterprises. Why?
Oppressed and hassled in their own country. The colonial power provide the frame work of law, order and stability and allowing the Chinese talent in trade to drive the commerce.So effectively China replicated this recipe. The result speak for themselves.
But America didn't develop all in the late 20th century! It had to invent or wait for the development of key technologies and economic principles. It also had to wait for people to flock to the country to drive population growth. The country was completely undeveloped, with hardly anyone living in most of it and no significant settlements. What they did was a great achievement.
America live on the most bountiful country in the world and benefited greatly from the talent and capital of the European. Being relatively isolated and sparsely populated they can developed without any interference from Europe. There is nothing magical in this
You mean China decided to get involved in those conflicts. And India had its own wars with China and Pakistan.
No China hand was forced when the UN and America cross to Yalu river It present latent danger to the industrial heartland of China. 3 times in history China answer the call of help from Korea. there is Imjin war against Hideyoshi in 1598 and the first Sino Japan war in 1895. and the 1950 war
Complete rubbish. Many Chinese are much richer, but a large number are still poor. The CCP finally adjusted its definition of poverty upwards and suddenly three times the previous number are "poor". It's all about how you define poverty. Yes, economic reforms have been great for China, poverty has not been "effectively eliminated" at all. It's easy to say there's no poverty if you set/hold the barrier at a low point.
Again this the most stupid argument I ever heard. The UN convention of Beyond poverty line is based on PPP and China comply with this convention. But as China prospered so do inflation and therefore lower the Purchasing parity . So they need to adjust the PPP by raising the cut off line of Poverty.Even using the new cut off line only 7% of Chinese population can be considered poor vs 55% for India
The other goal is by raising the cutoff line they speed up the poverty eradication program by allowing large number of people to qualify for subsidy such as health care, free schooling, minimum existence income etc
China didn't even have a chance to try democracy properly! The country was completely unstable at the time and had just seen the overthrown of imperial rule. You can't shift from a despotic monarchy to a modern democratic system in 5 minutes. Moreover, Yuan Shikai clearly had no interest in democracy and did everything he could to undermine it.
What happened in China after the fall of the Qing was not due to democracy. It was because key players like Yuan abandoned democracy and just tried to impose more authoritarian rule.
I would also use your argument that China is still not ready for democracy. What make you sure that if China today convert to democracy that no snake oil salesmen show up and promising the masses star and moon while enriching themselves. Being gullible they will follow the path of destruction . Example are abound just look across the Taiwan strait. Just in nick of time they averted disaster.
But some developing countries handle it better than others. There is no reason why democratic reforms would fail in China in making things better, unless they were introduced in panic because the CCP had fallen or the leadership was facing mounting public anger over various issues.
Care to name them?. Most of South America achieved their independence about the same time as US and choose democracy Yet they never achieved anything close too US living standard now why?
