Do you reckon???
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/india-population/
India 1950 has 376 million, in 2000 it had over a billion, almost 3 times more which is similar to Taiwan
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/taiwan-population/
In 1950 Taiwan had about 8 million people in 2000 about 22.6 million
While China
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/china-population/
In 1950 China had about 600 million in 2000 1,283 million just over double
We are still looking under the KMT of about half a billion more Chinese.
Casting an eye over the graphs on the pages you cite would show you that all 3 states were experiencing very different demographic trends to start with. On top of that, their pre-1950 history was very different. For example, with China, we need to consider the impact of the Sino-Japanese war, which killed tens of millions of Chinese. For Taiwan, we need to consider that it was a relatively developed Japanese model colony. For India, we need to consider that literacy was significantly lower than either China or Taiwan. Then after 1950, there are many large differences between the 3. Taiwan gets a big influx of mainland refugees (and refugees, which skew towards the young, healthy and skilled - because people who run need the physical strength and financial resources to run - tend to experience a baby boom when they are able to settle down and rebuild their lives), China experienced Maoist brutality and famine and India experienced federal democracy.
There's no way that all of China will have demography like that of Taiwan. It is starting from a different place and will evolve under different conditions.
Nor will it have demography entirely like that of the PRC. It is starting from the same place but will evolve under different conditions.
Another important issue here: can KMT China gain access to the US market the way Taiwan did? In OTL, the US gave unprecedented access to its market to its allies in Asia and Europe, enabling efficiency gains and economic booms across the US economic hegemony.
If KMT China can gain similar access to the US market as Taiwan did, then it will no doubt out-perform the PRC by a large margin. But the fall of China was one of the things that pushed the US to give its allies access to its market. With no fall of China will the US follow a more protectionist course? Opening up more slowly, if it opens up at all? And given the size of China, will racism, protectionism and cooler relations due to a more assertive KMT foreign policy mean that China gets treated much as India was in the same period, and does not get the economic access that the US accords to its European allies and to Japan and South Korea?
If KMT China has more limited access the US market, it won't be able to pursue an export led strategy with as much success as Taiwan and OTL's PRC after 1980 had. In such a case, the economy is still, in my view going to outperform the PRC during the Maoist period, but not by anywhere near as large a margin.
Will China be a greater power in this scenario? Almost certainly. Will it have a larger economy than the Soviets or Japanese by 1980? Quite possibly. Will it have a larger economy than the US by 1980? I am doubtful.
After 1980 I am unsure. My gut instinct is that a KMT China would grow more slowly than OTL's PRC between 1980 to the present, but that starting from a higher base and less damage from the "over development" that Communist planning is prone to would result in overall higher levels of wealth. But there are so many unknowns that my "gut feeling" could be as well labelled "wishful thinking".
fasquardon