Indian Economic Miracle Post Independence.

Give India a rate of economic development which is akin to that of the four Asian tigers.

Is it possible?

If not, why?

If yes, how would it be achieved?

Beyond that, how might the economic superpower that would be an Indian tiger affect the geopolitical landscape?
 

longsword14

Banned
Give India a rate of economic development which is akin to that of the four Asian tigers.

Is it possible?

If not, why?

If yes, how would it be achieved?

Beyond that, how might the economic superpower that would be an Indian tiger affect the geopolitical landscape?
The era from independence to the late 80s were full of red tape, license-raj and flawed ideology giving a stagnant economy.
Possible to have greater growth,but it would not be close to the four tigers, though you have to drastically change the political scenario pre independence and let it bring even greater changes post independence.
1. Make the Congress Party (you must have it in any scenario, because it was near synonymous with the national movement) be more realistic in its outlook towards economic policies.
Get Sardar Patel in a stronger position and the political brass to align accordingly.
2. Perhaps a stronger role for the center in several nation spanning issues, which is quite important to do as wide changes over lesser amount of time are hardly possible with the state governments as they were. Hard to do because while the republic was being formed, states had to have some room to ensure a stable union.
 
What if you gave the states MORE power - then if, e.g. Bengal, slashes red tape and is business friendly, businesses flock in, jobs skyrocket and the economy soars. Other states look at businesses (and workers) fleeing and realize they have to follow suit.
 

longsword14

Banned
What if you gave the states MORE power - then if, e.g. Bengal, slashes red tape and is business friendly, businesses flock in, jobs skyrocket and the economy soars. Other states look at businesses (and workers) fleeing and realize they have to follow suit.
The union does give some power over things such as agriculture, roads, electricity to the states. A lot of paperwork is because of state departments, too. At least for the first few decades a strong push was necessary (education,health etc) to lay down the foundation. Individual states were too lethargic in most cases.
 
the following book really makes the case for land reform, such as in Japan and South Korea. Where you have a lot of smaller farmers competing independently.

How Asia Works: Success and Failure in the World's Most Dynamic Region, Joe Studwell, 2013.
 
Most of the Tigers were authoritarian (Taiwan, South Korea) states that received US investment in the 60's and remained authoritarian until the 90's. Japan was a one party state with heavy business-government cooperation and US defenses so military spending was not as large. The Philippines were corrupt under Marcos. Since post war India was anti-colonial and interested in central planning the US and the West steered away from it.
 
India also has a relative disadvantage in terms of distance. Manufacturing in Korea requires less time on a ship. It's not a huge issue, relative to the ones mentioned above, but it's one more challenge to compete, particularly early on when the global logistics system was less developed.
 
A couple of other things that have come up in previous discussions are healthcare and education, you really need the early leaders and federal government to heavily invest in and promote these. IIRC in our timeline it got handled more by the states and whilst some of them did well it was generally allowed to drift. Combine them with either avoiding or reforming the large bureaucratic obstacles Indian businesses and industry had to face and I'd expect things to go better.
 
Reduce greatly the role of any central planning which is mainly red tape and hinders economic development. A centrally planned economy simply won't do very well.
 
I do not think that India would have chosen the capitalistic path of economy, even if someone other than Nehru was chosen as the Prime Minister. The choice of a socialistic pattern of development was inevitable as that was a common opinion among the leaders of the Congress Party. The socialist orientation of economy and the anti-imperialist non-aligned direction of foreign policy were the natural products of the experience of the Congress leaders from their years of struggle for independence. The Indian leaders as well as the people had a natural aversion for the UK and hence the West in general. That is why Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose are more popular than Mahatma Gandhi! Any change in the economic policy would have occurred after at least a quarter century. The Janata government who unseated Indira Gandhi could have taken steps to undo the License Raj and give new direction to the economy. But they lacked a Finance Minister who had a vision and courage to change the course. In fact it was easier for them to change the economic policy than a Narasimha Rao as they could abandon the path of Congress without any regrets and excuses. Personally I do not blame Nehru for his economic policy or his general foreign policy. It was in the fields of primary education, public health, sanitation, infrastructure etc. that he was a colossal failure. I think he was a man interested only in important matters like foreign policy and didn't bother about minor things like education, health, sanitation etc. It was an amazing fact a man like Nehru, who had a deep knowledge of history and allied subjects neglected primary education in a country like India, leaving it to the care of indifferent state governments!
 
Most of the Tigers were authoritarian (Taiwan, South Korea) states that received US investment in the 60's and remained authoritarian until the 90's. Japan was a one party state with heavy business-government cooperation and US defenses so military spending was not as large. The Philippines were corrupt under Marcos. Since post war India was anti-colonial and interested in central planning the US and the West steered away from it.

Japan wasn't a one-party state.
 
Thinking about it some more, you don't necessarily need a growth model following the export-oriented system of development.

Land reform is the first and most important step. From there, you have simply the time it takes for capital to accumulate.

The question now is whether or not land reform is feasible, and the rate at which the product of said reform will accumulate capital.

Could India follow a model similar to that which industrialized the United States? The American school, which entailed protectionism, infrastructure spending, and subsidies for domestic business. It would align nicely with India's anti-colonialism.
 
Reduce greatly the role of any central planning which is mainly red tape and hinders economic development. A centrally planned economy simply won't do very well.

Well, a badly planned economy won't do very well, right. But there are means to make a centrally planned economy more efficient, e. g. by introducting market economy elements in it to combine the advantages of both economic systems.
 
Bump? Just wondering if anyone has a take on my previous post.

The protectionism, aligned with the anti-colonialism, I believe make it politically feasible enough to push through other aspects of the model; like land and market reform.
 
Hammurabi is right in the case of land reform. One field where the Government of India failed was that of land reforms. In this case also the so called "socialist" Nehru did not want to invite the wrath of the powerful landlords and sidestepped land reforms. Some form of land reforms took place only in states that came under the communists. The aim of Nehru was never the welfare of the people but only to win elections, which was all important for him. He was never a socialist or democrat, but an opportunist, a hypocrite who donned several robes at a time. His ultimate goal was to keep the power in his hands and transfer it to his daughter and family. A man who awarded the nation's highest honor to himself and celebrated his own birthday as a national holiday and still praised as a great democratic leader!
 
The protectionism, aligned with the anti-colonialism, I believe make it politically feasible enough to push through other aspects of the model; like land and market reform.

I think the sheer size of India makes export-led economic expansion impractical for the country as a whole - such a strategy could be used to develop a few states or a few cities - but not the whole country. Transport infrastructure, local resources and the scale of the world market compared to the scale of India, make it impossible.

Protectionism would absolutely be required for developing India.

Market reform... I very much doubt that this is nearly as important as economic journalists tend to say. I suspect that it is more important that whatever government exists to regulate the market is as honest as possible.

Corruption really drags down economic growth.

IMO, the things required to develop the country are land reform, heavy focus on education and packing people into the cities.

The Indian governments at all levels have, for decades, subsidized rural life, keeping too many people in rural areas where their labour and talents cannot be efficiently employed, and stunting the cities.

There's also the whole problem of caste, which has seriously impeded economic growth in India. But beyond encouraging urbanization and education more (both of which demonstrably weaken the boundaries between castes), I am not sure what a government could do to handle the situation any better than in OTL. Nor can I think of any single cultural PoDs that would do much to weaken the caste system, though this is probably due to my relative ignorance of this period in Indian history...

fasquardon
 
Give India a rate of economic development which is akin to that of the four Asian tigers.

...

Beyond that, how might the economic superpower that would be an Indian tiger affect the geopolitical landscape?

It is near ASB, but if it did occur, the predominant languge of this board might be Hindi. :biggrin:
 
Top