Did not the two wealthiest and most powerful nations on Earth today have the same trajectory?
Workers rights weren’t exactly pretty in the US in the early 1900s and we’ve witnessed the human cost of China’s development in our lifetimes.
The way I see it you have two (simplified) options. You can try to to go slow and do it a bit more perfectly or go fast and get there sooner.
India tried to go slow. It spent 40 years post independence being isolationist and quasisocialist. What did it get for that?
The Western capitalist/neoliberal world order didn’t see value in it so what India got was what was later termed by Indian economist Raj Krishna as the “Hindu rate of growth” ie. 4% GDP growth annually (underperformance for an emerging market).
India has since embraced the neoliberal world order which makes it a friend of Western nations economically. This means it’s now growing at a rate of 6 to 8% annually and on track to be a high income nation in 20-25 years. Millions have been pulled out of poverty and millions more will be still.
Do I like neoliberalism? Of course not. But the richest nations on earth make the rules and they’ve made it very clear that you can either play by them and have some of their wealth make it to you sooner or reject their framework and die in poverty and squalor.
Do I think this is an ideal situation? No its not. In an ideal world India could provide advanced economy level worker protections and still grow at the same rate. The problem is the richest nations on earth see India’s monetary value as its young, more affordable workforce. If India refused to bring that to the table, the timeline on which it would achieve becoming a high income nation would extend substantially.
Did not the two wealthiest and most powerful nations on Earth today have the same trajectory?
Workers rights weren’t exactly pretty in the US in the early 1900s and we’ve witnessed the human cost of China’s development in our lifetimes.
The way I see it you have two (simplified) options. You can try to to go slow and do it a bit more perfectly or go fast and get there sooner.
India tried to go slow. It spent 40 years post independence being isolationist and quasisocialist. What did it get for that?
The Western capitalist/neoliberal world order didn’t see value in it so what India got was what was later termed by Indian economist Raj Krishna as the “Hindu rate of growth” ie. 4% GDP growth annually (underperformance for an emerging market).
India has since embraced the neoliberal world order which makes it a friend of Western nations economically. This means it’s now growing at a rate of 6 to 8% annually and on track to be a high income nation in 20-25 years. Millions have been pulled out of poverty and millions more will be still.
Do I like neoliberalism? Of course not. But the richest nations on earth make the rules and they’ve made it very clear that you can either play by them and have some of their wealth make it to you sooner or reject their framework and die in poverty and squalor.
Do I think this is an ideal situation? No its not. In an ideal world India could provide advanced economy level worker protections and still grow at the same rate. The problem is the richest nations on earth see India’s monetary value as its young, more affordable workforce. If India refused to bring that to the table, the timeline on which it would achieve becoming a high income nation would extend substantially.
There are other nations where people aren’t treated like chattel