Managing Globalization: Lessons from China and India (review)

China and India, two fastest-growing and most populous nations in the world, have been attracting greater attention from experts and policy-makers in recent years. This book brings together various contributions by Chinese and Indian scholars for the Inaugural Conference of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore in April 2005. Topics cover a wide range of issues, including that of the economy, social security, national security, and ethnicity and identity. Since this is a compilation of papers, the editors do not necessarily always draw any particular conclusion for readers. However, it undoubtedly provides plenty of analyses, information, and viewpoints on both China and India, and is expected to trigger further discussion by scholars and policy-makers concerned. Having said so, the following are some observations primarily focusing on the economic aspects of China and India (not necessarily on social and political aspects).

Firstly, we should bear in mind that although both economies attract attention equally, each has been developing under different socio-economic conditions and political regimes. For example, their economic models and development patterns are quite different in terms of the role played by the private sector and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the economy, industrial structures, language, and education. As the editors have suggested and perhaps many agree, that is why China and India can play complementary roles as non-rivals in the world market. Many would also agree to the "China and India (sometimes referred to as 'Chindia')" approach rather than "China versus India" approach. China could learn from India in terms of the governance of the private sector, laws, and regulations that ensure fair and competitive market environment, and India's various international aspects, while India could learn from China's FDI policy and infrastructural investment policy for instance. From such viewpoint, it is quite fascinating to compare and highlight which development path may fit other developing regions in order to increase their economic performance. Perhaps there is no universal development model and each region could follow either China or India or somewhere in between, taking into account its own conditions and development stage, but a comparative study of China's and India's development path will surely provide many less developed regions with a good basis for working out their own development strategy. For example, depending on the development stage, a country with a command economy or market economy could decide which strategy would be the more effective approach to move its economy forward, or how to assess the effectiveness of government intervention in the market-based experiences of both China and India.

Secondly, in connection with the above, perhaps many people will try to find the answer as to which development path will be more sustainable in the long run. In this connection, the implications of environmental degradation, energy constraints, and lack of governance in the private sector as well as in the government sector to the current globalization trend could be accorded more attention. In addition, if we look at each economy per se, it is a matter of concern whether India's development of relying specifically on the services and IT industry will really be sustainable, and whether the external and investment driven economy in China will also be sustainable in the long run. Or to ensure sustainability, which should come first: economy or political makeup, for example, China's restructuring of one-party dominated political regime or India's change in its complicated "salad bowl" society, both of which might become political and social factors affecting the further development of each economy. It is to be noted that one of the Indian authors pointed out that the clear division of "elite politics" and "popular politics" made the Indian economic reform in the 1990s easier. This is an interesting point. We also should not forget the very pragmatic attitude of the current Chinese Communist Party and Chinese Administration on various socio-economic issues...