Source: https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/the_tiger_and_the_dragon-_development_models_and_perspectives_of_india_and_china_/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:10:14+00:00

Document:
In the coming decades in the process of globalization the position of the USA and Europe will weaken, while the role of developing countries will increase. The role of the two largest emerging economies – China and India – will be of special significance. What future will these fast-growing giants face? The demographers agree that pretty soon India will lead the world in population and thus surpass China, while China will encounter serious population ageing. But economic and political scenarios of the future are quite different: from resounding success and world leadership to collapse caused by demographic and socio-political troubles. Which of them is more feasible? In the present article I analyze the Chinese and Indian development models separately and comparatively and make prognosis of their perspectives in the twenty-firstcentury. Such an analysis could be helpful for understanding Russia's ways of development.
It is obvious that in the next decades the global political landscape will undergo dramatic changes. The role of the USA and Europe will diminish while that of the developing countries (especially of the large ones) will increase. Numerous reasons determining this process have been defined (see, e.g., Frank 1997; Arrighi 1994, 2007; Todd 2003; Buchanan 2002; Mandelbaum 2005; The USA National Intelligence Council 2009; NIC 2012; Korotayev et al. 2011). They have been analyzed in other works of mine (Grinin 2009b, 2011, 2012a, 2012c; Grinin and Korotayev 2010; 2011). In any case the diversity of opinions cannot suppress the fact that it is globalization that makes this tendency inevitable. Having originated in the world with a deep developmental gap between rich and poor countries, later it contributed to closing this gap. I think that globalization itself presupposes that developing countries should advance faster than the developed ones (for more details see Grinin 2013), because it strengthens economic openness which, in turn, brings into effect a kind of ‘law of communicating vessels’. As a result, the development of the periphery has accelerated, and that of the core has slowed down. No doubt, this is one of the most significant results in the past two decades. The gap will keep on narrowing (of course, to a certain extent) in the next decades. It will involve economic expansion, as well as poverty reduction and rapid growth of the middle class in the developing countries (see, e.g., NIC 2012).
Thus, to waken population of poor countries to activity (that demands great efforts for initial modernization and education) appears to be the major obstacle to a breakthrough. When the desire for better living conditions eventually appears in the undeveloped countries, there starts to work a sort of ‘engine’. It may lead to a qualitative result (though such a ‘Brownian motion’ always entails all kinds of iniquities, abnormalities, nonsense, and injustice, etc.). Once started, the movement for the better will generate social energy for many decades. Furthermore, if people's and authorities' efforts are consolidated, the emerging synergy may bring a resounding success. That was the case in China, India and a number of other developing countries. In wealthy societies with all their advantages in culture, education and qualification, this resource of development ran short long ago. With the account of population ageing, opportunities for rapid development are seeping away. This state of affairs defines the system of globalization ‘communicating vessels’. In order to reduce production costs, the developed countries move their capital and production capacities to the developing ones where millions of young people seek for jobs. The engine of the world economic growth, consequently, moves from the core to the periphery. Thus, the role of developing countries in the world economy (especially in its surplus production) grows.
At present, the role of the two largest economies – China and India – is especially significant, and their impact will continue to grow in coming decades. It is not surprising, as in 2030 these two countries will account for one third of the world population and, perhaps, 35 per cent of world energy consumption (see, e.g., BP 2012: 45). In the present article I analyze the Chinese and Indian development models separately and comparatively. Such analysis allows detecting some commonalities of all the fast growing countries whose joint influence in 2030 will be great as well.
The East Asian model of economic development. Many analysts suppose that China generally follows the East Asian development path (see, e.g., Selischev A. S. and Selischev N. A. 2004: 166–175; Popov 2002; Anderson 2008). This model originated in post-war Japan and then it was implemented in the so-called ‘Asian Tigers’ – South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Later it spread to South East Asia and to the Pacific Basin.
The role of foreign investors in the Chinese economy is extremely significant, and in this very sector, dealing with foreign capital, a major part of export and innovative goods are produced. China has become the world workshop for the processing of raw materials and for the assembly of finished products. This means that local and foreign manufacturers import into China enormous amounts of raw materials, accessory parts, intermediate goods, etc. and, after processing or assembling, the finished or semi-finished products are exported. This specialization explains the fabulous figures of the Chinese export and import reaching 4 trillion dollars. There are only few large corporations in the world that are not represented in China. Foreign capital activity is essential to understanding the sources of China's miracle.
3. An inevitable appreciation of export production and risk of capital inflow reduction. The severe restrictions like the costs of energy, raw materials, labor, and other expenditures, a probable revaluation of the yuan and rivalry of the states with cheaper labor force will be an obstacle for sustaining export growth. But once growth decelerates, the investment flow will also decrease, as it is mainly joint ventures with foreign capital participation that are engaged in export. In 2012, one could observe the export growth deceleration and reduction of foreign investments. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in China declined by 3.7 per cent. Moreover, FDI in the production sector fell by 6 per cent (see Mereminskaya 2013). The cause is in the growth of labor cost, protests against environmental pollution and, perhaps, anti-Japanese sentiments, forcing Japanese companies to move out to other countries. This tendency continues in the beginning of 2013.
The inevitability of the growth slowdown. It is difficult to change the existing growth model due to influential forces interested in its maintenance, namely, different authoritative levels and large-scale state corporations. For decades they have made great progress in production expansion as well as in manipulating statistic figures. Moreover, the Chinese bureaucratic and social system is actually unprepared to switch to a new development model. For example, there is the only instrument to avoid overinvestment that every year creates additional excessive capacities in China – the restrictive directives. But this means to tie the provinces' hands, and, in fact, to stop the major engine for growth.
Taking into account the above-mentioned limitations, one can suppose that despite all the Chinese authorities' efforts, the growth rates will gradually decelerate. Even under favorable conditions within the next three years the growth rate will not exceed six-seven per cent. And after 2016, it will fall to four-six per cent. Although, objectively speaking, such a deceleration can be considered positive for China, the Chinese government has a very different view.
Contrasts are typical for all fast emerging countries with a transition economy. But India has its own distinct feature. I would rather call it ‘a combination of three worlds’. The matter is that India's model is a peculiar and still a harmonic mixture of important features of the developed capitalist, socialist and developing countries, that is of all three worlds (the First, the Second and the Third one) of the modern world map. In my opinion, no other country has such a unique combination, which in many respects determines the peculiarity of the Indian development model. Let us consider it in detail.
It is clear that the Third World is associated with poverty and population pressure that drives young people to leave villages for cities. The share of peasants in India's demographic structure is still dominant, the shortage of land and gradual growth of labor productivity in farming generate rural overpopulation, poverty and high unemployment rates. One should also mention widespread adult illiteracy especially among females (see Table 1). The Indian ethnic and civilizational peculiarity, including a modern version of community self-government in villages (officially these self-governing bodies are called ‘panchayats’) and vivid remnants of the caste system, is also important.
The First World. The positive features of the First World (which imply democratic traditions and high level of development) are uncommon for developing countries. Meanwhile, India is considered a well-established democracy; it has a mature institution of private property and other important institutions of non-state economy such as large private corporations and financial market. The social stratum of self-employed people and high-skilled specialists engaged in private business has also been formed. Some of these features were introduced already in the colonial period. At present other peculiarities supplement them, including achievements in the field of innovations and fundamental science. India has the third largest scientific and technical labor force in the world. About 200 of the Fortune 500 companies use Indian software services (O'Neill and Poddar 2008; Planning Commission 2008, Vol. 3: 251). Alongside with China, India has its own space program.
For the purposes of this article it is very important to view all achievements, advantages and problems through the lens of an Indian harmonic combination of the three worlds. Firstly, the features of the First World manifest in India's economic structure with its prevailing services sector (including high-tech services) as is the case in developed economies. Secondly, they are evident in its export structure where the high-tech services also predominate.
2. Support for small business and the peasantry through restrictions on large-scale business and foreign capital, different privileges, organization of public works, etc. In addition, in India such support combines with recognition of corporate giants' special role and necessity to attract foreign investments. Thus, for instance, large foreign retailers cannot expand today, because there are fears that they will drive out small traders. But they are likely to enter the Indian market under certain conditions.
5. Large export high-tech sectors and professional services (information and communication technology (ICT), software engineering, outsourcing) which allowed India to occupy a special place in international labor division.
8. Emphasis on domestic consumption, which serves as an engine of growth, in addition to export stimulation, import restriction and development of import substitution (Braghina 2010).
9. An important role of the overseas Indian communities (see Cheshkov 2009; Akimov 2010a)..
· A considerable level of higher education in India and attention to fundamental sciences that allows for training specialists in different areas (engineers, doctors, and economists, etc.) with sufficient competence and with a good command of English.
· A large number of high-skilled workers in innovative fields as a benefit of the first two advantages combined with the Indian government's special efforts (see Planning Commission 2008, Vol. 3: 255–256). First of all, this allowed creating a huge high-tech services sector (software, engineering, banking, management, accounting, legal, consulting, auditing and other business and information services; see Kurbanov 2012: 11), which exceeds 100 billion dollars. It also provides the export of high-tech production of knowledge economy. This is a rare and even a unique phenomenon for the Third World. Second, the fact that such specialists are low-paid (by international standards) provides the demand for their work in the USA and all over the world, realized both through recruitment in India and immigration. Of course, this involves a shortage of specialists in India, but at the same time promotes creation of large overseas community which is an important source of currency earnings, advanced concepts and contacts.
Problems as a downside of advantages. In developing countries (India is not an exception) many advantages can bring about problems as well. With respect to India these are: 1) demographic resources which are a source of unemployment, poverty and large-scale rural-to-urban migration; 2) low living standards which attract manufacturers. But poverty impedes progress, that is why elimination of poverty is the most important, complicated and expensive task. It is vitally important to solve it. But the solution will make the country's advantages disappear as well; 3) large territory, the development of which requires significant investments in infrastructure (according to some estimates, up to a trillion dollars); 4) receptive domestic market which plays a much more important role in India than in any other developing countries. But along with the market development the problem of protecting the small and smallest businesses from destructive competition of foreign and large-scale capital is rising.
The social aspect. Rapid population growth makes issues of poverty, unemployment and illiteracy rather challenging. Besides, one should note that social tensions often exacerbate just at the moment when there appear opportunities to solve the problems in the short term. This circumstance can become the most important reason for social crisis and even collapse. One can clearly perceive that in India the growing expectations exceed capabilities and increase discontent, which is typical of countries with fast catching-up development (see, e.g., Mehta 2012; Volodin 2008: 346–347). However, social unrest often causes the growth of ethnic, regional and separatist sentiments and movements.
The resource aspect. Enormous population will keep on growing over a long period and together with a planned rapid industrial and urban growth this will aggravate the urgency of old problems including the shortage of farmlands and fresh water (see Rastyannikov 2010; Goryacheva 2010). This requires agricultural intensification and investing in augmentation of water resources. India greatly relies on energy imports whose amounts will continue to grow (see BP 2012; Malyarov 2010; Volodin 2008; Skosyrev 2007).
Environmental protection is the country's most vulnerable problem. In this respect India follows China – the planet's leading environmental polluter (Melyantsev 2007). The necessity to substitute coal as the main fuel and energy resource will greatly aggravate Indian reliance on energy imports. Ecological problems are closely connected with the shortage of fresh water and farmlands, which are also included in the industry's sphere of interest.
In many respects, the common points are determined by similar tasks and problems the two countries face: maintenance of high growth rates, necessity to provide employment opportunities for youth, rapid urbanization, fight against poverty, agriculture underdevelopment, shortage of resources; poor environmental conditions, reliance on energy imports, etc., as well as limited means of solving these problems, which include attraction of investments, innovations, infrastructure development and so on. The differences naturally stem both from historical, cultural and geographical settings and from different strategies.
Note: Data for India, 2011, are quoted from http://be5.biz/makroekonomika/capital_formation/capital_ formation_india.html.
Of course, India also has certain obstacles on its political pathway. As literacy grows and poverty reduces, new voters will play an increasing role in determining a political party to rule, and this can significantly change the political landscape. There is a danger that India will stumble over political scandals, crisis of the ruling party, etc. before even reaching China's current level. On the other hand, China also has chances to gradually transform its political regime.
Separatism threatens both countries. Dozens of ethnic groups populate China. But Han Chinese make up the vast majority of population. Therefore, the country's ethnic composition is more homogeneous than it is in India. With respect to the number of ethnic groups (more than 700), India is a unique country. In addition, it is a federation, whose states, according to the States Reorganization Act of 1956, were reorganized on linguistic basis. In short, given an appropriate public mood, there is a perfect opportunity for separation, as growth of living standards and literacy often awakes local nationalism. That is why India's disintegration on the basis of nationality and language is quite possible, though the traditions of consensus will most likely keep the country together. At present, separatist movements are active in the border territories of India and China (Tibet and Xinjiang in China, northwestern Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, as well as northeastern states – in India). The dangers connected with hypothetical separation of restive states are difficult to assess. But I think the consequences of the separation of Punjab would not be as drastic for India as the separation of the western areas for China. Besides, one should take into account that separatism in western China enjoys much more international support than that in India. There is a real danger of separation of the western Chinese provinces during the transition to democracy. In China the transition to democracy can also generate various forms of nationalism due to the striking difference of the southern and northern provinces' dialects which distinguishes Han Chinese from other groups. On the other hand, community traditions are very strong in China.
In short, there are a number of different scenarios for the future of India and China. Both countries risk drifting into a political and social crisis which may lead to a collapse. Still they have a chance to achieve economic maturity without disastrous consequences. But in general, if one estimates the potential of both countries to resist perturbations, India's chances seem better.
The demographic aspect. In the following decade, India will most likely catch up and overtake China in terms of population number; by that time each of these countries will have about 1.4 billion people. Then, India will lead the world in population (see Diagram 3). By 2050, India's population will probably reach 1.7 billion people (or a bit less), while in China, even if birth control (the one-child policy) is abolished, population will start declining (as forecasted by the UN, as early as in 2030). China's population by that time will reach 1.3–1.4 billion people (depending on the demographic policy). Consequently, by the second half of the twenty-firstcentury India's population will be 20–30 per cent larger than China's. But the most important factor is that the difference in the size of economically active population will be much larger: in India it will be 30–40 per cent larger than in China. However, by that time both countries will face an ageing population problem, but China will suffer from it much more (see Table 2 and 3). According to the estimates, by 2050 about 30 per cent of China's population will be aged over 60 (United Nations 2002), while in India – only 15 per cent (or a bit more).
We have already touched upon the social aspect and resource scarcity. The growing shortage of farmland and water resources, and increasing demand for fossil fuel, etc. may lead to troubles and crises in both countries. But, given the authorities' growing financial resources and increasing living standards, the problems are solvable to a certain extent.
It is easily arguable that we will face several upsurges in the peripheral countries, while the current leaders' growth rates will decelerate. Besides, globalization will launch a leveling process among developing countries. In other words, new states, currently representing an example of poverty and underdevelopment, could occasionally take the lead in terms of economic growth rates. Today scholars often speak about (and in the next decades will constantly discuss) a number of new fast-growing economies, including Vietnam, Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, and Nigeria, etc., which already deprive China of foreign investments and a part of the export market. In addition to the familiar acronyms BRIC and BRICS, many new acronyms appear, formed of combinations of different states. The common point for the states included in such combinations is the forecast of their fast economic growth (though one can find some states almost in every such a list, e.g., Indonesia and Turkey). For example, already in 2005 the Goldman Sachs said about ‘Next Eleven’ that this group of rapidly developing middle-tier countries would collectively overtake the EU-27 in global power by 2030 (Wilson and Stupnytska 2007; NIC 2012; O'Neill et al. 2005). In 2009, Robert Ward coined a new acronym CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, and South Africa). These countries are favored for several reasons, such as ‘a diverse and dynamic economy’ and ‘a young, growing population’ (Russell 2010).
The analysis of the Indian and Chinese models, as well as those of other successfully developing countries, allow speaking about common features of all fast-growing countries (though with wide divergence of their development models), including the following characteristics: 1) state's active economic policy, including public provision for education; 2) a tendency of high gross domestic savings rate; 3) active FDI and technological flows; 4) export orientation (with simultaneous tendency for import substitution); 5) exploitation of cheap labor; 6) in many cases, aggressive exploration and extraction of mineral resources. Sometimes it is supplemented with country's benefits of diaspora engagement (e.g., the Turkish diasporas in Germany) or geographical proximity to a developed state, for example, in Mexico, etc.
Finally, we can conclude that due to all transformations the world will face a fundamental reconfiguration. The USA position in the world will weaken at that. But those who suppose that another leader, for example China, will supersede the USA are quite mistaken. The weakening of the USA hegemony will not lead to the emergence of a new leader capable of substituting the USA in a comparable number of functions (Grinin 2009a, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Grinin and Korotayev 2010; see also NIC 2012: IV). Neither China, nor India will be able to assume the burden of such leadership because of economic limits and factors (the problem of poverty, social discontent, etc.), the lack of experience and required alliances, as well as the intolerable burden imposed by such leadership. So, despite the tendencies, a new absolute world leader will not emerge in the next decades. But a number of countries and associations will start dominating in different spheres. In short, we will have to live in a new situation and adapt to new realities.
ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2014. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2012. URL: http://www.adb.org/ publications/key-indicators-asia-and-pacific-2012.
Akimov, A. V. 2009. India. Who is Stronger: An Elephant or a Whale? Aziya i Afrika segodnya 5: 6–9. In Russian.
Akimov, A. V. 2010а. The Project ‘Indian Republic’: A Success Story. Aziya i Afrika segodnya 1: 2–8. In Russian.
Anderson, J. 2008. The Economic Growth and State in China. A Lecture. Polit.ru. URL: http://www. polit.ru/article/2008/07/17/china/. In Russian.
Arrighi, G. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. London: Verso.
Arrighi, G. 2007. Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century. London: Verso.
Ashmyanskaya, I. 2007. India and Global Outsourcing, or ‘Bangalorization’ of World Economy. Aziya and Africa segodnya 1: 6–10. In Russian.
Ashmyanskaya, I. 2008. Outsourcing: New Horizons for Global Economy. Aziya i Afrika segodnya 1: 18–22. In Russian.
Bardhan, P. 2010. Awakening Giants, Feet of Clay: Assessing the Economic Rise of China and India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Berthelsen, J. 2011. Is This the China that Can't? Asia Sentinel May, 18. URL: http://www. asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200&Itemid=422.
BP (British Petroleum). 2012. World Energy Outlook 2030. URL: http://www.imemo.ru/ ru/conf/2012/03022 012/03022012_prognoz_RU.pdf.
Bhagwati, J. 2004. In Defense of Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boeing, P., and Sandner, P. 2011. The Innovative Performance of China's National Innovation System. Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurt School of Finance & Management.
Braghina, E. A. 2010. Take-off in Indian. In Horos, V. G. (ed.), Modern Problems of Development. Materials of Theoretical Seminar at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, the Russian Academy of Sciences (pp. 123–140). Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences. URL: http://www.kavkazoved.info/images/myfls/files/razv2010.pdf. In Russian.
Braudel, F. 1981–1984. Civilization and Capitalism, 15th – 18th Century. 3 vols. New York: Harper and Row.
Cheshkov, M. A. 2009. From Cross Cultural to Wider Generalizations. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya 3: 89–91. In Russian.
Dahlman, C., and Utz, A. 2005. India and Knowledge Economy: Leveraging Strengths and Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Dossani, R. 2008. India Arriving: How This Economic Powerhouse is Redefining Global Business. New York: AMACOM.
Eichengreen, B. 2011. Slowing China. Project Syndicate. URL: http://www.project-syndicate. org/commentary/ eichengreen28/English.
Galischeva, N. V. 2011. India is a New Financial Donor. Aziya i Afrika segodnya 8: 16–22. In Russian.
Galischeva, N. V. 2012. What Attracts Foreign Investors to India? Aziya i Afrika segodnya 1: 29–35. In Russian.
Goldstone, J. A. 2011. Rise of the TIMBIs. URL: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/ 12/02/ rise_of_the_timbis.
Goryacheva, A. M. 2010. What Future will the Asian Giant Face? Vostok 3: 107–115. In Russian.
Grinin, L. E. 2009a. Will the Global Crisis Lead to Global Changes? Vek globalizatsii 2: 117–140. In Russian.
Grinin, L. E. 2009b. The State in the Past and in the Future. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences 79(5): 480–486.
Grinin, L. E. 2011. Chinese Joker in the World Pack. Journal of Globalization Studies 2(2): 7–24.
Grinin, L. E. 2012b. State and Socio-Political Crises in the Process of Modernization. Cliodynamics: The Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical History 3(1): 124–157.
Grinin, L. E. 2012c. New Foundations of International System or Why do States Lose Their Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization? Journal of Globalization Studies 3(1): 3–38.
Grinin, L. E. 2013. Globalizations Tosses the Cards (Where does the Global Economic and Political Balance Shift). Vek Globalizatsii 2: 63–78. In Russian.
Grinin, L. E., and Korotayev, A. V. 2011. The Coming Epoch of New Coalitions: Possible Scenarios of the Near Future. World Futures 67(8): 531–563.
Grinin, L. E., and Korotayev, A. V., and Tsirel S. V. 2014. Will the Chinese Upswing Stop? In Akaev, A. A., Korotayev, A. V., and Malkov, S. Yu. (eds.), The Complex Systemic Analysis, Mathematical Modeling and Forecast of the BRIC Countries Growth: A Preliminary Research (pp. 277–336). Moscow: KRASAND. In Russian.
Khoros, V. G. 2009. Civilization Factors of Development in Modern India. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya 3: 91–94. In Russian.
Khoros, V. G. 2010. (Ed.). The Modern Development Problems. Materials of Theoretical Seminar at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences. Мoscow: Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow: IMEMO RAN. URL: http://www. kavkazoved.info/images/myfls/files/razv2010.pdf. In Russian.
Kothary, R. 1993. Poverty: Human Consciousness and the Amnesia of Development. London: Zed.
Kurbanov, S. A. 2012. Peculiarities of Modern India's Economy Development. Ph.D. thesis. Moscow: Moscow State University. In Russian.
Kuznetsov, A. 2012. Transnational Corporations of BRICS Countries. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya 3: 3–11. In Russian.
Lebedeva, N. B. 2011. Big Indian Ocean and Chinese Strategy ‘String of Pearls’. Aziya i Afrika segodnya 9: 6–13. In Russian.
Leksyutina, Y. V. 2012. The USA – China: Competition in Southeast Asia Exacerbates. Aziya i Afrika segodnya 3: 2–9. In Russian.
Likhachev, K. A. 2011. Etnic Separatism in Northeast India: Old Problems in New Century. Aziya i Afrika segodnya 11: 45–49. In Russian.
Lunyov, S. I. 2009. About the Role of Scientific and Technological Factor. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya 3: 83–84. In Russian.
Mahajan, A., Datt, G., and Sundharam, K. P. M. 2011. Indian Economy. 67 ed. New Delhi: S. Chand & Company.
Malyarov, O. V. 2010. Independent India: Evolution of Socioeconomic Model and Economy Development. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Мoscow: Vostochnaya literatura. In Russian.
Mandelbaum, M. 2005. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World's Government in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Public Affairs.
Mereminskaya, E. 2013. The Epoch ‘Made in China’ is Coming to an End. Gazeta.ru. January, 17. URL: http://www.gazeta.ru/business/2013/01/17/4929661.shtml. In Russian.
Mehta, P. B. 2012. Why Does Indian Economy Make No Progress? Rossiya v globalnoi politike. October, 28. URL: http://www.globalaffairs.ru/number/Pochemu-Indiya-zabukso vala-15728. In Russian.
Melyantsev, V. A. 2007. India's and China's Economic Growth: Dynamic, Proportions, and Consequences. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya 9: 18–25. In Russian.
Ministry of Finance. 2010. Economic Survey 2009–2010. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. 2012. India. Foreign Economic Activity. URL: http://www.ved.gov.ru/exportcountries/ in/about_in/ved_in/.
Mondal, S. R. 2012. Interrogating Globalization and Culture in Anthropological Perspective – the Indian Experience. Journal of Globalization Studies 3(1): 152–160.
Myrdal, G. 1968. Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
Nasibov, I. 2012. Scientific and Technical Potential of China: Results and Development Prospects. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya 10: 79–83. In Russian.
NIC – National Intelligence Council. 2012. Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. URL: www.dni.gov/nic/globaltrends.
O'Neill, J., and Poddar, T. 2008. Ten Things for India to Achieve its 2050 Potential. Global Economic Paper No. 169. New York: Goldman Sachs.
O'Neill, J., Wilson, D., Roopa, P., and Stupnytska, A. 2005. How Solid are the BRICs? Global Economics Paper No. 134. New York: Goldman Sachs. URL: http://www.gold mansachs.com/our-thinking/topics/brics/brics-reports-pdfs/how-solid.pdf.
Pakhomov, A. A. 2012. BRICS Countries in the World ‘Club of Investors’. Aziya i Afrika segodnya 4: 16–23. In Russian.
Planning Commission (Government of India). 2008. Eleventh Five Year Plan 2007–2012. Vols 1–3. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Planning Commission (Government of India). 2011. Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth. An Approach to the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–17). New Delhi: India Offset Press.
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. 2012. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. URL: http://esa.un.org/ unpd/wpp/index.htm.
Rastyannikov, V. G. 2010. Agrarian India: Paradoxes of Economic Growth. The Second Half of the 20th Century – the Early 21st Century. Мoscow: Institut vostokovedeniya. In Russian.
Raychaudhuri, A., and De, P. 2012. International Trade in Services in India: Implications for Growth and Inequality in a Globalizing World New. Delhi – Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Revina, E. Y. 2009. Direct Foreign Investment in Indian Economy. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Vol. 6: Ekonomika 3: 39–47. In Russian.
Rogozhin, A. A. 2009. Unique Originality of India. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya 3: 86–87. In Russian.
Russell, J. 2010. Geoghegan Digests and Delivers New Acronym. Telegraph July, 12. URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/7886195/Geoghegan-digests-and-delivers-new-acronym.html.
Scientific and Technological Achievements... 2008. Scientific and Technological Achievements of India. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya 5: 112–117. In Russian.
Skosyrev, V. 2007. India. Is it a Coal-Powered Locomotive? Nuclear Deal with the USA will not Save India from Energy Deficit. Aziya i Afrika segodnya 7: 76–77. In Russian.
Srinivas, T. 2002. ‘a Tryst with Destiny’. The Indian Case of Cultural Globalization. In Berger, P., and Huntington, S. (eds.), Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World (pp. 89–117). New York: Oxford University.
Syed, M., and Walsh, J. P. 2012. The Tiger and the Dragon. Finance & Development 49(3). URL: http://www.imf. org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/09/syed.htm.
The Main…. 2012. The Main Components of Indian Economic Model. URL: http://www. webeconomy.ru/index.php?page=cat&cat=mcat&mcat=154&type=news&top_menu=&sb = 120&newsid=882. In Russian.
The USA National Intelligence Council. 2009. The World after the Crisis. The Global Trend – 2025: The Transformed World. The Report of the USA National Intelligence Council. Moscow: Evropa. In Russian.
The World Bank and the Development Research Center of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. 2012. China 2030. Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative High-Income Society. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International Development Association or the World Bank.
Valeyev, T. 2011. India and China: Two Modernization Scenarios. Ekonomicheskaya politika 1: 170–175. In Russian.
Vijay Joshi, and Little, I. M. D. 1996. India's Economic Reforms, 1991–2001. Oxford: Oxford University.
Volodin, A. G. 2008. India. In Dynkin, A. A. (ed.), World Economy: Outlook 2020 (pp. 330–348). Moscow: Magistr. In Russian.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). 2012. Patent Applications by Patent Office, Broken Down by Resident and Non-resident (1883–2010). URL: http://www.wipo. int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/xls/wipo_pat_grant_from_1883_table.xls.
Wilson, D., and Stupnytska, A. 2007. The N-11: More than an Acronym. Global Economics Paper No. 153. URL: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/next11dream- march%20'07-goldmansachs.pdf.
Winters, L. A., and Yusuf, S. 2007. Dancing with Giants: China, India, and the Global Economy. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
United Nations. 2002. World Population Ageing 1950–2050. New York: United Nations.
Yan Yunxiang. 2002. Managed Globalization. State Power and Cultural Transition in China. In Berger, P., and Huntington, S. (eds.), Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World (pp. 19–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yu, M. 2013. Never Mind the Fiscal Cliff, China is Headed For a ‘Real’ Cliff. URL: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/never-mind-the-fiscal-cliff-china-is-headed-for-a-real-cliff-332318.html.
Yurlov, F. 2007. From Colonial Dependence to Developing State. Aziya i Afrika segodnya 9: 4–11. In Russian.
Zeng, D. Z. 2006. How Technology and Innovation Drive Two Emerging Giants: China and India? International Studies Review 7(1): 1–27.
Zitan, G. 2013. The Truth about China's GDP Growth. URL: http://www.theepochtimes. com/n2/china-news/the-truth-about-chinas-gdp-growth-334624.html.
 Thus, developing countries generally benefit globalization despite all the statements about the growing disparity between developing and developed states. We should note that Jagdish Bhagwati appears to be right when advocating globalization against its critics (Bhagwati 2004).
 For the detailed analysis of the Chinese development model see Grinin 2011; Grinin, Korotayev, and Tsirel 2014.
 In my opinion, the development model cannot be changed if at the same time to pursuit the extreme growth rates at any cost. To change the pattern, one should slow down in order not to swerve. If unchanged, the model raises a possibility for a deep crisis in the future. That is why the growth rates deceleration, though causing problems and social discontent, is a better alternative to a structural crisis.
 The Second (that is the socialist) World, though having reduced its representation, still persists in some Asian countries and (in some spheres) in the CIS countries and also in Europe. It is worth noting that, according to the constitution, India is officially named a socialist secular democratic republic.
 The law on universal primary education for children has already been passed. But there are many problems here.
 It is important to mention that according to the government (Planning Commission 2008, Vol. 3: 251), the unprecedented progress in IT-technology was achieved through the realization of the Government Resolution on software technology parks which was adopted in 1993 (Software Technology Parks) (Ibid.: 255–256).
 In the GDP structure services account for 59 per cent, industry – 27 per cent, agriculture – 14 per cent. At the same time, the industry's share remains the same for 30 years, while the services sector considerably increased at the expense of agriculture declining share.
 See, for example, Dahlman and Utz 2005; Dossani 2008; De 2012; Cong Liang 2012; on outsourcing see Ashmyanskaya 2007, 2008. In 2000–2006, this sector grew more than four times: from 7 to 30 billion dollars (Idem 2007: 7). Whereas in 1999 it amounted to 1.2 per cent of GDP, in 2008 it was already 7 % (Idem 2008: 20). The pharmaceutical industry based on production of the so-called generics, that is drugs with expired patent protection, is one of the most important industries in India. The world production of such drugs is supposed to double and reach 230 billion dollars by 2018.
 Footwear industries can serve an example here. It is export-oriented in many developing countries, in particular in China, while in India only five per cent of its production is exported (see Akimov 2009: 9). Already in 1993, a famous Indian sociologist Rajni Kothary (1993: 77) pointed (though with sharp criticism) that India has formed a consumer society which has adopted an ultra-modernization model.
 It is slightly reminiscent of the situation with Turkish communities in Germany in the 1960s, with the Mexicans – in the USA, except that the Indian emigrants are high-skilled and well-educated unlike Mexican semiliterate day-laborers and uneducated Turkish workers.
 The Indian specialists studied in Europe and especially in England for a long time. Since the nineteenthcentury that was an Indian advantage over China as the latter was for a long time a closed country or in a state of war. Independent India from the very beginning paid much attention to the level of higher education and the quality of trained specialists. It is indirectly confirmed by the fact that many specialists from India have been working in international organizations.
 According to the IT Department of Ministry of communications and information technologies, in 2011 the IT production and electronics output in India amounted 88.1 billion dollars (i.e. a 19 percent increase from that in 2010), including software and services – 76.1 billion dollars (Kurbanov 2012: 15).
 On the nature of such modernization crises that tend to occur in many countries see Grinin 2012a.
 Here one should also mention the expansion of capital export (see Pakhomov 2012; Galischeva 2011; Lebedeva 2011; Kuznetsov 2012; Leksyutina 2012), although in China this is a more powerful process.
 In China, the inequality between rural and urban population (as well as other regulations including different rights to retirement pension) is legalized, which helps to restrain the increasing discontent and endure privations, while in India this function is performed by the caste system.
 Including the role of overseas ethnic diaspora. For comparison of peculiarities of the Chinese and Indian diasporas see Valeyev 2011.
 According to some estimates, India can reach this level roughly by 2030 (e.g., see NIC 2012: 15).
 In the 2000s, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland were the most volatile states in North-East India (Likhachev 2011).
 Two demographic scenarios, the first of which implies a preserved restriction and the second – its abolition, will differ not in the expected maximum of China's population number (in the first case it will not achieve even 1.4 billion people, in the second one it will slightly exceed the number), but rather in the rate of the population decrease (drastic – in the former case and less dramatic in the latter one). Consequently, the size of the working-age population in two cases can be very different.
 Next Eleven consists of Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, The Philippines, South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.