The Indian growth model is NOT FDI-driven, far from it. A paltry $10
billion (with a good chunk of it in portfolio investment) is no real
driver. In fact the FDI in selected sectors (auto, IT) have been pretty
good in terms of India's technological spillovers and firm capabilities.
The Chinese story may be a little different. But I agree on the
employment front, it is very difficult to generate employment in
capital-intensive industrialization and especially with recent vintages of
capital being increasingly labor displacing.
The way I see it both China and India need to play the global market game
but divert the growth to the social domestic sector. India's growth rate
is much slower than China's precisely because of its devolved political
system. But in the end this may be to India's advantage because of
representative politics in which the poor have a large share.
Cheers, anthony
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax : (253) 692-5718
http://tinyurl.com/yhjzrm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote:
The majority of Chinese and Indians are indeed exploited as Yoshie
notes. Even in China urban unemployment rates are high, formal sector
job creation is almost non-existent, and wages and working conditions
remain poor for the great majority. But isnt the question what
relationship we want to have with these exploited workers. Should we
encourage their growing resistance or should we tell them that we, on
the left, celebrate the growth models supported by their national elites
and advise them to cool it and not endanger losing the export-oriented
foreign direct investment that is at the heart of the growth strategy.
Marty
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
On 3/30/07, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/30/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's up to the Chinese and the Indians to decide what their countries
> should be like. But it would be better for them as well as for others
> if their party leaders didn't pursue capitalist development in the
> name of socialism.
> --
> Yoshie
The point is this: if you have to live in a capital-dominated world,
wouldn't you rather be the exploiter than the exploited? That way you
can
change the world from a position of power, from within the capitalist
system. I have to confess there is a certain cynical logic to it.
A majority of the Chinese and of the Indians are exploited and will
remain so. The question is to what extent rising living standards of
some of them will offset expropriation of many and increasing
inequality within their respective nations, in the eyes of the Chinese
and the Indians themselves.
--
Yoshie
