My topic is economic growth in China and India. And the question I want to explore with you is whether or not democracy has helped or has hindered economic growth. You may say this is not fair, because I'm selecting two countries to make a case against democracy. Actually, exactly the opposite is what I'm going to do. I'm going to use these two countries to make an economic argument for democracy, rather than against democracy.
Moja tema je ekonomski rast u Kini i Indiji. Pitanje koje želim istražiti s vama je da li je demokracija potpomognula ili potisnula ekonomski rast i razvoj. Možete reći da ovo nije pošteno jer izabirem dvije zemlje da bih podignuo slučaj protiv demokracije. No zapravo, upravo obrnuto je ono što ću napraviti. Iskoristiti ću ove dvije zemlje za ekonomski argument u prilog demokraciji umjesto protiv demokracije.
The first question there is why China has grown so much faster than India. Over the last 30 years, in terms of the GDP growth rates, China has grown at twice the rate of India. In the last five years, the two countries have begun to converge somewhat in economic growth. But over the last 30 years, China undoubtedly has done much better than India. One simple answer is China has Shanghai and India has Mumbai. Look at the skyline of Shanghai. This is the Pudong area. The picture on India is the Dharavi slum of Mumbai in India. The idea there behind these two pictures is that the Chinese government can act above rule of law. It can plan for the long-term benefits of the country and in the process, evict millions of people -- that's just a small technical issue. Whereas in India, you cannot do that, because you have to listen to the public. You're being constrained by the public's opinion. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agrees with that view. In an interview printed in the financial press of India, He said that he wants to make Mumbai another Shanghai. This is an Oxford-trained economist steeped in humanistic values, and yet he agrees with the high-pressure tactics of Shanghai.
Prvo pitanje ovdje je zašto je Kina napredovala toliko brže od Indije. U zadnjih trideset godina, prema stopi rasta BDP-a, Kina se uzdigla dvostruko od Indije. U zadnjih pet godina, ove dvije zemlje su se započele polako približavati u ekonomskom rastu. Doduše, tokom zadnjih trideset godina, Kina je, bespredmetno, postignula više od Indije. Jednostavno objašnjenje je da Kina ima Šangaj a Indija Mumbai. Pogledajte panoramu Šangaja. Ovo je Pudong područje. Slika Indije je Dharavi sirotinjska četvrt Mumbaija u Indiji. Ideja iza ove dvije slike je da kineska vlada može postupiti protivno vladavini zakona. Može planirati dugoročne dobrobiti za zemlju i u procesu iseliti milijune ljudi -- to je samo mali tehnički problem. No u Indiji to ne možete napraviti jer morate slušati javnost. Obuzdavani ste javnim mijenjem. Čak se i premijer Manmohan Singh slaže s ovim stajalištem. U intervjuu u financijskim medijima Indije, rekao je da želi Mumbai napraviti drugim Šangajem. Ovo je Oxfordski educiran ekonomist humanističkih vrijednosti a ipak se slaže s ogromnim pritiskom šangajskih taktika.
So let me call it the Shanghai model of economic growth, that emphasizes the following features for promoting economic development: infrastructures, airports, highways, bridges, things like that. And you need a strong government to do that, because you cannot respect private property rights. You cannot be constrained by the public's opinion. You need also state ownership, especially of land assets, in order to build and roll out infrastructures very quickly. The implication of that model is that democracy is a hindrance for economic growth, rather than a facilitator of economic growth. Here's the key question. Just how important are infrastructures for economic growth? This is a key issue. If you believe that infrastructures are very important for economic growth, then you would argue a strong government is necessary to promote growth. If you believe that infrastructures are not as important as many people believe, then you will put less emphasis on strong government.
Dopustite mi da to prozovem šangajskim modelom ekonomskog rasta i razvoja koji naglašava sljedeća obilježja za promoviranje ekonomskog razvoja: infrastrukture, aerodromi, autoceste, mostovi, stvari poput ovih. Potrebna vam je snažna vlast za provođenje ovih mjera jer ne možete poštivati prava privatnog vlasništva. Ne mošete biti obuzdani javnim mišljenjem. Također trebate državno vlasništvo, osobito zemljišta, u svrhu gradnje i stanjenja infrastruktura većom brzinom. Implikacija ovog modela je da je demokracija zapreka ekonomskom rastu, a ne podupiratelj ekonomskom rastu i razvoju. Ovo je dakle ključno pitanje. Koliko su, zapravo, važne infrastrukture za ekonomski rast? Ovo je ključna problematika. Ukoliko vjerujete da su infrastrukture veoma važne za ekonomski rast, onda biste tvrdili da je snažna vlast potrebna za promoviranje rasta. Ukoliko vjerujete da infrastrukture nisu toliko važne koliko mnogo ljudi vjeruje, onda ćete staviti manji naglasak na snažnu vlast.
So to illustrate that question, let me give you two countries. And for the sake of brevity, I'll call one country Country 1 and the other country Country 2. Country 1 has a systematic advantage over Country 2 in infrastructures. Country 1 has more telephones, and Country 1 has a longer system of railways. So if I were to ask you, "Which is China and which is India, and which country has grown faster?" if you believe in the infrastructure view, then you will say, "Country 1 must be China. They must have done better, in terms of economic growth. And Country 2 is possibly India."
U svrhu ilustriranja tog pitanja, dajem vam dvije zemlje. Zbog sažetosti, nazvat ću jednu zemlju Zemlja 1 i drugu Zemlja 2. Zemlja 1 ima sistemsku prednost nad Zemljom 2 u infrastrukturama. Zemlja 1 ima više telefona i Zemlja 1 ima duži sistem željeznica. Ukoliko vas upitam: "Koja zemlja je Kina a koja Indija, te koja se zemlja brže razvila?" ako vjerujete u infastrukturno stajalište, onda ćete reći: " Zemlja 1 mora biti Kina. Morali su napredovati bolje u smislu ekonomskog rasta. Zemlja 2 je vjerojatno Indija".
Actually the country with more telephones is the Soviet Union, and the data referred to 1989. After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones, the country collapsed. That's not too good. The picture there is Khrushchev. I know that in 1989 he no longer ruled the Soviet Union, but that's the best picture that I can find. (Laughter) Telephones, infrastructures do not guarantee you economic growth. Country 2, that has fewer telephones, is China. Since 1989, the country has performed at a double-digit rate every year for the last 20 years. If you know nothing about China and the Soviet Union other than the fact about their telephones, you would have made a poor prediction about their economic growth in the next two decades.
Zapravo, zemlja s više telefona je Sovjetski Savez, a podaci datiraju iz 1989. Nakon što je zemlja prijavila vrlo impresivnu statistiku o telefonima, propala je. To nije dobro. Ovo je slika Khrushcheva. Znam da 1989. više nije vladao Sovjetskim Savezom, ali to je najbolja slika koju sam mogao pronaći. (Smijeh) Telefoni, infrastrukture ne garantiraju vam ekonomski rast. Zemlja 2, koja ima manje telefona, je Kina. Od 1989., zemlja je producirala dvoznamenkastu stopu svake godine zadnjih 20 godina. Ukoliko ništa ne znate o Kini i Sovjetima osim podatka o njihovim telefonima, možda ste došli do slabe procijene njihovog ekonomskog rasta u sljedeća dva desetljeća.
Country 1, that has a longer system of railways, is actually India. And Country 2 is China. This is a very little known fact about the two countries. Yes, today China has a huge infrastructure advantage over India. But for many years, until the late 1990s, China had an infrastructure disadvantage vis-a-vis India. In developing countries, the most common mode of transportation is the railways, and the British built a lot of railways in India. India is the smaller of the two countries, and yet it had a longer system of railways until the late 1990s. So clearly, infrastructure doesn't explain why China did better before the late 1990s, as compared with India.
Zemlja 1, koja ima duži sistem željeznica, je zapravo Indija. A Zemlja 2 je Kina. Ovo je vrlo slabo poznata činjenica o ove dvije zemlje. Da, danas Kina ima ogromnu infrastrukturnu prednost nad Indijom. Ali dugi niz godina, do kasnih devedesetih, Kina je imala infrastrukturnu zapreku vis-a-vis Indije. U zemljama u razvoju, najčešći oblik prijevoza su željeznice, a Britanci su izgradili puno željeznica u Indiji. Indija je manja od ovih dviju zemalja, no ipak je imala duži sistem željeznica do kasnih devedesetih. Jasno je da infrastruktura ne objašnjava zašto je Kina napredovala bolje prije kasnih devedesetih u usporedbi s Indijom.
In fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide, the evidence is more supportive of the view that the infrastructure are actually the result of economic growth. The economy grows, government accumulates more resources, and the government can invest in infrastructure -- rather than infrastructure being a cause for economic growth. And this is clearly the story of the Chinese economic growth. Let me look at this question more directly. Is democracy bad for economic growth? Now let's turn to two countries, Country A and Country B. Country A, in 1990, had about $300 per capita GDP as compared with Country B, which had $460 in per capita GDP. By 2008, Country A has surpassed Country B with $700 per capita GDP as compared with $650 per capita GDP. Both countries are in Asia.
Ustvari, ukoliko pogledate dokaze diljem svijeta oni više podupiru stajalište da je infrastruktura zapravo rezultat ekonomskog rasta. Ekonomija raste, vlast akumulira više resursa, i vlast može investirati u infrastrukturu -- umjesto da je infrastruktura razlog ekonomskog rasta. Ovo je očito priča kineskog ekonomskog rasta. Dopustite mi da direktnije pogledam ovo pitanje. Da li je demokracija loša za ekonomski rast? Okrenimo se sada dvjema zemljama. Zemlja A i Zemlja B. Zemlja A, 1990-te, je imala oko 300 dolara BDP-a po glavi stanovnika u usporedbi sa Zemljom B, koja je imala 460 dolara po glavi stanovnika. Do 2008. godine Zemlja A je prešišala Zemlju B sa 700 dolara po glavi stanovnika u usporedbi sa 650 dolara BDP-a po glavi stanovnika. Obje zemlje su u Aziji.
If I were to ask you, "Which are the two Asian countries? And which one is a democracy?" you may argue, "Well, maybe Country A is China and Country B is India." In fact, Country A is democratic India, and Country B is Pakistan -- the country that has a long period of military rule. And it's very common that we compare India with China. That's because the two countries have about the same population size. But the more natural comparison is actually between India and Pakistan. Those two countries are geographically similar. They have a complicated, but shared common history. By that comparison, democracy looks very, very good in terms of economic growth.
Ukoliko vas upitam, "Koje su to dvije azijske zemlje? Koja je demokracija?" možete tvrditi: "Možda je Zemlja A Kina a Zemlja B Indija". Ustvari, Zemlja A je demokratska Indija, a Zemlja B je Pakistan -- zemlja koja ima dugi period vojnog vodstva. Česta je usporedba Indije s Kinom. To je zato jer ove dvije zemlje imaju otprilike isti broj stanovnika. Prirodnija usporedba je zapravo između Indije i Pakistana. Ove dvije zemlje su geografski slične. Imaju kompliciranu ali zajedničku prošlost. U usporedbi, demokracija izgleda vrlo, vrlo dobro u pogledu ekonomskog rasta.
So why do economists fall in love with authoritarian governments? One reason is the East Asian Model. In East Asia, we have had successful economic growth stories such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Some of these economies were ruled by authoritarian governments in the 60s and 70s and 1980s. The problem with that view is like asking all the winners of lotteries, "Have you won the lottery?" And they all tell you, "Yes, we have won the lottery." And then you draw the conclusion the odds of winning the lottery are 100 percent. The reason is you never go and bother to ask the losers who also purchased lottery tickets and didn't end up winning the prize.
Zašto se onda ekonomisti zaljubljuju u autoritativne vlade? Jedan razlog je Istočno Azijski Model. U istočnoj Aziji, imali smo uspješne priče ekonomskog rasta poput Koreje, Tajvana, Hong Konga i Singapura. Neke od ovih ekonomija su bile pod vodstvom autoritativnih vlada u šezdesetima i sedamdesetima te 1980-tih godina. Problem s tim stajalištem je poput pitati sve dobitnike lutrija: "Da li ste dobili na lutriji?" A oni vam svi odgovore, "Da, dobili smo na lutriji". Onda dođete do zaključka da su šanse za dobitak na lutriji 100 postotne. Razlog je da nikada ne odete pitati gubitnike koji su također kupili lutrijske listiće i nisu osvojili nagradu.
For each of these successful authoritarian governments in East Asia, there's a matched failure. Korea succeeded, North Korea didn't. Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn't. Burma didn't succeed. The Philippines didn't succeed. If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide, there's really no support for the idea that authoritarian governments hold a systematic edge over democracies in terms of economic growth. So the East Asian model has this massive selection bias -- it is known as selecting on a dependent variable, something we always tell our students to avoid.
Za svaku od ovih uspješnih autoritativnih vlada u istočnoj Aziji, postoji usporedan gubitak. Koreja je uspjela, Sjeverna Koreja nije. Tajvan je uspio, Kina pod Mao Zedongom nije. Burma nije uspjela. Filipini nisu uspjeli. Ukoliko pogledate statističke dokaze globalno, ustvari ne postoji potpora za ideju da autoritativne vlade drže sistematsku prednost nad demokracijama u pogledu ekonomskog rasta. Istočno azijski model ima masivnu selekcijsku predrasudu -- poznatu kao odabir na zavisnu varijablu, nešto što mi uvijek kažemo našim studentima da izbjegavaju.
So exactly why did China grow so much faster? I will take you to the Cultural Revolution, when China went mad, and compare that country's performance with India under Indira Gandhi. The question there is: Which country did better, China or India? China was during the Cultural Revolution. It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution, China out-perfomed India in terms of GDP growth by an average of about 2.2 percent every year in terms of per capita GDP. So that's when China was mad. The whole country went mad. It must mean that the country had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth to overcome the negative effects of the Cultural Revolution. The advantage the country had was human capital -- nothing else but human capital.
Zašto je onda Kina tako brzo napredovala? Vodim vas kroz Kulturološku Revoluciju, kada je Kina poludjela, i usporedit ću njezino dostignuće u usporedbi s Indijom pod Indirom Gandhi. Ovdje je pitanje: Koja je zemlja postigla više, Kina ili Indija? Kina je bila pod Kulturološkom Revolucijom. Ispostavlja se da je čak i tokom Revolucije, Kina premašila Indiju u pogledu BDP rasta u prosjeku od oko 2,2 posto svake godine u pogledu BDP-a po glavi stanovnika. Dakle to je bilo tijekom lumperaja u Kini. Cijela zemlja je poludjela. Ovo mora značiti da je zemlja imala nešto toliko u prednosti prema sebi u pogledu ekonomskog razvoja da bi prešla negativne posljedice Kulturološke Revolucije. Prednost koju je zemlja imala je bio ljudski kapital -- ništa drugo doli ljudski kapital.
This is the world development index indicator data in the early 1990s. And this is the earliest data that I can find. The adult literacy rate in China is 77 percent as compared with 48 percent in India. The contrast in literacy rates is especially sharp between Chinese women and Indian women. I haven't told you about the definition of literacy. In China, the definition of literacy is the ability to read and write 1,500 Chinese characters. In India, the definition of literacy, operating definition of literacy, is the ability, the grand ability, to write your own name in whatever language you happen to speak. The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy is much more substantial than the data here indicated. If you go to other sources of data such as Human Development Index, that data series, go back to the early 1970s, you see exactly the same contrast. China held a huge advantage in terms of human capital vis-a-vis India.
Ovo je indeks svjetskog pokazatelja podataka razvoja u ranim 90tima. Ovo su najraniji podaci koje sam pronašao. Postotak pismenosti odraslih u Kini je 77 posto usporedno sa 48 posto u Indiji. Kontrast u omjeru pismenosti je posebno oštar između kineskih žena i indijskih žena. Nisam vam napomenuo definiciju pismenosti. U Kini, definicija pismenosti je sposobnost pisanja i čitanja 1.500 kineskih znakova. U Indiji, definicija pismenosti, operativna definicija pismenosti, je sposobnost, velika sposobnost, napisati vlastito ime u bilo kojem jeziku koji govorite. Nesrazmjer između dvije zemlje po pitanju pismenosti je puno više značajan nego podaci koji su ovdje iskazani. Ukoliko potražite druge izvore podataka poput HDI, Indeks Ljudskog Razvoja, ta serija podataka, počevši od ranih 70tih, pokazuje točno isti kontrast. Kina je imala ogromnu prednost u pogledu ljudskog kapitala vis-a-vis Indije.
Life expectancies: as early as 1965, China had a huge advantage in life expectancy. On average, as a Chinese in 1965, you lived 10 years more than an average Indian. So if you have a choice between being a Chinese and being an Indian, you would want to become a Chinese in order to live 10 years longer. If you made that decision in 1965, the down side of that is the next year we have the Cultural Revolution. So you have to always think carefully about these decisions.
Očekivana životna dob: od rane 1965. godine, Kina je imala ogromnu prednost u prosječnoj životnoj dobi. U prosjeku, kao kinez 1965.godine, živjeli ste 10 godina više od prosječnog indijca. Dakle, ukoliko imate izbor između biti kinezom i biti indijcem, htjeli biste postati kinezom kako biste živjeli 10 godina duže. Ukoliko ste napravili takvu odluku 1965. godine, nedostatak ovog je da ste sljedeće godine imali Kulturološku Revoluciju. Dakle, morate uvijek pažljivo razmisliti o ovakvim odlukama.
If you cannot chose your nationality, then you will want to become an Indian man. Because, as an Indian man, you have about two years of life expectancy advantage vis-a-vis Indian women. This is an extremely strange fact. It's very rare among countries to have this kind of pattern. It shows the systematic discrimination and biases in the Indian society against women. The good news is, by 2006, India has closed the gap between men and women in terms of life expectancy. Today, Indian women have a sizable life expectancy edge over Indian men. So India is reverting to the normal. But India still has a lot of work to do in terms of gender equality.
Ako ne možete izabrati svoju nacionalnost tada ćete htjeti postati indijac. Kao indijac imate prednost dvije godine dužeg života vis-a-vis indijke. Ovo je uistinu čudna činjenica. Vrlo je rijetko među zemljama imati ovakav uzorak. Ovo pokazuje sistemsku diskriminaciju i predrasude u indijskom društvu protiv žena. Dobre vijesti su da je do 2006. Indija zatvorila nesrazmjer između muškaraca i žena po pitanju očekivane životne dobi. Danas, indijske žene imaju popriličnu prednost u očekivanoj životnoj dobi naspram indijaca. Dakle, Indija se normalizira. No ima još puno rada ispred sebe po pitanju rodne jednakosti.
These are the two pictures taken of garment factories in Guangdong Province and garment factories in India. In China, it's all women. 60 to 80 percent of the workforce in China is women in the coastal part of the country, whereas in India, it's all men. Financial Times printed this picture of an Indian textile factory with the title, "India Poised to Overtake China in Textile." By looking at these two pictures, I say no, it won't overtake China for a while. If you look at other East Asian countries, women there play a hugely important role in terms of economic take-off -- in terms of creating the manufacturing miracle associated with East Asia. India still has a long way to go to catch up with China.
Ovo su dvije slike uzete iz tekstilne tvornice u Guangdong provinciji i tekstilne tvornice u Indiji. U Kini, vidimo samo žene. 60 do 80 posto radne snage u Kini su žene u obalnom području, dok su u Indiji svi muškarci radna snaga. Financijski Times je izdao ovu sliku indijske tekstilne tvornice pod naslovom: "Indija će preuzeti Kinu u tekstilu". Gledajući ove dvije slike, kažem ne, neće preuzeti Kinu još neko vrijeme. Ukoliko pogledate druge istočno azijske zemlje, žene igraju izuzetno važnu ulogu u pogledu ekonomskog uzdizanja -- u pogledu kreiranja proizvodnog čuda povezanog s istočnom Azijom. Indija još ima dalek put kako bi uhvatila korak s Kinom.
Then the issue is, what about the Chinese political system? You talk about human capital, you talk about education and public health. What about the political system? Isn't it true that the one-party political system has facilitated economic growth in China? Actually, the answer is more nuanced and subtle than that. It depends on a distinction that you draw between statics of the political system and the dynamics of the political system. Statically, China is a one-party system, authoritarian -- there's no question about it. Dynamically, it has changed over time to become less authoritarian and more democratic. When you explain change -- for example, economic growth; economic growth is about change -- when you explain change, you use other things that have changed to explain change, rather than using the constant to explain change. Sometimes a fixed effect can explain change, but a fixed effect only explains changes in interaction with the things that change.
Problem je što je s kineskim političkim sistemom? Govorite o ljudskom kapitalu, govorite o edukaciji i javnom zdravstvu. Što je s političkim sistemom? Zar nije istina da je jednostranačje političkog sistema pridonijelo ekonomskom rastu u Kini? Zapravo, odgovor je više neizražen. Ovisi o distinkciji koju izvodite između statike političkog sistema i dinamike političkog sistema. Statički, Kina je jednostranačni sistem, autoritativan -- ovo nije upitno. Dinamički, promijenjeno je tokom vremena da bi postalo manje autoritativno i više demokratski. Kada objašnjavate promjenu -- naprimjer, ekonomski rast; ekonomski rast se vrti oko promjene --- kada objašnjavate promjenu koristite druge stvari koje su se promjenile da biste objasnili promjenu, za razliku od korištenja konstante da biste objasnili promjenu. Ponekad, fiksiran efekt može objasniti promjenu, ali objašnjava samo promjene u interakciji sa stvarima koje se mijenjaju.
In terms of the political changes, they have introduced village elections. They have increased the security of proprietors. And they have increased the security with long-term land leases. There are also financial reforms in rural China. There is also a rural entrepreneurial revolution in China. To me, the pace of political changes is too slow, too gradual. And my own view is the country is going to face some substantial challenges, because they have not moved further and faster on political reforms. But nevertheless, the system has moved in a more liberal direction, moved in a more democratic direction.
U pogledu političkih promjena oni su uveli seoske izbore. Povećali su sigurnost posjednika. Povećali su sigurnost s dugoročnim zemljišnim najmom. Postoje i financijske reforme u ruralnoj Kini. Postoji i ruralna poduzetnička revolucija u Kini. Za mene, brzina političkih promjena je previše spora i postepena. Moje osobno stajalište je da će se zemlja suočiti s važnim izazovima jer se nisu pomaknuli dalje niti brže u političkim reformama. No unatoč tome, sistem se je pomaknuo u liberalnijem smjeru, pomaknuo se u demokratskom smjeru.
You can apply exactly the same dynamic perspective on India. In fact, when India was growing at a Hindu rate of growth -- about one percent, two percent a year -- that was when India was least democratic. Indira Gandhi declared emergency rule in 1975. The Indian government owned and operated all the TV stations. A little-known fact about India in the 1990s is that the country not only has undertaken economic reforms, the country has also undertaken political reforms by introducing village self-rule, privatization of media and introducing freedom of information acts. So the dynamic perspective fits both with China and in India in terms of the direction.
Možete aplicirati istu dinamičnu perspektivu na Indiju. Ustvari, kada je Indija rasla po Hindu stopi rasta -- od oko jedan posto, dva posto godišnje -- tada je Indija bila najmanje demokratski nastrojena. Indira Gandhi je objavila izvanrednu vlast 1975. godine. Indijska vlada je imala u vlasništvu i vodila sve TV postaje. Manje poznata činjenica o Indiji devedesetih godina je da je zemlja ne samo potaknula ekonomske reforme nego i političke reforme uvodeći seosko samoupravljanje, privatizaciju medija i uvela slobodu infomacijskih dokumenata. Dinamička perspektiva pristaje i uz Kinu i u Indiji u pogledu smjera.
Why do many people believe that India is still a growth disaster? One reason is they are always comparing India with China. But China is a superstar in terms of economic growth. If you are a NBA player and you are always being compared to Michael Jordan, you're going to look not so impressive. But that doesn't mean that you're a bad basketball player. Comparing with a superstar is the wrong benchmark. In fact, if you compare India with the average developing country, even before the more recent period of acceleration of Indian growth -- now India is growing between eight and nine percent -- even before this period, India was ranked fourth in terms of economic growth among emerging economies. This is a very impressive record indeed.
Zašto mnogi ljudi vjeruju da je Indija i dalje razvojna katastrofa? Jedan razlog je da uvijek uspoređuju Indiju s Kinom. No Kina je superzvijezda u pogledu ekonomskog rasta. Ako ste NBA igrač i uvijek vas uspoređuju s Michael Jordanom, nećete izgledati vrlo impresivno. Ali to ne znači da ste loš košarkaš.. Usporedba sa superzvijezdom je krivo mjerilo. Ustvari, ukoliko uspoređujete Indiju s prosječnom zemljom u razvoju, čak i prije nedavnog perioda ubrzanja indijskog rasta -- sada Indija raste između osam i devet posto -- čak i prije ovog perioda, Indija je rangirala četvrta po ekonomskom rastu među rastućim ekonomijama. Ovo je vrlo impresivan podatak.
Let's think about the future: the dragon vis-a-vis the elephant. Which country has the growth momentum? China, I believe, still has some of the excellent raw fundamentals -- mostly the social capital, the public health, the sense of egalitarianism that you don't find in India. But I believe that India has the momentum. It has the improving fundamentals. The government has invested in basic education, has invested in basic health. I believe the government should do more, but nevertheless, the direction it is moving in is the right direction. India has the right institutional conditions for economic growth, whereas China is still struggling with political reforms.
Razmislimo o budućnosti: zmaj naspram slona. Koja zemlja ima rastući momentum? Kina, vjerujem, još uvijek ima neke od odličnih sirovih osnova -- poput društvenog kapitala, javnog zdravstva, i osjećaja egalitarizma koji ne nalazite u Indiji. No vjerujem da Indija ima taj momentum. Ima poboljšane osnove. Vlada je uložila u osnovnu edukaciju, u osnovno zdravstvo. Vjerujem da vlada treba više napraviti, ali smjer kojim ide je pravi smjer. Indija ima prave institucionalne uvjete za ekonomski rast, dok se Kina još uvijek muči s političkim reformama.
I believe that the political reforms are a must for China to maintain its growth. And it's very important to have political reforms, to have widely shared benefits of economic growth. I don't know whether that's going to happen or not, but I'm an optimist. Hopefully, five years from now, I'm going to report to TEDGlobal that political reforms will happen in China.
Vjerujem kako su političke reforme imperativ za Kinu kako bi održala svoj rast. Vrlo je važno imati političke reforme, imati široko raspodijeljene beneficije ekonomskog rasta. Ne znam hoće li se to dogoditi ili ne ali sam optimist. Ako Bog da, za pet godina ću se javiti TEDGlobalu kako će se političke reforme u Kini i dogoditi.
Thank you very much.
Puno vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)