The reverse brain drain
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
This article is an apt read here; but in a little different context. The article talks about Indians fighting against real India which is undeniable, but the flip side is that this is the same fight which is enabling people in India to work the way they want. Sans the economic liberation, if development was left in the hand of Govt. (a job well done in China), we would not be seeing this spur. If that little percentage of Indians were not fighting against the real India to create their own work, India would not be where it is today. I am not trying to claim any top spot and I know that almost nothing has been done till now, but the improvements cannot be ignored. Talk about the IT companies; irrespective of the quality of work they do, they have definitely achieved something (USD6-10 billion in revenue) which looked impossible few years back, and when you see them operating you will find that they have hardly anything to do with the Govt. support, they manage their infra from tip to toe and sometimes they contribute to the surrounding infra too.
The (completely unscientific) impression I get is that things got better between 1995-2005 and are now getting worse. Maybe these expats are just seeing the delta between 199x and 20xx.
But your unscientific impression may be a little coloured by your age. (I'd wager you're late 20s, early 30s?)
I feel the same quite a few times - that things were getting rapidly better between 1995-2005, after which the pace of change became glacial to the point of regressing.
After putting a little more thought into it, I am almost certain that the way I feel this way is because I have a different view of the world now. I am older, more mature and more prosperous than I was in the early oughties, and subconsciously have a better standard of indicators that I look for, when considering 'how things have changed'. Consequently, things like the systemic corruption and poor infrastructure seem far more important to me now, than they did 10 years back. I suppose I was far less concerned about them, and looking more at access to information (the evolution of the Internet) and 'material pleasures' (malls, entertainment, global brands, etc.)
Basically, if I look at the situation in India today through the same lens that I did 10 years back, then I'd be prepared to say that things are still improving.
India has its share of problems, and it has its share of corrupt politicians. But it also has a pretty robust democracy and part of what returnees are bringing home is an appreciation for governments that work vs ones that don't. And when the people don't tolerate an ineffective government they change it.
The other thing India is, is big. There is a lot of country there. While it's true you can find abject poverty and people manually crushing rocks with bigger rocks to make a handful of gravel to sell, you can also find vibrant urban centers with shopping centers and affluence that would make you think you were back in Europe or the US.
Its an interesting transition, and if they pull it off they will become a threat to China. But their economic development also puts a damper on some of the saber rattling too.
My own take on it is that nothing but good can come of India developing its economy into a completely vertically integrated one.
From an economic standpoint they may be able to put together cost competitive manufacturing facilities with a better quality of life for their workers. That, coupled with the increasingly forceful way in which China struggles to maintain its margins are threatening the delicate balance in China between the benefit of hard currency and the challenge of an upwardly mobile workforce. (or not which would turn out to be the problem)
As more companies are put under pressure to avoid doing business with companies like FoxConn and the ability to keep information about working conditions in China out of the press is reduced. It makes for a challenging environment for the Chinese. To have a neighbor state pick up the slack with workers who, if they are successful can move on to big houses and a more affluent lifestyle, and are thus both happier and more productive in their jobs. That is the threat economically.
If India were to provide a ready market for Afghanistan's raw mineral wealth, that too could be problematic for the Chinese.
Easier said than done, or there wouldn't be so many long-standing ineffective governments around...
It is often easier for people to change the country they live in (i.e., emigrate) than to reform the government they live under.
There are also broadly speaking two kinds of politicians. Those in countries where the quickest way to riches are to be part of the government, and those where it's easier to make really big money outside the government. In the former people are attracted to politics strictly for the money, whereas in the latter there are other desires (like fame, power and so on). The ones in it for the money are more likely to see government money as their own money and accumulate as much of that as possible.
The real problem with corruption though is not politicians. It's the civil service. While polititians set policy, and create laws, it is the civil service that we interact with every day. Corrupt cops, customs & border officials, judges, and so on have a far more devastating effect on every-day life than some minister or senator that buries a million here or a million there.
I'm not arguing for corrupt politicians - of course that's bad - they set the tone, and ultimately have the power to condone or condemn bribes and other considerations in the civil service. And of course politicians steal more in absolute terms, to the point where infrastructure is compromised - but the real "daily" damage is done when each transaction comes with an "informal tax".
Now if you want to talk moral behavior - then I agree there is definitely room for improvement. The whole concept of campaign funding means that elected officials are bought and paid for by those with the cash to spend.
You can say that about China, but not about India. Things have not improved much for the average Indian. In fact, in many places it's gotten worse.
Don't get me wrong - it's got a long way to go. This morning I just jogged through undocumented housing without plumbing or electricity. But to say things have not improved is just ridiculous - even many of the people without electricity had cellphones. (Certain shops let you charge a cellphone for a few rupees.)
[1] The fitness centers are, unfortunately, never used. My apt complex has a gym, and the weights are always exactly where I leave them.
What do you mean?
"India is expected to reduce its poverty rate from 51 per cent in 1990 to 24 per cent in 2015, reducing its number of extremely poor by 188 million."
India's GDP per capita works out to be about 145 INR/day, so it's plausible that the 80'th percentile would be 33% higher than that. It's a little unlikely that the 80'th percentile would be 1/7 of that.
I'm reminding you again, the discussion here is about progression of India from its own past but you're either coming up with figures for some particular year or some senseless comparison with other countries. In other words, you're simply trolling.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/836-million-indians-live-on-less-...
Every presentation I have seen on India cites dramatic improvement from 2000-2010.
Georgia - 12,
Estonia - 17,
Lithuania - 23
Latvia - 24,
Kyrgyzstan - 44,
Armenia - 48,
Azerbaijan - 54,
Kazakhstan - 59,
Belarus - 68,
Moldova - 90,
Russia - 123,
.
INDIA - 134
Moldova - 49,
Azerbaijan - 51,
Belarus - 87,
Ukraine - 140,
Kazakhstan - 170,
Russia - 213,
Latvia - 372,
Estonia - 410,
Lithuania - 453
.
INDIA - 12
Lithuania - 42,
Estonia - 46,
Latvia - 54,
Moldova - 66,
Kazakhstan - 95,
Ukraine - 97,
Belarus - 105,
Uzbekistan - 110,
Armenia - 113,
Turkmenistan - 117,
Azerbaijan - 119,
.
INDIA - 128In some former Soviet countries (Moldova for example), the standard of living has declined since the 80s, India on the other hand, seems to be improving.
Karimov boiled his people alive. I don't whether that means I should take the rankings with a grain of salt, or weep over India actually coming out below.
Take a look at Corruption Index published by Transparency International:
http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/...
Both China and India are the same. In fact, with free-media, India has a greater chance of tackling corruption in the future than China.
In India, you have to pay small (or large) bribes to get anything done. You are faced with a bureaucracy which wants to trip you up with red tape, to force you to pay more bribes. This is not conductive to small business.
China really falls apart when it comes to bigger businesses. State owned enterprises get preferential treatment for all kinds of things, especially funding. And bigger businesses have to follow regulations more carefully.
China - 79
India - 134And FYI, the disintegration of USSR was due to economic crisis because of Socialism. India abandoned Socialism soon after the collapse of Soviet Russia and embraced American capitalism and the Indian economy is booming now.
China is developing since you can exploit Chinese by abusing human rights. http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-tech-...
Americans are suffering since US regime is letting Chindia exploit their people via outsourcing.