Hacker News Reader

Comment by slothtrop | Hacker News Reader

Check this out: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-how-asia-works

The odd one out in this assessment is India, because it did some similar things (land reform) without success. A difference might be that India sheltered businesses from foreign competition and didn't encourage and invest as much. Another, is that you need caste connections to do business. Culturally I intuit that the upper-castes that controlled government were less interested in rapid nationwide progress, unlike the ideologues that led South Korea and China. They lived comfortable lives and hung their hats on that.

View on HN

India has similar barriers for foreign manufacturing businesses to enter as those that China has.

And the caste aspect doesn't make sense, as caste is hyperlocal and there isn't solidarity between caste groups of different ethnicities. Furthermore, caste ranking doesn't fully translate to business ownership, as traditionally, merchant and moneylending castes like Banias were towards the lower end.

The main difference between China and India is China makes it's urban centers de facto independent of rural hinterlands within the same prefecture, while in India, urban and rural are both under the same state government.

I think the caste aspect makes sense in terms of who a politician feels responsible for when they are in power. For example, typical upper caste politician might feel that they only need to improve the conditions of upper caste people while not feeling responsible for people in lower castes, or just people who are poor in general. I think sentiments like that is prevalent across politics in India, though I agree about there being no solidarity between caste groups of different ethnicities.

A prime example is the state of government schools in India, which are almost exclusively used by the very poor. State funded schools in east Asian countries are of significantly higher quality.

Most politicans in India are from the lowest castes - "Other Backward Caste" and "Scheduled Castes" [0].

And India uses Caste Based Affirmative Action using a quota that makes around 60% of all government positions reserved for lower caste individuals [1]

> state of government schools in India, which are almost exclusively used by the very poor. State funded schools in east Asian countries are of significantly higher quality

These are broad terms. Education falls onto state and local government in India, and leads to massive variation (eg. Kerala, Punjab public schools doing fairly well versus Bihar, MP public schools doing badly).

It's the same in East Asia, though I would like to know what you define as "East Asia". The urban-rural education gap is well documented in China as well [2]

[0] - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/how-caste-factor-p...

[1] - https://www.clearias.com/reservation-in-india/

[2] - https://fsi.stanford.edu/docs/research_projects__understandi...

> Most politicans in India are from the lowest castes - "Other Backward Caste" and "Scheduled Castes" [0].

Now, but the argument concerns development over the 20th century, not the current makeup.

The OBC/SC/ST plurality has been the norm in Indian politics since the 1980s.

China and India only began to diverge in the late 2000s to early 2010s, and much of that is due to China's investment in urban construction and real estate, while India's economy entered a lost decade due to a loan origination crisis.

India did a fork in its flavor of politics in the 1980s. The goals went from making a industrial state, with a big middle class, with health care, housing, decent working hours and retirement -to- making politics whose goals were restoring cultural-religious pride and history revisionism.

There was total chaos through 1980s and 1990s, governments would come and go without outright majority without much progress on the economic front. Only exception was being at the right time and place for the outsourcing boom. But its effects were limited to a few cities and groups of people.

There was some correction in 2000s, but it does look like making a affluent industrial economy is neither the goal of the political class or the electoral section.

> The main difference between China and India is China makes it's urban centers de facto independent of rural hinterlands within the same prefecture, while in India, urban and rural are both under the same state government.

I don't see the significance of this.

> And the caste aspect doesn't make sense, as caste is hyperlocal and there isn't solidarity between caste groups of different ethnicities.

Hyperlocal corruption/nobility is the worst kind of corruption/nobility.

Non-local ones will at least create systems that work, supporting infrastructure, and will try to maintain some amount of material wealth that they can prey upon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com