Brad DeLong wrote:
>
>> 2) to what do you attribute this change? economic liberalisation?
>
> Well, that is economists' conventional wisdom--that the "neoliberal"
> economic reforms of the Narasimha Rao government in the early 1990s were
> the decisive change. Dani Rodrik, however, argues that the structural
> break comes more than half a decade earlier, and that the more likely
> key was the Rajiv Gandhi government's decision to ease restrictions on
> imports of capital goods, which he argues (and I argue) are a key link
> in that they not only boost productivity directly but also carry a great
> deal of technology across national borders.
>
> I would have to say that I really don't know what has transformed India
> from an economy in which it takes more than 60 years for GDP per capita
> to double to one in which it takes less than 20 years for GDP per capita
> to double.
>
brad, thanks for your response. your answers are helpful but perhaps
i should also mention the hidden question: do you see this rise in
growth/GDP as a "good thing" (for india)? do these numbers translate
to anything for the common man? those who responded to did so in a
manner that suggests that you consider GDP as a sufficient measure
of quality of life. is that true? if it is, i do not want to bother
you with what are probably elementary questions in economic theory,
but let me ask, especially in light of the zero sum thread that is
currently being discussed on the list, if these gains are at the
cost of long term harm (especially in a country like india where
environmental regulation are lax and enforcement is non-existant,
and that is partly true for labour rights, social security, etc)?
in short, would you call the changes in india positive and proof of
the effectiveness of free market systems working with a liberal
social agenda, such as seems to be the claim (not about india, but
about the combination of free markets and liberalism) of someone
like paul krugman of MIT (princeton?).
--ravi
ps: reading through my copy of dewey's "liberalism and social
action" and the use of the term "neoliberalism" above, i realize
the ambiguity of the term "liberalism" itself, and to clarify, i
use it to mean socio-political liberalism such as found among the
"liberals" in the US. i hope that serves as clarification!
