On 8/25/07, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Classic parameters that are considered "good" seem to be low infant and > maternal mortality, high literacy, high per capita income, low GINI > coefficient, low unemployment rates and a whole lot of similar parameters > that can be dug up in any study of development. > > ...
Bangladesh is one nation that found itself at the bottom and did not have to > play the comparison game. They ended up doing some good and eminently > emulable things - like their microcredit for women. And Bangladesh, unlike > Pakistan, was honest with itself about itself. In 1990, the infant mortality rate in Bangladesh at 114/1000 live births was 21% higher than India's 94. By 2004 those stats had reversed to 56/1000 for Bangladesh - 10% lower than India's. In 1990, India's life expectancy exceeded Bangladesh's by over 7 years. By 2004, they were almost equal at 63.6 and 63.3. This despite the fact that in 2004, per capita income in Bangladesh was USD 406, 58% lower than India (USD 640). And that per capita GDP has grown at least twice as fast in India between 1975 and 2004. Bangladesh outperforms India even on school enrollment for girls. What is it you think they are doing differently? The standard excuse I hear quoted is that their relatively small size makes it easier. But no Indian state, even the smallest, can claim to have done as well. -- "The future is here; it's just not widely distributed yet." - William Gibson
