I am really not qualified to comment on what is happening internally in India but as an African looking on I see quite a number of positives. Most of our drugs are now from India. Companies like Cipla are quite prominent. India manufactures their own cars( Tata and Mahindra both sold here). In Africa we have a few assembly plants, none of the cars or IP is really ours. India has launched a rocket into space and is planning on going to the moon. As I type this the Zimbabwean vice president is in India for medical treatment[0]. It has become common for medical aids here to send people to India for types of operations. I understand India has some way to go but hey at least you are making some strides. I am not so sure about Africa. The people making bricks and connecting solar panels for lighting are making some progress but nothing large scale such as going into space. Our governments are too inept for that.

[0]https://ewn.co.za/2019/02/12/zimbabwe-s-vice-president-recei...

I don't think the argument is that India is not doing well in the absolute sense, but whether it could have done far, far better with a non-democratic political system like China.

I do think its an important question and one that should be answered in good faith. If we do believe that democracy does not hinder but perhaps help economic development, we should know that. If it does hinder, we should ask: is the price paid worth it?

You ask a pertinent question that unfortunately will be shut down. The pro democracy movement has convinced us that even villagers in Africa should have a say in our monetary policy. No I am not saying villagers in Africa are stupid, they just have not been exposed to monetary policy. Same way I know nothing about diesel engines but I know about SQL. Democracy says we all have a say even in things we don't understand so we, particularly Africa end up with charismatic leaders who are willing to wing it. I gather from the little bits of history that I have read that most development in the West didn't happen under democratic rule. It is only relatively recently that the common man has had a say. Trouble with dictatorships is that you get good and bad. Rwanda and South Korea have thrived under "dictatorships". Whereas we have become a dysfunctional state. If only there was a way of selecting benevolent dictators and removing them. Alas there is no clear path.

I suspect that democracy is mostly an independent factor from effective economic development. You can have policies and power structures that facilitate or hinder development under all forms of government.

Though I do think there may be an inhibition of development for economics that accept austerity and classical international investments advice.

Isn't India as a country much more diverse than China? I mean I realise China is diverse too but in comparison. Putting a heavy yoke on a diverse country sounds like a recipe for rebellion.

India has 20+ languages with atleast one million speakers. China has one common uniting language Mandarin. I speak 3 Indian languages, yet when I moved to a new state for work, none of those languages help me while communicating with locals.

Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR-uWwvpn5c

> Most of our drugs are now from India.

Heh, well that's because India doesn't exactly have a lot of respect for US pharma IP. Which is fine, but don't go giving India the credit for stolen IP.

The drugs manufactured by Indian cos are licensed, not stolen. The US itself imports several billions worth of pharmas from India every year, and the USFDA inspects pharma plants in India for this reason.

The issue is much more complex.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2013/04/08/indias...

The reason that drugs manufactured in India and sold in India and developing countries are so cheap is that India has compulsory licensing and very weak protection for analogues. The US puts up with it because it's a big market and it can't stand US-level prices anyway. But it's not Indian IP, and I don't think it's much of a stretch to call it "stolen," at least insofar as intellectual property can be stolen at all.

The evidence is exactly the opposite; "democracy and economic growth and development have had a strong correlative and interactive relationship throughout history." Refer here: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10880.pdf. This is especially true since World War II, and even more so after 1980, as the Soviet Union collapsed.

"Credit guarantee is one of the most significant positive links between economic growth and democracy. The marginal effects of credit guarantee and foreign direct investment inflows are stronger in democratic countries than they are in non-democratic ones."

China only experienced massive economic success after liberalizing its markets. For that matter, so did India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_Ind...) South Korea is essentially an American vassal state. Cuba is clearly not an economic success story, but of course if you compare it to the poorest country in the hemisphere (Haiti,) it comes out slightly ahead.

Ultimately what matters is whether your government is open to free trade and liberalized markets, and has enough legitimacy to enforce the rule of law (and attract foreign investment)- and has a healthy relationship with the United States. All of these are strongly correlated with democratic governments.

Much of China's growth rate over the last 20 years was as a result of starting from a horribly low base after Mao and the cultural revolution reduced GNP per capita to something like $300. They are mostly just catching up with how Chinese were living outside of China in HK, Sing, the USA etc.

China has done very well for some... but it's far from a communist utopia and very far from what I would consider an admirable goal for any citizen in any country to actually want to strive for.

Agreed, and is interesting to see that the arguments against China are purely ideologic. There is no fact supporting the idea that India would have an advantage over China because of democracy. In fact, people really don't care. As long as the quality of life for people is improving, they don't have any problem with a communist government.

>As long as the quality of life for people is improving, they don't have any problem with a communist government.

But they do or at least they will. At some point the next quality of life improvement you want is to be able to openly express ideas and not have somebody decide your life for you without input from you.

That is the dreaded inflection point the CPC wants to avoid. Its interesting to think about what would have happened if the sophisticated system of censorship currently in place would not have been present: if the great firewall didn't exist, would we have already seen riots, revolutions and such?

And that's the horrible conclusion I get from that fact: technology has always been celebrated as tool of liberation, but the CPC has effectively yielded it as a tool of oppression. And if the CPC can do it, why not other countries?

It's just a tool, like any other tool. Any time someone publicizes a tool as for or against any one thing, it's at most more easily used in that respect for the current time or circumstances.

A bow and arrow can be an effective way to feed your family, or a tool or warfare that changed the outcome of many battles. Advances in textiles can be useful for keeping people warm in winter, or advanced armors with metal sewn inside.

It's not even as simple as a tool shifting from one thing to another either. Bows shifted from a hunting tool, to a tool of warfare, until eventually being relegated to sports equipment for the most part in the modern age. Medieval and Japanese swords used to be the heights of military technology, now they're collector curios.

I'm not sure of any technology that can be used purely for "good" or "bad", or even for one thing at all. The world doesn't often follow absolutes, so we shouldn't fall into the trap of believing absolutes when presented to us. At least not without a lot of justification and the requisite caveats.

Do you have evidence for a lack of correlation between democracy and economic development?