3 ms·

There's an economist who calls this "premature imitation". Basically India has adopted a lot of ideas that (arguably) make sense in more developed economies but

There's an economist who calls this "premature imitation". Basically India has adopted a lot of ideas that (arguably) make sense in more developed economies but that prevent India from developing to the point where those policies are actually beneficial.

pjc50 6y ago
It's hardly new; the colonial system was set up to prevent India industralising, but was so beneficial to those taking bribes that it was carried on even after independence. Known as the "license Raj".
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  > the colonial system was set up to prevent India industralising Hardly. The colonial system started to evolve from approx 1600 [0] but industrialisation [1] didn't start in the UK until at least 150 later [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
  - pradn 6y ago
    Colonialism didn't seriously arrive in India until 1750, and it took until 1800-15 for the British East India Company to consolidate it's control over the subcontinent. Before 1750, the Company was a straightforward trading company, sharing trading rights with the Portuguese, French, and the traders of the Indian Ocean rim. After 1750, they were able to seize tax-collecting rights in Bengal, one of the most prosperous areas of the Mughal Empire. They used tax revenue on agriculture in the fertile Bengal delta to fund further trading and military activities around the subcontinent. Their policy was often mercantile. They forced wages down, drove exacting standards for manufacturing textiles, and engaged in monopsonistic policy. So, I agree - an accurate statement would be to say "English involvement in India came out of the prevailing ideology of mercantilism, and it then grew into a colonial state". The colonial state did lead to India's deindustrialization - ex: the flourishing textile industries of the subcontinent were not allowed to modernize. But counterfactuals are hard. (I still think an area of the world at the forefront of textile production for thousands of years would not have gone gently into the good night without a fight.)
- kamaal 6y ago
  One of the most important things post independence was to ensure Indians had the capability to make things on their own. This meant achieving a high degree of domestic capability(Only Indians making things). There had to be a system to enable this happen. At times you have to slow growth to ensure you meet other capabilities. It's not exactly a conspiracy. Besides globalization itself is a relatively a new phenomenon and we did get started on that. Also merely blaming these policies for slow growth is wrong. India has a range of socio-religious problems, which just can't go hand in hand with requirements for high growth economies, that is things like high quality public education, equality of access to opportunity, a degree of fairness in society and focus towards larger goals etc. India is just not there yet. Even domestic political goals are just something else. Basically India is trying to make Biryani out of Idly batter.
s_trumpet 6y ago
"Premature Imitation and India’s Flailing State" - Shruti Rajagopalan and Alexander Tabarrok https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_24_2_01_rajagopalan.pdf https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_24_2_01_rajagopalan....
oasisbob 6y ago
> "premature imitation" When I worked at a young startup in Seattle we went through a stretch of hiring ex-Microsoft PMs who were great at solving all sorts of ten-years-old Microsoft-flavored problems. I wish I knew this term then.

pjc50 6y ago

It's hardly new; the colonial system was set up to prevent India industralising, but was so beneficial to those taking bribes that it was carried on even after independence. Known as the "license Raj".

KineticLensman 6y ago
> the colonial system was set up to prevent India industralising Hardly. The colonial system started to evolve from approx 1600 [0] but industrialisation [1] didn't start in the UK until at least 150 later [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
- pradn 6y ago
  Colonialism didn't seriously arrive in India until 1750, and it took until 1800-15 for the British East India Company to consolidate it's control over the subcontinent. Before 1750, the Company was a straightforward trading company, sharing trading rights with the Portuguese, French, and the traders of the Indian Ocean rim. After 1750, they were able to seize tax-collecting rights in Bengal, one of the most prosperous areas of the Mughal Empire. They used tax revenue on agriculture in the fertile Bengal delta to fund further trading and military activities around the subcontinent. Their policy was often mercantile. They forced wages down, drove exacting standards for manufacturing textiles, and engaged in monopsonistic policy. So, I agree - an accurate statement would be to say "English involvement in India came out of the prevailing ideology of mercantilism, and it then grew into a colonial state". The colonial state did lead to India's deindustrialization - ex: the flourishing textile industries of the subcontinent were not allowed to modernize. But counterfactuals are hard. (I still think an area of the world at the forefront of textile production for thousands of years would not have gone gently into the good night without a fight.)
kamaal 6y ago
One of the most important things post independence was to ensure Indians had the capability to make things on their own. This meant achieving a high degree of domestic capability(Only Indians making things). There had to be a system to enable this happen. At times you have to slow growth to ensure you meet other capabilities. It's not exactly a conspiracy. Besides globalization itself is a relatively a new phenomenon and we did get started on that. Also merely blaming these policies for slow growth is wrong. India has a range of socio-religious problems, which just can't go hand in hand with requirements for high growth economies, that is things like high quality public education, equality of access to opportunity, a degree of fairness in society and focus towards larger goals etc. India is just not there yet. Even domestic political goals are just something else. Basically India is trying to make Biryani out of Idly batter.

s_trumpet 6y ago

"Premature Imitation and India’s Flailing State" - Shruti Rajagopalan and Alexander Tabarrok https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_24_2_01_rajagopalan.pdf https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_24_2_01_rajagopalan....

oasisbob 6y ago

> "premature imitation" When I worked at a young startup in Seattle we went through a stretch of hiring ex-Microsoft PMs who were great at solving all sorts of ten-years-old Microsoft-flavored problems. I wish I knew this term then.