4 ms·

The competitive advantage in India in the long term is that their population will be significantly younger than China. > India has more than 50% of its populat

The competitive advantage in India in the long term is that their population will be significantly younger than China. > India has more than 50% of its population below the age of 25 and more than 65% hovers below the age of 35. It is expected that, in 2020, the average age of an Indian will be 29 years, compared to 37 for China and 48 for Japan; and, by 2030, India's dependency ratio should be just over 0.4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India In the other hand India is confronting other problems.

pbreit 15y ago
These countries have had centuries to progress. Why now?
- Sudarshan 15y ago
  India got independence only in 1947. All growth till then made the British richer. Till the 1990s india had a strange cross breed b/w socialism and capitalism where large govt factories and govt organization employed most people and had low productivity. One major gain was a strong focus on education many of them learning English. However most of it is rote learning centric. It is only in recent years that India has been able to make a place for itself in the BRIC economies.
- jerf 15y ago
  Everywhere in the world has had millenia to progress. Progress appears to be the exception, not the rule, and to be somewhat splotchy in general.
mturmon 15y ago
Here's a nice, and recent article, by Amartya Sen, comparing development in India and China: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/quality-life-india-vs-china/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/quality... Sen wrote the book "Development as Freedom" after winning the 1998 Economics Nobel prize. He's known for the general observation that famines occur seldom in democratic societies because politicians are at a gross level accountable for outrageous mismanagement of resource allocation.

pbreit 15y ago

These countries have had centuries to progress. Why now?

Sudarshan 15y ago
India got independence only in 1947. All growth till then made the British richer. Till the 1990s india had a strange cross breed b/w socialism and capitalism where large govt factories and govt organization employed most people and had low productivity. One major gain was a strong focus on education many of them learning English. However most of it is rote learning centric. It is only in recent years that India has been able to make a place for itself in the BRIC economies.
jerf 15y ago
Everywhere in the world has had millenia to progress. Progress appears to be the exception, not the rule, and to be somewhat splotchy in general.

mturmon 15y ago

Here's a nice, and recent article, by Amartya Sen, comparing development in India and China: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/quality-life-india-vs-china/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/quality... Sen wrote the book "Development as Freedom" after winning the 1998 Economics Nobel prize. He's known for the general observation that famines occur seldom in democratic societies because politicians are at a gross level accountable for outrageous mismanagement of resource allocation.