China needs to learn from India's legal system and protection of vulnerable groups: CASS study

Chinese think-tank, CASS, assesses national competitiveness, and finds China ahead of India on economic parameters, but says China needs to learn from India's legal system and protection of “vulnerable” groups, writes Ananth Krishnan in the article titled "Learn from India, says Chinese think-tank", published in the Hindu, on 27 October 2010.

A report on “national competitiveness” released by the official Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), which is China's leading think-tank, also forecast that China would become the world's second-most powerful nation after the United States by 2050, and overtake the U.S. to become the largest economy in 2030.

CASS publishes “blue books” ranking countries in terms of national power, which are widely read by academics and officials here. Many CASS scholars advise the government on policy issues.

The findings of this report, which measured economic factors, were published in many official newspapers on Tuesday. While the rankings are a subjective assessment by Chinese scholars, who assigned points on criteria ranging from progress in science and culture to technology and workforce talent, they are a reflection of how academics here view their country's position with respect to other nations.

The report ranked China 17th overall in terms of national competitiveness in 2008. India was ranked at 42, one spot below Bulgaria and ahead of Kazakhstan.

“China's overall national competitiveness is slightly stronger than India, but India is ahead of China in some areas,” said Ni Pengfei, the editor of the report.

The report pointed to the rule of law, protection of vulnerable groups and the preservation of traditional culture as areas where China ranked lower than India.

The study featured a detailed comparison of China's and India's respective advantages. It said before the year 2000, the two countries were “at a similar level,” but in the last decade China made “quick adjustments” that had resulted in a widening gap in competitiveness, since 2004.

India had “obvious advantages” in industrial structure, the report said, pointing to a services sector which accounted for 52.94 per cent of economic growth, compared with China's 41.89 per cent. It forecast “a more intense level of competition” for resources between “the world's two fastest growing countries.”

“China's comprehensive competitiveness has seen a leapfrog promotion over the past two decades, and it has huge potential and strong capability to catch up with and surpass developed nations in the future,” said Mr. Ni.

China, however, lagged behind the U.S. and Europe when it came to higher education, technological talent and cultural appeal. The report particularly stressed that China needed to do more to boost its soft power, amid increasingly negative perceptions of China's rise both in the West and among its neighbours.

“We should think of a country's cultural power when talking about its national competitiveness,” Chen Shaofeng, a scholar at Peking University, told the China Daily.

Soft power

"China’s state-led model of winning hearts and minds is no match for India’s private effort", writes Sadanand Dhume in "Likable India" in The Wall Street Journal (October 25, 2010). A few excerpts.

"Scholars and journalists alike tend to make much of China’s vaunted "charm offensive." It turns out, however, that when it comes to winning hearts and minds—at least democratic hearts and minds—China’s top down state-led model is not much of a match for India’s decentralized private effort."

"In terms of goodwill, India bests China in both Western and Eastern democracies. For instance, according to a poll released last month by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Americans place India in the same ballpark as long-term allies South Korea and Israel. China elicits only about as much warmth as Venezuela and Mexico."

"A recent BBC World Service poll of 28 countries says more or less the same thing. On average, more than half of Americans, Britons and Canadians feel "mainly positive" about India; only about one in six feel "mainly negative." With China the numbers are reversed. Barely one in three from the Anglophone countries feel mostly positive about the Middle Kingdom; for more than four in 10 the emotions evoked are negative. Similarly, more Japanese, Indonesians and South Koreans feel positively than negatively toward India; with China it’s the opposite."

"For many people, India is probably more likeable in part because it’s not nearly as threatening as a powerful, well-organized China."

A tale of two Games: Beijing Olympics and Delhi Commonwealth Games were two very different beasts

Despite the surface commonalities, the Olympics and the CWG are not in the same league, just as, despite being hyphenated, India and China are not on par, writes Pallavi Aiyar, in the Business Standard, titled "A tale of two games". Here are a few excerpts.

In China, the years leading up to 2008 saw Olympianism emerge as the country’s new religion; any questioning of the Games, the equivalent of blasphemy. With traditional beliefs like Confucianism having been battered by decades of communist struggle and in turn socialism’s egalitarian ideals punctured by the increasingly single-minded pursuit of mammon, the authorities in Beijing used the Olympics as a legitimising ideology which helped justify unpopular decisions.

But nowhere was the discussion, so prominent in India, of the desirability of the Games in a country with millions of citizens still mired in poverty, in evidence. Beijing as a city was architecturally re-wrought, with hundreds of thousands of citizens relocated and displaced. Some committed suicide. None had proper legal recourse. Yet, these alternative narratives were absent from the discourse surrounding the Games. Those who spoke out against were censored, fired and in the worst case scenario, imprisoned.

There was something glorious, at least to someone with China-habituated eyes, about how Suresh Kalmadi, the chairman of the CWG organising committee, was booed during the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games. In Beijing the loss of face thus suffered by a senior official would have been unbearable to the authorities. In Delhi, it was part of the freewheeling, chaotic melee of Indian democracy.

That the Nobel Prize for Peace was given to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident currently in prison for 11 years for advocating democratic reform in China, as the Commonwealth Games wound down, only served to underline the India-China divide. Dispersed and polyphonic, India is from a Chinese standpoint almost incoherent. And if the ability for a government to mobilise its citizenry on the one hand and deliver on its promises on the other are seen as necessary aspects of ‘coherence,’ the Chinese perspective is understandable.

Chinese economist praise Indian economic growth model

World Economic Forum is hosting a meeting in Beijing this week. In this news item by PTI, filed from Beijing, report a side event, where Peking University economist Fu Jun said that  India has comparative strategic advantage in the value chain whereas China relied mostly on the labour and cost advantages. This is from the Times of India on 14 Sept. 2010, under the title "Indian model of growth wins praise over its Chinese rival".

BEIJING: Indian economic growth, often described as chaotic and weighed down by poor infrastructure, came in for praise from experts here, compared to more disciplined but highly autocratic Chinese model.

While Indian economic growth was more fuelled by high domestic consumption and services, the Chinese model relied heavily on manufacturing and exports, said Western and Chinese experts at the state TV debate, on the sidelines of of the World Economic Forum being held here.

Besides, India has comparative strategic advantage in the value chain whereas China relied mostly on the labour and cost advantages, said Fu Jun, professor of the Political Economy of the Peking University.

"India in comparison has done a better job", Jun said.

"What is interesting from now on is which one is more viable. I have to give credit to India. What India will do next is to continue the strategy and move into other areas. By comparison we (China) have to readjust our strategy into manufacturing. I do not see reasonable balance between supply and demand," he added.

Human resources development minister Kapil Sibal, who was participating in the debate, said, "Because our economy is based on domestic demand, there is much greater innovation and ability of the entrepreneurs to actually produce wealth. In the long run a lot of innovation and lot of wealth production is going to come from our part of the world."

Martin Wolf, associate editor of the Financial Times, who was critical of the Indian growth model said, however, "Indian development is working despite failure of organisation and poor infrastructure. It is clear that lot of successful multinational companies have good assets in India."

The debate, the first of the three was held on the side lines of the Geneva based World Economic Forum which was being held at Chinese port city of Tianjin, where over 1,400 political, business leaders and economists gathered to deliberate on "Driving Growth through Sustainability".

Besides Sibal, Karnataka chief minister, BS Yeddyurappa and a host of Indian business leaders are taking part in the meeting, which is inaugurated today by Chinese Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao.

Europe's crisis a win-win opportunity for China

The sovereign debt crisis of Europe has shaken the Euro, and exposed fissures in the European Union.Chinese demands for the lifting of an arms embargo have been publicly backed by Spain.There is massive public support for the euro. It is a smart political move as of the fact that China’s exchange rate policy is still vulnerable to international criticism, writes Pallavi Aiyar in Business Standard.

Excerpts:

"While Europe’s sovereign debt crisis may have shaken the euro and exposed fissures in the European Union, one country’s hand in the region has been strengthened: China’s. It has converted Europe’s crisis into an opportunity to extend Beijing’s clout in the region."

"But in June, only hours after credit agency Moody’s downgraded Greece’s credit rating to junk, it was China that held out a financial lifeline, in the form of a multibillion euro investment package. While signing the deal, Chinese vice premier Zhang Dejiang gave the eurozone’s weakest link a public vote of confidence, declaring Beijing’s belief in Athens’ ability to overcome its fiscal problems, an announcement that moved markets positively, following weeks of turmoil."

"At the time, Greek deputy prime minister Theodoros Pangalos praised China in an interview, echoing sentiments often expressed by African nations indebted to Beijing. “They are not like these Wall Street people, pushing financial investments on paper. "

"The Chinese deal in real things, in merchandise. And, they will help the real economy in Greece,” he said."

"It’s not only debt-laden southern European countries that find themselves beholden to Beijing. Even power house Germany’s continued economic buoyancy owes much to its exports to China. Jonathan Holslag, research fellow at the Brussels Institute of Contemporary China Studies, notes that Germany’s economic recovery over the past year is due in substantial part to its exports of cars and advanced machinery to China."

"Access to technology is also increasingly being built into deals struck by Chinese corporations. For example, the Greek package included an exchange of know-how between China's Huawei Technologies and OTE, the Greek telecom organisation."

"While the commercial interest behind companies capitalising on the European downturn is clear, reasons for the Chinese government’s “goodwill” gestures are murkier. Holslag believes Beijing is motivated by the desire to ward off creeping protectionism in Europe, thus ensuring its most important export market remains open. In July, when German chancellor Angela Merkel visited Beijing, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was explicit in making the connection."

"In return, Merkel made a joint statement with Wen, vowing to oppose protectionism in Europe. There are other pluses for Beijing from its increasing influence. Chinese demands for the lifting of an arms embargo have been already publicly backed by Spain. Holslag believes with Beijing’s new leverage with certain EU member-states, backing for this and other issues like the granting of market economy status to China will intensify."

"Economic clout can translate into greater political influence, a lesson the Chinese know well and apply in their diplomacy across the world. Europe’s economic woes have opened room for these techniques to be used within the EU."

"In sum, the region’s economic fragility has allowed the Chinese government to project itself as a benevolent supporter of the euro, even as it acquires strategic leverage and Chinese companies sniff profitable deals. The kind of win-win situation that Beijing is partial to."

Huang Jing: Managing Asian G2

India and China were really successful on nation-state building.In both countries nationalism arose against the defeats, humiliations and injustice these nations went through during the period of western imperialism. Both countries used western ideas to overthrow foreign domination.It is wise to avoid nationalism in India-China relations, as it is a double-edged sword.The AG2 framework will provide the institutional arrangements to secure the prevalence of wisdom over emotions in the bilateral relationship, writes Huang Jing in Business Standard.

Excerpts:

"Despite substantial cultural and religious diversity in both countries, India and China have been largely successful in nation-state building, as evidenced by the strong and unshakable national identity and pride among the Indians and Chinese."

"However, unlike western nationalism, which was associated with pride and jubilance for the triumph of capitalism and industrialisation, nationalism in both India and China arose due to defeats, humiliations and injustice endured during the age of western imperialism — India was under the British Raj and China was a victim of gunboat diplomacy."

"Ironically, the leading elites of the national movements in both India and China embraced western ideas and adopted western political methods in their fight to be rid of “foreign exploitation and operation”. Subsequently, these leaders led their countries towards the western path of modernisation. This deep-seated love-hate mentality towards the West and the bitter roots of their national consciousness have made the Indians and Chinese especially sensitive towards national sovereignty and independence — after all, they were determined never to let history repeat itself."

"In India-China relations, a wise and astute leader would want to avoid involving nationalistic sentiments on the issues — border disputes, trust deficit, mismatched geopolitical concerns, and inconsistent interests in energy, food and water security — that have handicapped the bilateral relationship. Doing so would only deprive the leaders of both the states of the rationality and manoeuvring room necessary for achieving a mutually acceptable solution for, or at least the practical management of, the existing problems in bilateral relations. Furthermore, playing the nationalism card would have dire consequences on political stability at home, as a nationalistic approach would, more often than not, benefit the extremists in domestic politics."

"Indeed, fast economic growth amidst globalisation has brought about an unprecedented transition in both China and India, giving rise to new contradictions, dilemmas and challenges, or exacerbating old ones, in domestic politics as well as bilateral relations."

"Both Delhi and Beijing must make a conscious commitment to contain nationalistic sentiments in the bilateral relationship, especially when the interests of the two countries are inconsistent or in conflict. Political leaders have to realise that playing the nationalism card would produce no benefits. As history has taught us repeatedly, nationalism is always a double-edged sword and it could potentially produce a backlash on those who ride on it for short-term gains."

"The simultaneous rises of the two great neighbouring powers have brought about unprecedented opportunities as well as challenges. The AG2 framework is to provide the institutional arrangements to secure the prevalence of wisdom over emotions in the bilateral relationship, so that the two nations can optimise the opportunities and handle the challenges with a rational and cool-headed approach."

Save the tiger: Environmental dividend from economic development

This is the Chinese year of the tiger and people are interested in saving the tiger from extinction more than ever. Several conferences are being held, and a lot of money is being thrown at saving the tiger, but all this can't work if the Government can't mitigate the conflict between locals and wild animals. The lack of agricultural productivity forces farmers to encroach on the habitat of the tigers. This has to be resolved. China and India can save the tigers by cooperating with each other, writes Barun Mitra.

A shorter version of this article was published in The Wall Street Journal.

Asia’s economic potential was first demonstrated by the four tiger economies. In recent decade, the focus has shifted to China, India and others. While economies are growing, the real tigers in the wild are living a precarious existence. It is time to reap the environmental dividend from growing prosperity, and save the tiger from extinction.

This is the Chinese Year of the Tiger! Undoubtedly, the focus is once again on ways of saving the wild tiger from extinction. This coming weekend the international Tiger Forum will meet in the north-eastern Chinese city of Hunchun. Next month a tiger summit is scheduled in St Petersburg, Russia. Last month 13 nations - Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam, and Russia agreed, at a meeting of the Global Tiger Initiative (GTI), to double the tiger count from about 3200 at present to 7,000 by 2022. Incidentally, the tiger numbers have halved since 2002, when the claim was 7,000. Many today believe that these numbers were grossly inflated due to faulty counting procedures.

In 1900, it is believed that there were about 100,000 tigers in the forests of Asia. The number declined to about 40,000 by the 1950. Today, billions of dollars are being spent to save one of the iconic animals in the world, but the future of the tiger continues to be bleak.

According to estimates used in draft documents for the St Petersburg Tiger Summit, the economic benefit of ecological services coming from forestry and wildlife estimated in 1997 to be as high as $ 33 trillion annually, and would be much higher today. But another estimate claimed that for the people living in tiger forest in countries like Cambodia, the annual economic benefit per household to be barely $675. The numbers don’t add up!

Over the past decade, just the central government in India increased its allocation for Project Tiger, from $ 16 million (Rs 75 crore) in the 9th five year plan, to $ 32 million (Rs 150 crore) in the 10th plan, and $ 128 million (Rs 600 crore) in the current 12th Plan (2007-2012). This is equivalent of about $ 25,000 per tiger per year, for a mere 1200 animals. Compare this with the flagship rural employment programme for the poor that promises about $ 70 per family per year.

There seems to be growing gulf between the prescriptions offered by many international, largely western experts, and what domestic policy makers in China, India, and elsewhere confront on the ground.

Many of the international experts agree on the need to commit larger sums of money, monitoring of the tigers and their habitat, and almost military style enforcement to keep people and poachers out.

But these old prescriptions don’t inspire confidence any more. Indian policy makers are increasingly aware of the rising aspirations of the people, and the demand for land, for agriculture and other developmental purposes. For some others, the biggest threat to tiger comes from the growing intensity of conflict between man and wild animals. They would not like to stake everything on counting tigers.

Just in the past two months, two people lost their lives in the vicinity of the famous Ranthambore tiger park. Typical compensation for a life lost is only $2200. This is barely 10% of the annual allocation by the central government for every tiger each year, at present. Just this week, in the same park, a forest ranger who was bravely trying to shepard a tiger that had strayed near a village, armed only with a stick, was mauled.

Last year Bangladesh reported 50 deaths from tiger attacks in the Sundarbans area of the Gangetic delta. In India, the annual death toll from wild animal attacks range from 200-300 each year, in addition to injuries, loss of property and crops. Tigers and other wild animals will have a future, only if this conflict can be diffused. Otherwise the beasts will stand no chance against the ire of man.

The problem in India, and some other tiger range countries, is not that there are too many people living in close proximity to wildlife. Typically, in such areas agricultural productivity is abysmal, poverty is endemic, and non-farm economic opportunities non-existent. Without resolving this human problem, neither a proliferation of conferences nor throwing cash will help the cause of the tiger.

But this need not be the situation. If India doubles its agriculture productivity the demand for agricultural land could fall by almost 40%. If non-farm opportunities are allowed to spread, dependence on subsistence agriculture will decline rapidly. One can already see glimpses of how the natural environment can recharge once the human pressure declines.

This is most dramatically visible in China. China’s agricultural productivity is almost double of India’s. The rapid movement of millions of people from rural to urban, and changing economic structure from agriculture to industrial, explains the rise in forest cover.

Between 1990 and 2007, according to World Bank database, China’s Per capita GDP increased 8 fold, from $ 314 to $2,566, while for India it just tripled, from $374 to $ 1,046. During this same period, China’s agricultural GDP shrank from 27% to 11%, and forest cover as a share of total area rose from 17% to 22%. It is this 30% increase in forest cover in 17 years, which makes it plausible for China to attempt to rebuild wildlife habitat, and reintroduce animals. In contrast, for India, agricultural GDP declined slowly from 29% to 18%, but forest cover stayed almost the same from 22% to 23%. This indicates that in India, there is a much higher pressure on forest from people who are not able to move beyond rural livelihood, and explains the continuing conflict between man and animal.

China and India, are neighbours and competitors in many fields. But in the arena of tiger conservation, they could greatly complement each other. China barely has 45-50 tigers in the wild, mostly near the Russian border in Siberia. India has among the best wildlife experts with capacity to manage tiger habitats.

India is already trying to reintroduce tigers in to two tiger parks where all the tigers were lost in recent years. India is also toying with an ambitious effort to reintroduce the Asiatic Cheetah, which had gone extinct in 1947. But today, India’s economic transformation is not yet deep enough to remove the potential for man and animal conflict. But it will happen. Working with the Chinese on tiger conservation would help build up Indian capacity to reap their own environmental dividend.

By cooperating with each other today, China and India would not only save the tiger in the wild, but redefine the meaning of “Asian Tigers”. Wildlife and forest are not mere intangible resources, whose values are only determined by creative book-keeping. For instance, in the US, the tangible economic benefit from wildlife and nature tourism, including fishing and hunting, was estimated at $125 billion in 2005. Asia could surely give the US a run for its money, if it manages the environmental resources better.

This will require a see change in thinking. Only when people profit from forest and wildlife, will they have any interest in preserving them, and then counting every tiger will become irrelevant. Tiger economies are better equipped to secure the future of the species too!