India to surpass China in both population and economy... then what?

[Blue3]

As has been widely-known for years, India is going to  surpass China's population sometime in 2022-2028.

And India's economy could surpass the projected Chinese economy in the next 30-40 years by midcentury too (and therefore the US as well, since China is projected to become the #1 economy), and definitely by the end of the century in about 80 years.
India surpassed China's economic growth rate this decade, and it's projected to continue. Especially since the Chinese demographic timebomb is almost here, when the Chinese will become demographically top-heavy and older than Japan, but India will stay young.


India is also truly multicultural, much more than the United States. Each region has its own languages. Only English unites the entire country, though the Indian government has been pushing Hindi over the last decade or two to mixed results. No language/ethnicity/demographic has absolute power (unlike the US for most of its history, or China now). It's more similar to the European Union in a way. And while they have liberalized their economy, they remain committed to democratic socialism. It is a secular government. Most of the people are Hindu, but its Muslim minority is actually the largest number of Muslims in any country (even Indonesia), and most are integrated well into Indian society now.

It is still developing (though developing very fast), and still has issues right now, as every country does, but it's rising... fast.


And nobody seems to be talking about it.




Growth rate:


Workforce participation:





Why aren't people talking more about how India is set to become the world's #1 economic superpower (and most populated country too)? It's also a nuclear power, even if the rest of their military isn't as advanced (yet) as the US or China (since they're more focused on job creation and economic/technological development), and India also isn't as military-interventionist as US/Russia/China.

And, if any country has to surpass the US and become the new leader of the world, I'd definitely rather have it be India than China (or a lot of other prospective countries). Thankfully, it looks like India will surpass China at least.

[Santander]

Because India is not a real nation state yet. It is a modern political construct of dozens of cultural groups that have yet to find a true unifying cultural identity. It will take centuries of stability and Hindu cultural supremacy to create a true Indian nation state. Culture is not about food or language - culture is so innate and so deeply and subconsciously ingrained that it is only barely mutable with the passage of time.

China is not a regular nation state either - it's much more. China is a symbol, somewhat like Rome, but obviously more enduring. Even those who conquer it become part of it, like the Mongols and the Manchus. It assimilates minorities, and while the power of the state plays a role, it is mostly because it the only country in human history whose gravitational pull is eternal and inescapable.

That's not why we talk about China more than India. But we are talking about the right country.

[Blue3]

Because India is not a real nation state yet.

? Yes it is.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They have. I've been there. I know people there. I've studied it.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't need "Hindu supremacy."' They already have a pan-ethnic, pan-religious, strong national identity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think of the history of the United States then? Or basically any country? Plenty of cultural changes over the last 300 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The China-worship here is really bad.

India has never been dominated by invaders, at least not in recorded history. Yes, the Mughal Muslims and the British ruled it for centuries... but India itself remained unchanged and resilient. Even when homegrown radicals, like the Buddha, emerged, you see how Hinduism just absorbed some ideas, and now the number of Buddhists in India are quite small, more dominant in other countries.

[Green Line]

The British dominated India, and they changed india quite a bit while doing so.

[Blue3]

The British dominated India, and they changed india quite a bit while doing so.

But the core of India remained unchanged. India would have evolved regardless, as all countries are always evolving.

India is a state. And it is set to become the #1 economic superpower in the world, surpassing China.

[Beet]

India may surpass China, but it is a long way from it now. Generally speaking, I prefer not to make projections far out into the future. In the 1980s, it was predicted Japan would surpass the US, and in the 1960s, it was predicted the Soviet Union would surpass the US. Neither came about.

India does have the advantage of a soon-to-be larger population, but it's worth noting that India's economy was larger than China's as recently as 1984, so even if it did happen, it would just be a return to form. No one was raving about how great India's economy was in 1984. Both countries potentially surpassing the US in economic size is the far bigger story long-term.

[Santander]

India has never been dominated by invaders, at least not in recorded history. Yes, the Mughal Muslims and the British ruled it for centuries... but India itself remained unchanged and resilient. Even when homegrown radicals, like the Buddha, emerged, you see how Hinduism just absorbed some ideas, and now the number of Buddhists in India are quite small, more dominant in other countries.

India was not India when the Mughals or the British got there. India became India after the partition. It is a modern political construct as much as Pakistan or Bangladesh are.

Yes, there are ancient and enduring cultures that exist within the boundaries of India. The only way for the political construct of India to become a true nation state is to, if not melt completely into one supreme culture, to at least fuse together to create a cultural gradient rather than a cultural patchwork. You could say India is the country equivalent of say, Danaher, where the holding company is simply a legal entity that serves as a container for its constituent companies which remain distinct and separate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think of the history of the United States then? Or basically any country? Plenty of cultural changes over the last 300 years.

America is culturally English.

[Kingpoleon]

America has the potential to hasten India's economic rise. An economic pact between Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, America, Australia, and other democratic Asian countries which places India ahead of China would do wonders for the Indian economy.

[Zuza]

India is bound to become the largest economy in the world if there won't be major breakthroughs in robotics and artificial intelligence - which is extremely unlikely. India will have a plenty of cheap labor force, sure, which would be a crucial advantage now, but depending on how well machines will be able to replace humans in the future, India's enormous population could become a liability rather than an asset. China, by the way, invests in robots heavily (and apparently sees them as a solution to it's forthcoming demographic problems), from what I know.

That doesn't mean India won't be the largest economy and the most important superpower. Demographics will still matter (it just will matter less than now), and population size isn't India's only advantage, and China and other possible contenders of India have their own problems. I just want to remind how drastically technologies change anything: say, if personal computer was invented 10 years earlier or 10 years later, we would live in a very different world. And since we don't know precisely, when and where major technological breakthroughs of the future will happen, we never can be sure in our projections and predictions.

But the main reason why people rarely speak about the "Indian century" is not what I said, but just that India keeps a low profile, doesn't attract much attention and has very little interest (yet?) in what happens outside of South Asia.

And I'm curious what "other prospective countries" did you mean?

By the way, Nigeria is projected to have roughly as many people as India and China by 2100, but such predictions, of course, are even less reliable. It's possible that by 2100 all or most of the nation states, including Nigeria and India, will die out.

[Zuza]

In the 1980s, it was predicted Japan would surpass the US

Yes, but I'm very curious what was the basis for this prediction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it wasn't great, obviously. But it will be great if the predictions we are discussing will come true.

[Dereich]

By the way, Nigeria is projected to have roughly as many people as India and China by 2100, but such predictions, of course, are even less reliable. It's possible that by 2100 all or most of the nation states, including Nigeria and India, will die out.

The reason nobody talks about THAT is because the estimates are almost certainly wrong. Nigerian population estimates are based on census figures that are widely manipulated for political gain. While the population of Nigeria is large and growing, you can probably tack a few decades on to any estimate of their growth to make up for that.

[Storebought]

China's GDP per capita is $8000. India's is $1700. That's a big gap to overcome, especially since they are nearly equal in population. Even worse for India if its GDP gain were primarily due to population increase.

[jaichind]

India may surpass China, but it is a long way from it now. Generally speaking, I prefer not to make projections far out into the future. In the 1980s, it was predicted Japan would surpass the US, and in the 1960s, it was predicted the Soviet Union would surpass the US. Neither came about.

India does have the advantage of a soon-to-be larger population, but it's worth noting that India's economy was larger than China's as recently as 1984, so even if it did happen, it would just be a return to form. No one was raving about how great India's economy was in 1984. Both countries potentially surpassing the US in economic size is the far bigger story long-term.

The 1984 is more of a function current exchange rates when the RMB was particularly weak.  I always liked

Angus Maddison's historical data sets for global GDP comparison

www.ggdc.net/maddison/historical_statistics/horizontal-file_02-2010.xls

That India's economy might be bigger than PRC a few decades from now would not be a big surprise. If anything India and China sharing the top two spots is reversion of historical trends the last couple of thousands of years.   Which one is ahead is more of a function of "which century is a better century for both economies."  

At 1 AD India was ahead because of around that time Eastern Han was in clear decline.
At 1000 AD India was ahead due to the China civil wars related to the fall of the Tang dynasty
At 1500 AD it was a tie due to the 100+ years of stability of the Ming dynasty while in India the Delhi Sultanate has not really recovered from the chaos resulting from Tamerlane's invasion
At 1600 AD China was ahead because while the Ming was in decline it was mostly stable while in India the Mughuls were fighting all sorts of wars to unify India
At 1700 AD India was slightly ahead due to the still recovering China from the Ching-Ming civil wars while in India the Mughuls have consolidated their rule
In 1800 AD China was way ahead due to the peace of the Ching dynasty while in India it was total chaos resulting from the fall of the Mughul Empire.

From 1820-1913 China had a bunch of civil wars, specially with Taiping while India was at peace due British Raj.  As a result by 1913 the China lead over India was fairly small while both are being overtaken by UK Germany USA and Russia.

By 1950 both had fell further down the rankings although PRC had a small lead over India. There can be no greater indictment of the Nehru-Gandhi regime than the fact that if anything the PRC increased its lead over India slightly over the 1950-1978 period despite the insane policies of Mao and his clique.

Of course we all knew what took place between 1978 to fairly recently where economic reforms has created a very large gap between PRC and India.  Of course now as the PRC gets closer to the economic frontier growth will slow down and if India play its cards well the long catch-up that India is due will come slowly and surely over the next few decades.


According to Maddison's data, the PRC GDP in 2008 was around 17.5% of world GDP, roughly where it was in 1870.  While India's GP in 2008 was around 6.7% of world GDP way below its levels in 1870 (12.2%) and slightly below its 1913 levels.  So overall India as a lot more room to grow to gets to its historical norm.

[Zuza]

By the way, Nigeria is projected to have roughly as many people as India and China by 2100, but such predictions, of course, are even less reliable. It's possible that by 2100 all or most of the nation states, including Nigeria and India, will die out.

The reason nobody talks about THAT is because the estimates are almost certainly wrong. Nigerian population estimates are based on census figures that are widely manipulated for political gain. While the population of Nigeria is large and growing, you can probably tack a few decades on to any estimate of their growth to make up for that.

Such discrepancies are not uncommon, especially in developing countries, although we can safely say that Nigeria already has more people than Russia or Japan, and it's population is one of the fastest-growing in the world. But anything depends on whether Nigeria's birth rate will decrease as slowly as in the recent decades or there will be a rapid decline in birth rate like the ones that happened in China in 70s or in Iran in 90s.

[jaichind]

What is ironic about this article is that as soon as it came out, this happens

http://www.businessinsider.in/India-falls-behind-China-in-economic-growth-and-PM-Modi-should-be-worried/articleshow/58963704.cms

As it seems India Q4 2016 GDP growth fell behind PRC.  It seems this is because of the Indian demonetization which in many ways is illogical but I can see the point behind it.  This development is a bit of a surprise to me as I always thought of the demonetization has hitting the informal sector but should not impact formal sector growth which it seems it did.  Anyway I am not asserting that India long term growth potential is impacted which it is not.  It is just funny that this thread was created and then the numbers diverged, for now.

What is not as funny for the Indian economy is the new law banning cow slaughter.  This new law, which is being blocked by the courts for now, would have a huge impact on the Indian rural economy. 
It is a smart political move by the ruling BJP but this law will reduce the economy marginal value of cows and actually reduce the cow population as more cows will be let go to wander in the wild and cities since the Indian farmer would have less insensitive to feed the cow once its milking value is gone.  The cow meat industry is a large rural informal industry in India and is a large export sector for India.  I suspect cow slaughter will continue but will go even more underground in the future if this law is allowed to go into effect.

[vanguard96]

What is ironic about this article is that as soon as it came out, this happens

http://www.businessinsider.in/India-falls-behind-China-in-economic-growth-and-PM-Modi-should-be-worried/articleshow/58963704.cms

As it seems India Q4 2016 GDP growth fell behind PRC.  It seems this is because of the Indian demonetization which in many ways is illogical but I can see the point behind it.  This development is a bit of a surprise to me as I always thought of the demonetization has hitting the informal sector but should not impact formal sector growth which it seems it did.  Anyway I am not asserting that India long term growth potential is impacted which it is not.  It is just funny that this thread was created and then the numbers diverged, for now.

What is not as funny for the Indian economy is the new law banning cow slaughter.  This new law, which is being blocked by the courts for now, would have a huge impact on the Indian rural economy. 
It is a smart political move by the ruling BJP but this law will reduce the economy marginal value of cows and actually reduce the cow population as more cows will be let go to wander in the wild and cities since the Indian farmer would have less insensitive to feed the cow once its milking value is gone.  The cow meat industry is a large rural informal industry in India and is a large export sector for India.  I suspect cow slaughter will continue but will go even more underground in the future if this law is allowed to go into effect.

Modi's grab for revenue via demonetization is purely to build the power of the Indian bureaucracy. I don't think it has the people in mind as long as their coffers are lined.

Now the news is that India is getting concessions from defense contractors including an offer reportedly that Lockheed will move F-16 production to India from Fort Worth, TX.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-martin-signs-pact-tata-135540585.html

India is building their own mass welfare-warfare state.

India has a great resource in its people and their very detailed education. However the bureaucracy and inter-state rules to prevent trade with the US from my personal experience were extremely strict.

In the Fraser Institute's 2014 report on economic freedom India is comparable to China, ahead of Brazil, and behind Russia on economic freedom. Surprisingly they are well ahead on size of government but unsurprisingly lag in sound money and freedom to trade internationally. I'd be interested to see the newer numbers now with Modi

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom/dataset?countries=BRA,CHN,IND,RUS&min-year=2&max-year=0&page=dataset&filter=1&most-free=1&quartile2=1&quartile3=1&least-free=1&year=2014