In this three-part series, I ask whether African leaders are looking to the Chinese and Indian experiences of development as models for their own countries.  In the first section, I introduced the topic, which is also the basis for my doctoral dissertation.  This week, I look at the similarities and differences in how China and India have developed, as well as what people mean when they talk of the “China model” or “India Model”.  The final section will address some common  concerns and questions before closing off with a couple of tentative conclusions. 

Since I last wrote, both The Economist and a blog at the Wall Street Journal have carried stories on the “China Model” and the “India Model” respectively. They join the hundreds of articles, books and blog posts that have appeared over the past decade to ask whether developing countries can learn anything from the experiences of these two emerging powers. But what exactly do pundits mean by these terms? Surely China and India are too dynamic, too unique and too diverse to speak of as models?

Although its true that both countries are “moving targets”, with great differences within their borders, we can point to certain broad differences between the contemporary Chinese and Indian experiences. The most obvious is political system: although both economies have been growing, one has done so under an authoritarian system, while the other has gone the democratic route. Those who like the China model argue that it shows bread comes before votes—that democracy is a luxury that a developing country simply cannot afford until it has taken care of basic necessities first. Those who prefer the India model argue that liberal democracy is both a spur to innovation and a safety valve for the social unrest that comes with economic growth. They also argue that you cannot measure happiness only in material terms.

The other big difference, for now, is the way in which China and India's economies are structured—and the effect this has had on society. Broadly speaking, India's is based on domestic consumption, China's on foreign investment and domestic savings. India has the globally successful corporations (think Tata, Infosys, etc) and China has the infrastructure. China has undergone an industrial revolution, so most of its workforce is employed in industry and particularly in manufacturing. India, on the other hand, has gone straight to a service-based economy, specializing in high-tech products and outsourcing. These gaps are narrowing as China and India move to patch up their weak spots, but the sources of their growth are still quite different.

Of the two, China's model attracts the most attention by far. For one, its growth rate has been higher and it has managed to reduce poverty much more effectively. But there is another important reason, referred to in just about every article touting the China model. China's model is perceived as utterly unique. Expert after expert refers to China's success in doing things “its own way”, without outside interference. Its relations with other developing countries, especially in Africa, exports this idea: its aid and investment famously comes without strings attached, allowing the leaders it deals with far more freedom. China even tells African leaders “please don't copy our model” (although the state-owned media eagerly quotes leaders who ignore this advice and announce their intentions to learn from China's experience). Those who admire the Chinese model hope that this will inspire other countries to do away with Western prescriptions of democracy, civil liberties and transparency. Those who don't like the model, fear precisely the same thing. And because India's model is so impossible to separate from its status as the world's largest democracy, it is seen as less unique.

Of course, the models are not polar opposites. Both countries can trace their periods of growth back to sweeping reforms: from 1978 for China and 1991 for India. These reforms liberalized the economies and signalled their entrances into the global market. However, neither country underwent the Washington Consensus' infamous “shock therapy”, reserving a powerful role for the state in an era where markets reigned supreme. Although China's state is the stronger of the two, both countries have governments which devise five-year plans, steer the economy and try to create a modern nation-state which transcends historical and ethnic divides. Both place a lot of faith in economic growth and science. Both might even be said to be undergoing modernization, that word so fervently attacked in recent decades. We cannot know whether they will ultimately be successful, or what that success would even look like. But it is clear that they represent two different development strategies—strategies that are tempting for leaders everywhere who might feel that the Washington Consensus has failed them.

(Image Credit - CC / Flickr - AtomicShed)