The startling growth in China and India has been the global economic story of the last decade. So far, the Chinese gains have been stronger, but new research argues that India may come out on top in the long run.
The economic letter by W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, both of the Dallas Fed, looks at the diverging paths the two economies have taken. While China has focused on the traditional route of industrialization and production, creating a low-wage export giant, India has been more focused on the services sector, using its English-speaking population to man call centers and data-processing firms.
Though on separate paths, the gains have been impressive. 'The new policies have led to rapid economic development. China's real per capita income has grown an average of 8.4% a year since 1995, climbing to $4,766. India's 5% average annual growth has raised per capita income to $2,534,' Cox and Alm write.
The two nations face similar challenges. In order to keep growing, India and China must both push their development processes further along, offering more sophisticated goods and services. But India may have more room to expand.
'About 45% of China's workforce remains in the countryside; 30% is in services and 25% in industry. Seventy percent of India's workers are still on the farm, leaving services at 20% of the labor force and industry at 10%,' Cox and Alm write. 'Labor migrating from rural areas can usually go to work doing the rote tasks of factories, so industry often takes the lead in economic development. This may provide a growth spurt, but research shows industry eventually bumps up against a ceiling at about 30% of the labor force and a per capita income of $20,000. Beyond these levels, further expansion of goods production doesn't raise income, and economic progress comes from increasing services' share of the economy.'
In addition, the economic climate may be becoming more conducive to the Indian model than the Chinese. A global slowdown and possible recession will damp demand for both economies' exports, but is likely to hit China harder. Meanwhile, surging energy costs are making cheap exports from China look more expensive, while most of India's exports don't require transport costs. The Internet is a far more affordable means of distribution than cargo ships.
***分割符***
中国和印度的惊人增长可谓过去十年全球经济领域的一件大事。迄今为止，中国的增长势头更为迅猛，但新的研究表明，从长远来看印度可能后来居上。
达拉斯联邦储备银行(Dallas Fed)的W&#149;迈克尔&#149;考克斯(W. Michael Cox)和理查德&#149;阿尔姆(Richard Alm)撰写的经济通讯着眼于中印两国的不同发展道路。中国走的一直是推进工业化&#12289;发展制造业的传统老路，造就了一个低薪酬的出口大国，而印度则更注重服务领域，利用其有大量国民会说英语的优势发展呼叫中心和数据处理业务。
虽然两国发展道路不同，但都取得了极大的成果。考克斯和阿尔姆写道，新的政策导致经济迅速发展。自1995年以来，中国实际人均收入平均每年增长8.4%，现已升至4,766美元。印度人均收入每年平均增长5%，目前为2,534美元。
两国面临着同样的挑战。为了保持经济增长，印度和中国都必须推动产业升级，创造出更高端的商品和服务。但印度的扩展空间可能会更大。
考克斯和阿尔姆写道，中国的劳动力大约有45%留在农村；30%在服务行业，25%从事工业。而印度农村劳动力仍占总劳动力的70%，从事服务业和工业的比例分别为20%和10%。从农村地区转移出来的劳动力通常会从事工厂的简单工作，因此工业常常在经济发展过程中一马当先。这会促使经济突飞猛进，但研究表明，工业发展到极限也就能为30%的劳动力提供就业，使人均收入达到2万美元，超出这一水平，即使进一步扩大商品生产也无法提高国民收入，经济的进一步发展有赖于提高服务业在经济中的比重。
此外，经济大环境或许也更有利于印度的发展模式。全球经济发展减缓并可能陷入衰退，会影响对两国出口产品的需求，但给中国造成的打击可能更为沉重。与此同时，激增的能源成本会抬高中国廉价出口商品的价格，而印度大多数出口商品都不需要运输成本。作为营销途径，互联网的成本比货船低得多。
