An acclaimed author and economist, Pranab Bardhan, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, specialises in political economy of development policies and international trade. He was chief editor of the Journal of Development Economics for 1985-2003 and is currently BP Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics. But not many know of his profound interest in literature, theatre and films. In his latest book on Chindia, Awakening Giants, Feet of Clay, he interestingly attempts liberating a rather dry economic subject by blending it with the realms of his long-standing interest, literature. Sarika Malhotra tries to understand how Bardhan almost struck a fine balance between the two, at the same time providing a nuanced picture of Chindia?s complex economy at a time of startling global reconfiguration and change. Excerpts:
How did you zero down on the title; ?feet of clay? is a rather interesting usage for the Awakening Giants?
Giants with a feet of clay is an old biblical expression. The idea is to convey that China and India are not just large in size and very important for the world economy, but at the same time there is a lot of hype around both. Feet of clay refers to some of the challenges that both countries face. The chapters refer not just to the achievements, but also highlight the problems facing them. If they are not addressed, the awakening giant, with feet of clay, will totter. However, both countries can learn from each other. India can learn a lot from China in terms of education, health, infrastructure, decentralisation, rewarding or punishing officials. And, China can learn from India the art of conflict management. India is an extremely heterogeneous, conflict driven country, while China is nowhere near that kind of conflict. Yet, India, with some exceptions, manages conflict much better. China can also learn from India?s vigorous private corporate sector.
The first and last chapters of the book have introductions with citations of Goh Poh Seng and Omar Khayyam. What made you think of these?
We are talking about rather dry economic subjects, so I tried to liberate it a bit. But the first and the last chapter are more speculative, more general reflections. The last chapter, Looking to the Future, has a couplet from Omar Khayyam?s Rubaiyat, which says, ?why ponder thus the future to foresee, and jade thy brain on vain perplexity? Cast off thy care, leave Allah?s plans to Him, He formed them all without consulting thee?. The message is clear? for whatever pretensions people have, they should not try to forecast and be too confident in those predictions. The first chapter?s introduction is more anecdotal. It traces back to a conversation in mid 1970s, with a colleague from the Delhi School of Economics, Dharma Kumar. She asked, if I had the freedom of choice to live in India or China, which country would I live in, ignoring the fact we didn?t speak the Chinese language. I said it depends. If I were poor, then I would probably live in China. Today, I am less sure of my answer. My somewhat evasive answer maybe on the lines of the quotation from Goh Poh Seng, which is more to do with ambiguity, ?I now know too much to really feel at home at any one place?. And this happens to me all the time, since I travel a lot. Everywhere I value a lot of things, and I also look at the problems, complexities, angularities, ambiguity in a sense that captures the spirit of the book. This personal anecdote is reflective of my general attitude for the theme.
You talk about China being authoritarian; will China ever see democracy?
It?s very difficult to predict. The government has loosened the earlier restrictions on freedom of expression, so Chinese people now express and protest more than they could earlier. However, whenever there is the slightest threat to the monopoly power of the party, they clamp down very heavily. The party would like a soft landing, keep the control, but slowly allowing for a semi-democracy. There can be a one-party dominance by relaxing some elections and provisions. In many countries, people think that it is the middle class that brings in democracy and rights. Just as it happened in South Korea and Taiwan, the middle class will bring about democracy in China. But I am not that hopeful. Chinese leadership is trying to co-opt the middle class, giving them a lot of things they want?a sense of nationalist glory. But they may succeed, they may not. There are some signs that they may not. China is sitting over a property bubble, as a result of which the middle class cannot afford to own a apartment, and that?s causing a lot of unrest.
You have an interesting reference to the works by Friedman and Prestowitz that talk about the three billion new capitalists from China and India. Do you see it happening?
That is a sarcastic reference to some of the books that became very popular mentioning the billions of capitalists from Chindia. I think both of them exaggerate the extent and beneficial affects of globalisation. Just because the numbers of China and India together are 2.5 billion people, they think with market reform everybody is a capitalist. There are hundreds and thousands of people on the street who don?t have access to credit, market, secured jobs. This book is a reaction to the sweeping generalities and hype about the two countries. Millions of poor people in both countries are scrounging for a living because the capitalist part of the economy, under state or private auspices, cannot absorb them. Out of the total Indian labourforce of 500 million, only 6% work in the private corporate sector and the corporate state sector. As many as 94% workers do not get jobs in this segment. Capitalist part of the economy is thriving, but more than 450 million people can?t get jobs in the capitalist system.
India is grappling with the effects of this exclusion, with the Maoist movement picking up. Where do you think Indian policy has gone wrong?
This is where the context to China is important. In the delivery of the basic social services, India has been extremely deficient. In education and health, India is today where China was in 1970s, long before when Chinese reforms started. China prepared the groundwork for reform by providing basic education and health for its workers and peasants. To this day, India has not succeeded in both, which is a tremendous failure for India. And it?s not about the governments not spending enough money.
Throwing money is not the solution, our delivery structure is highly deficient. In many indicators of health, India?s condition is worse than sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh. Delivery of social service is major failure on our part and that ultimately translates into accountability failure. Even though we are very proud, and rightly so about our democracy, below the provincial level our democracy is extremely deficient and at the village level it is non-existent. That translates into non -delivery of services and accountability failures, thus distorting the pattern of growth.
Difference between two Indias? is growing; can it be bridged?
It certainly can be bridged. Let?s look at some states. Gujarat has a remarkable achievement in terms of economic performance, but if you look at the health and general welfare indicators for the poor, it has not done that well. Take child malnutrition, the latest study for 2005-06 points that 45% children are underweight in Gujarat. Sub-Saharan Africa is 30%.
On the other hand, consider Tamil Nadu, which is an example that it is doable. Just about three decades back, TN was one of the poorest states, but today industries are developing, growth rate is high and with respect to human development indicators, it is one of the best in the country. So, it?s a matter of priority, it?s how seriously it becomes a political demand of people, and in response to those demands, how the administration and polity deliver.
How about West Bengal?
I am bit despondent at the moment. I don?t see things improving a great deal in the near future. The ruling party seems to be losing.
So is it good or bad for West Bengal?
It?s good for the party. A party that rules for 33 years accumulates a lot of flab, lot of undesirable elements. So if they lose, I am hoping that it will teach them a lesson to cleanse the party. Having said that, I am despondent about the party that is going to come to power. They have no constructive programme, it is essentially a kind of populist party. The way Singur has played out, I am not particularly hopeful. I feel a densely populated, largely agricultural region like West Bengal has to move out to the industry and other non-agricultural sectors, but Mamata Banerjee keeps talking that our fertile land cannot be given. She doesn?t realise that even in the most fertile land, productivity per person is declining. This land cannot sustain all the people, you have to move on to industry and services and for that some land has to be taken, including fertile land. If you take the most fertile land in WB, compare the productivity in that fertile land to manufacturing, the gap is not just 10-20%, the gap is several times. She has the sentimental slogan, maa, mati, manush, which tickles the sentimentality of the Bengalis. But that is of no concrete result. As many as 80% of the farmers? children don?t want to be in agriculture; they realise that the productivity is so low that they will remain extremely poor even on fertile land.
The problem with the ruling party has been that they went on a land acquisition programme the wrong way. They didn?t explain why they are acquiring the land and that it will provide jobs for the poor. The poor would gladly give land if you give them enough compensation, which the proposed land acquisition did not give them. Also, it reflects on the long-term failure of the ruling government with respect to education. As most children from these poor families drop out of school by the fifth standard and most factory jobs require secondary education, the poor think what is in it for me? The government has not prepared the groundwork through eduction and health for industrialisation.