Response 2

I found Meredith's arguments about the differences between China's economic growth and India's economic growth very interesting. We've talked about the relationship between economic reform and the political system of a state, and I think the Chinese and Indian examples might help us define what this relationship is. It seems that Meredith is arguing in the chapter "The Spinning Wheel to the Fiber-Optic Wire" that India's democracy has in fact hindered its economic growth, whereas the Chinese pseudo-communist system (or "state-capitalism" as it is described by one analyst Meredith mentions) has been one of the major factors that has contributed to China's rapid growth. I found one point particularly interesting, that is that Indian politicians are accountable to the their citizens, and in order to be reelected they cannot enact the pro-business policies that would lead to the buildup of India's infrastructure, which would lead to the growth of its economies. In China, the Communist Party has made a point to make economic reforms before political reforms, which means that the party controls all aspects of the economy, virtually destroying any opposition to its policies. 

Whereas Meredith does not seem to take a stance on whether she believes the Indian model is preferable to the Chinese model, Buruma argues strongly in his article "What Beijing Can Learn from Moscow" that the Chinese model is the wrong way to go about gradual democratization. Whereas Gorbachev enacted an abrupt overhaul of the political system in Russia, enabling its citizens to openly speak out against the state in order to undermine the Communist regime, China has decided to have a firm hand over its citizens, not allowing any kind of political dissent, evidenced by the surpession of protests and demonstrations. The Chinese believe that the old Communist system of the 20th century is outdated and that change is needed, but it must be a gradual, controlled change. Buruma's fear is that the Chinese people, without an outlet to express their frustrations with the state, will eventually "explode one day." 

So what is the preferred system? Is it that of India, China, or Russia? It seems that there are advantages and pitfalls to each system. India, though a democracy with rights for its citizens, has had hampered economic growth, for primarily those reasons. In the Chinese model, there is massive economic growth, but its citizens do not enjoy the same rights that the Indians do. And it appears that the Russian system, because of its abrupt dissolution and transformation into a democracy, is rather unstable. Perhaps it is my Western bias, but I like the Indian model because it's liberal democratic policies allow for the flourishing of ideas and the chance of great innovation. A country with over a billion people with the potential for that kind of innovation is staggering. In each case, however, it seems these countries have to shake off the vestiges of their historical precedents, whether it be China and Russia's communism or India's socialism, in order to become true capitalist economies and liberal democratic political systems

-Patrick Foust