My recent journey through China, making it my thirty-ninth country to visit, a long-awaited addition to my travel bucket list, provided a compelling case study for understanding modern development. The trip began in the bustling industrial heartland of Guangzhou, continued through the futuristic streets of Shenzhen, included a transit flight via Shanghai, and concluded in the historic yet dynamic capital of Beijing.
Each city revealed a different facet of what scholars often call ‘the economic miracle of the 21st century’ —a remarkable transformation that has unfolded over the past three decades. Amidst gleaming skyscrapers, ultra-efficient public transit systems, and vibrant markets, I found myself constantly reflecting on how China’s progress compares to that of India, a country with a similarly large and diverse population. Both nations started from similar economic positions in 1990, yet by 2024, their developmental trajectories have clearly diverged.
They say numbers don’t lie. By comparing China and India across key dimensions—population, poverty alleviation, economic growth, urbanization, sanitation, cultural philosophies, and governance—this article offers insight into the forces shaping two of the world’s most influential economies.
Population and Poverty: A Stark Contrast
As of 2024, China and India together account for nearly 2.84 billion people, representing about 35% of the global population. Over the past three decades, these two nations have followed markedly different trajectories in population growth and poverty reduction.
In 1990, China had a population of approximately 1.14 billion, with about 66%—or 750 million people—living in extreme poverty. Meanwhile, India had a population of around 873 million, with roughly 51%—approximately 445 million people—living in extreme poverty. By 2024, China’s population has stabilized at 1.4 billion, but its poverty rate has plummeted to less than 0.5% under the national poverty line, driven by sweeping economic reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978. These reforms opened markets, spurred industrialization, and attracted foreign investment, transforming cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou into economic powerhouses.
Meanwhile, India’s population has surged to 1.44 billion, surpassing China as the world’s most populous country. While India has reduced extreme poverty to an estimated 5–7%, nearly half its population remains below the $5.50 per day poverty line, reflecting slower and uneven development.
China’s success stems from sustained economic growth, targeted poverty alleviation programs like dibao cash transfers, rural development initiatives, and investments in education and healthcare. Its GDP per capita soared from $318 in 1990 to $13,000 in 2024, supported by near-universal literacy and rising life expectancy. In contrast, India’s post-1991 liberalization boosted its GDP per capita to $2,500 by 2024, but a large informal economy, inconsistent policy implementation, and infrastructural challenges have hindered broader poverty reduction.
Urbanization: Planned Cities vs. Organic Growth
In 1990, both China and India were predominantly rural, with urban populations at 26% in China and 25.7% in India. Over the following decades, however, their urban development paths diverged significantly.
By 2024, China’s urban population had surged to 65%, encompassing over 900 million people. This transformation was driven by state-led urbanization, characterized by centralized planning, large-scale infrastructure investments, and strategic use of state-owned land policies to fund development. In contrast, India’s urban population reached 36% in 2024, totaling around 520 million people. While cities like Mumbai display remarkable vibrancy and economic dynamism, they also face challenges from unplanned expansion. Decentralized governance, inconsistent regulatory enforcement, and inadequate infrastructure have led to slum proliferation and uneven urban development.
Unlike China’s top-down planning, Indian cities often grow organically—sometimes chaotically—reflecting local socio-economic pressures rather than coordinated policy.
Philosophical Influences: Discipline vs. Diversity
China and India’s developmental paths are deeply shaped by their philosophical traditions. China’s governance reflects Confucian values of discipline, hierarchy, and collectivism, enabling centralized control, social harmony, and rapid economic progress. In contrast, India’s political and social fabric draws on Dharmic philosophies, emphasizing individual duty and moral order. This fosters pluralism and diversity but poses challenges for implementing uniform reforms.
Hygiene and Health: A Tale of Two Nations
In China, by the late 1970s, about 85% of rural residents and 100% of urban dwellers had access to health insurance. By 2024, cities like Shenzhen and Beijing boast clean public spaces, near-universal sanitation access (99%), and a national life expectancy of 78 years—reflecting the long-term success of early government efforts in public health.
India’s Swachh Bharat Mission improved sanitation coverage, but many current government policies remain visionary without effective execution. With a life expectancy of 71 years, India shows progress but continues to face disparities.
Governance: Centralized Control vs. Federal Flexibility
The Communist Party of China (CPC) maintains a centralized governance system that ensures uniform policy implementation across the country. Sub-provincial spending is closely guided by central directives, enabling consistent execution of national priorities while limiting local discretion. This top-down approach has driven large-scale, coordinated development. Although fiscal disparities persist, they are managed through central oversight, ensuring alignment with broader national objectives.
India’s federal structure grants states considerable autonomy in policy-making and resource allocation. This has resulted in diverse developmental outcomes across the country. States such as Gujarat and Maharashtra have made significant strides in infrastructure and industrial growth, Kerala consistently ranks high on human development indicators (HDI), and Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have emerged as leaders in the information technology sector. However, other regions continue to lag due to disparities in resources and administrative capacity. While this decentralized model encourages innovation and tailored, local solutions, it also contributes to uneven development across the nation.
Conclusion
China’s transformation—lifting 750 million people from poverty, urbanizing 65% of its population, and building world-class infrastructure—is rooted in centralized governance, Confucian discipline, and strategic reforms. India, while progressing from 1990 to 2024, faces challenges from its decentralized, diverse framework, which fosters vibrancy but complicates uniform development.
faznotes.com 
Leave a comment