The legendary J.R.D. Tata never wanted India to become an economic super power, but a nation full of happy people. But does the quarterly growth rate of 9.2% and the recent economic performance of the country sufficient to make India a country full of happy people?
In Yesterday's THE HINDU (Jan 4, 2007), there is a news story on Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz's lecture on Making Globalisation work organised by THE HINDU. The crux of the story is very much clear from the headline in which Stiglitz is quoted as saying Development is about transforming lives, not just economies.
The extent of state intervention in the economic activity of the country has always been debated. The country followed Nehrunomics till the begining of 1990s and later shifting to LPG in the begining of 1990s. Does the shift from the Hindu growth rate to the current double digit growth rate (approximately) suggest that India is developing? It should also be remembered that the HDI rank of India is 126 out of 177 countries.
With the GDP around three-fourth of one trillion US dollars, India cannot be called a poor country. But with the population of 1.2 billion, the Percapita income falls yo $738, hardly making her a rich country.
Uncontrolled Liberalisation wont take us forward. Globalisation is indeed inevitable. But as Stiglitz mentions, globalisation needs to be democratised so that the fruits of globalisation is enjoyed by society as a whole. The state should continue to engage in education, health and rural development programmes.
Only a healthy country can be wealthy. India can be a proud and happy state only when poverty is completely eradicated.
Comments/Criticisms welcome
Note: It is the absence of definite right and wrong that makes the study of Economics interesting. You can debate all day for/against state intervention and still feel both are correct in their own way.
