A Comparative Study of India and China from the Perspectives of John MaynardKeynes and Piero Sraffa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69996/ijari.2024015Keywords:
Global Value Chain, Foreign Direct Investment, Market Flexibility, KeynesianAbstract
This study integrates Sraffian and Keynesian perspectives to analyze the manufacturing sector growth in India and China, focusing on production capabilities, technological advancements, and demand-side factors. It employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data analysis and qualitative case studies, to understand the factors driving each country's manufacturing success and to identify policy interventions for enhancing their roles in the global value chain (GVC). China's manufacturing dominance is attributed to strategic state-led industrial policies, significant infrastructure investments, and production efficiencies, exemplified by the "Made in China 2025" initiative and extensive foreign direct investment (FDI). Conversely, India's manufacturing sector shows potential for rapid growth with effective implementation of Keynesian demand-side policies and infrastructure improvements, supported by initiatives like "Make in India." Both countries can benefit from integrating Sraffian and Keynesian insights in policy-making, with China focusing on technological upgrades and domestic demand stimulation, and India targeting fiscal policies and regulatory reforms to enhance manufacturing capabilities and labor market flexibility. The study concludes with policy recommendations aimed at fostering sustainable manufacturing growth, enhancing global competitiveness, and achieving balanced economic development in This study integrates Sraffian and Keynesian perspectives to analyze the manufacturing sector growth in India and China, focusing on production capabilities, technological advancements, and demand-side factors. It employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data analysis and qualitative case studies, to understand the factors driving each country's manufacturing success and to identify policy interventions for enhancing their roles in the global value chain (GVC). China's manufacturing dominance is attributed to strategic state-led industrial policies, significant infrastructure investments, and production efficiencies, exemplified by the "Made in China 2025" initiative and extensive foreign direct investment (FDI). Conversely, India's manufacturing sector shows potential for rapid growth by effectively implementing Keynesian demand-side policies and infrastructure improvements, supported by initiatives like "Make in India." Both countries can benefit from integrating Sraffian and Keynesian insights in policymaking. China focuses on technological upgrades and domestic demand stimulation, and India targets fiscal policies and regulatory reforms to enhance manufacturing capabilities and labor market flexibility. The study concludes with policy recommendations to foster sustainable manufacturing growth, enhance global competitiveness, and achieve balanced economic development in India and China.both India and China.
References
[1] M. S. Ahluwalia, “Economic reforms in India since 1991: Has gradualism worked?,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 16(3), 2022, pp. 67-88.
[2] A. Aggarwal & N. Kumar, “Structural change, industrialization and poverty reduction: The case of India Development,” United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), 2022.
[3] P.C. Athukorala, “How India fits into global production sharing: Experience, prospects and policy options,” Indian Growth and Development Review, 6(1), 2013, 1- 31.
[4] A. Chandra, “Financial Sector Reforms and Financial Innovations in India,” Journal of Asian Economics, 15(3), 2004, 497-528.
[5] D. K. Das, “Make in India: Re-energizing manufacturing sector in India,” Journal of Commerce and Management Thought, 6(4), 2015, 689-705.
[6] B. M. Fleisher & D. T. Yang, “China’s Labor Market” China Economic Review, 17(4), 2006, 413-428. [7] P. Garegnani, “Value and distribution in the classical economists and Marx.” Oxford Economic Papers, 36(2), 1984, 291-325.
[8] M. Ghosh, “Infrastructural bottlenecks in India’s manufacturing sector,” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 49(16), 2014, 40-47.
[9] G. Gereffi, “Global value chains in a post-Washington Consensus world” Review of International Political Economy, 21(1), 2014, 9-37.
[10] J. Humphrey & H. Schmitz, “How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters?”, Regional Studies, 36(9), 2002, 1017-1027.
[11] V. Kathuria, “Enhancing manufacturing competitiveness in India: The role of technology, innovation, and skill development,” Asian Economic Policy Review, 13(2), 2018, 244-264.
[12] S. Mehrotra, A. Gandhi, P. Saha, & B.K. Sahoo, “Turnaround in India’s employment story: Silver lining amidst joblessness and informalization?”, Economic and Political Weekly, 48(35), 2013, 87-96. [13] A. Panagariya, “India: The Emerging Giant”. Oxford University Press, 2008.
[14] R. K. Rao & S. Dhar, “Value addition in manufacturing sector: A comparative analysis of India and China”, International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management (IJABIM), 9(3), 2018, 1-18.
[15] D. Rodrik, “The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy”, W.W. Norton & Company. 2013.
[16] A. Szirmai, “Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developing countries, 1950-2005”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(4), 2012, 406-420.
[17] F. Tregenna, “Characterising deindustrialisation: An analysis of changes in manufacturing employment and output internationally” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(3), 2009, 433-466. [18] World Bank. (2021), “World Development Indicators” The World Bank, Retrieved from https://databank.worldbank.org/source/worlddevelopment-indicators.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Advance Research and Innovation(IJARI, 2347-3258)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Fringe Global Scientific Press publishes all the papers under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) license. Authors have the liberty to replicate and distribute their work. Authors have the ability to use either the whole or a portion of their piece in compilations or other publications that include their own work. Please see the licensing terms for more information on reusing the work.
