|
|
|
|
|
|
Author/Editor:
|
Panagariya, Arvind
|
|
|
|
|
|
Publication Date:
|
March 01, 2004
|
|
|
|
Electronic Access:
|
Free Full text
(PDF file size is 338KB).
Use the free
Adobe Acrobat Reader
to view this PDF file
|
|
|
Disclaimer: This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.
The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate
|
|
|
|
|
Summary:
Bradford DeLong and Dani Rodrik have argued that reforms in India cannot be credited with higher growth because the growth rate crossed the 5 percent mark in the 1980s, well before the launch of the July 1991 reforms. This is a wrong reading of the Indian experience for two reasons. First, liberalization was already under way during the 1980s and played a crucial role in stimulating growth during that decade. Second, growth in the 1980s was fragile and unsustainable. The more systematic and systemic reforms of the 1990s, discussed here in detail, gave rise to more sustainable growth. The paper concludes by explaining why the growth rate in India nevertheless continues to trail that of China.
|
|
|
|
Order a print copy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series:
|
Working Paper No. 04/43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject(s):
|
Economic reforms | India | China | Economic growth | China, People's Republic of
|
|
|
Author's Keyword(s):
|
India | reforms | growth | liberalization | 1980s | 1990s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
English
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Publication Date:
|
March 01, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN/ISSN:
|
1934-7073
|
|
Format:
|
Paper
|
|
Stock No:
|
WPIEA0432004
|
|
Pages:
|
37
|
|
Price:
|
|
|
|
US$15.00 )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please address any questions about this title to
publications@imf.org
|
|
|
