Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth?

Translator: Lenka Tušar Reviewer: Klavdija Cernilogar

My topic

Moja današnja tema

is economic growth in China and India.

je gospodarska rast na Kitajskem in v Indiji.

And the question I want to explore with you

Vprašanje, na katerega želim danes odgovoriti,

is whether or not

je, ali je demokracija

democracy has helped or has hindered

spodbujala ali zavirala

economic growth.

gospodarsko rast.

You may say this is not fair,

Morda se vam ne zdi pravično,

because I'm selecting two countries

da sem izbral ti dve državi,

to make a case against democracy.

da bi nasprotoval demokraciji.

Actually, exactly the opposite

Pravzaprav bom poskušal

is what I'm going to do.

storiti ravno nasprotno.

I'm going to use these two countries

Na primerih teh dveh držav

to make an economic argument for democracy,

bom poskušal z gospodarskega stališča podpreti demokracijo

rather than against democracy.

in ne nastopiti proti njej.

The first question there

Prvo vprašanje je,

is why China has grown so much faster

zakaj se je Kitajska razvila toliko hitreje

than India.

kot Indija?

Over the last 30 years,

Zadnjih 30 let

in terms of the GDP growth rates,

je v smislu stopenj rasti BDP

China has grown at twice the rate of India.

Kitajska rasla dvakrat hitreje od Indije.

In the last five years,

Zadnjih pet let

the two countries have begun to converge somewhat

pa sta se državi približevali

in economic growth.

v gospodarski rasti.

But over the last 30 years,

A zadnjih 30 let

China undoubtedly

je Kitajski vseeno šlo

has done much better than India.

mnogo bolje kot Indiji.

One simple answer

Preprost odgovor bi bil,

is China has Shanghai and India has Mumbai.

da ima Kitajska Šanghaj, Indija pa Mumbaj.

Look at the skyline of Shanghai.

Poglejte nebo v Šanghaju.

This is the Pudong area.

To je okrožje Pudong.

The picture on India

Slika v Indiji

is the Dharavi slum of Mumbai

prikazuje revno naselje Dharavi v Mumbaju

in India.

v Indiji.

The idea there

Preko teh dveh slik

behind these two pictures

želim prikazati,

is that the Chinese government

da kitajska vlada

can act above rule of law.

lahko deluje mimo zakona.

It can plan

Lahko načrtuje

for the long-term benefits of the country

dolgoročne koristi za državo,

and in the process,

pri čemer

evict millions of people --

preseli milijone ljudi,

that's just a small technical issue.

kar predstavlja le majhno tehnično skrb.

Whereas in India, you cannot do that,

V Indiji to ne gre,

because you have to listen to the public.

saj je treba upoštevati javnost.

You're being constrained by the public's opinion.

Razvoj omejuje javno mnenje.

Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

Celo premier Manmohan Singh

agrees with that view.

se strinja s tem.

In an interview

V intervjuju

printed in the financial press of India,

za nek indijski finančni časnik,

He said that he wants to make Mumbai

je dejal, da želi iz Mumbaja narediti

another Shanghai.

naslednji Šanghaj.

This is an Oxford-trained economist

Čeprav gre za ekonomista, šolanega na Oxfordu,

steeped in humanistic values,

ki sledi humanističnim vrednotam,

and yet he agrees

kljub temu podpira

with the high-pressure tactics of Shanghai.

agresivne metode Šanghaja.

So let me call it the Shanghai model of economic growth,

To bom poimenoval šanghajski model gospodarske rasti,

that emphasizes the following features

ki poudarja sledeče značilnosti

for promoting economic development:

spodbujanja gospodarske rasti:

infrastructures, airports,

infrastruktura, letališča,

highways, bridges, things like that.

avtoceste, mostovi in podobno.

And you need a strong government to do that,

Za njihovo izvedbo je potrebna močna vlada,

because you cannot respect private property rights.

saj spoštovanje pravice do zasebne lastnine ne pride v poštev.

You cannot be constrained by the public's opinion.

Mnenje ljudi ne sme biti ovira.

You need also state ownership,

Potrebno je tudi državno lastništvo,

especially of land assets,

še posebej zemljišč,

in order to build and roll out infrastructures

da se lahko hitro zgradijo

very quickly.

in napeljejo povezave.

The implication of that model

Uvedba takega modela kaže,

is that democracy

da je demokracija

is a hindrance for economic growth,

ovira za gospodarsko rast

rather than a facilitator of economic growth.

in ne spodbuda zanjo.

Here's the key question.

V tem tiči ključno vprašanje.

Just how important are infrastructures

Kako pomembne so povezave

for economic growth?

za gospodarsko rast?

This is a key issue.

To je ključnega pomena.

If you believe that infrastructures are very important for economic growth,

Če ste mnenja, da so povezave za rast zelo pomembne,

then you would argue a strong government is necessary

boste najbrž trdili, da je močna vlada

to promote growth.

nujna za spodbujanje rasti.

If you believe

Če pa mislite,

that infrastructures are not as important as many people believe,

da povezave niso tako bistvene,

then you will put less emphasis

boste dali manj poudarka

on strong government.

na močno vlado.

So to illustrate that question,

Za oris tega vprašanja

let me give you two countries.

je tu primer dveh držav.

And for the sake of brevity,

Da bo bolj jedrnato,

I'll call one country Country 1

naj bo prva Država 1

and the other country Country 2.

in druga Država 2.

Country 1

Država 1

has a systematic advantage over Country 2

je v sistematični prednosti pred Državo 2

in infrastructures.

na področju infrastrukture.

Country 1 has more telephones,

Država 1 ima več telefonskih povezav

and Country 1 has a longer system of railways.

in daljši železniški sistem.

So if I were to ask you,

Če bi vas vprašal,

"Which is China

"Katera je Kitajska,

and which is India,

katera je Indija

and which country has grown faster?"

in katera se je razvila hitreje?",

if you believe in the infrastructure view,

boste podporniki pomena povezav dejali,

then you will say, "Country 1 must be China.

"Država 1 je gotovo Kitajska,

They must have done better, in terms of economic growth.

saj ima gotovo hitrejšo gospodarsko rast,

And Country 2 is possibly India."

Država 2 pa je najbrž Indija."

Actually the country with more telephones

Država z obsežnejšim telefonskim omrežjem

is the Soviet Union,

je pravzaprav Sovjetska zveza,

and the data referred to 1989.

podatki pa so iz leta 1989.

After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones,

Kmalu po objavi izjemnih statističnih podatkov o telefonih

the country collapsed.

je država propadla.

That's not too good.

Kar ni preveč dobro.

The picture there is Khrushchev.

Na sliki je Hruščov.

I know that in 1989

Vem, da leta 1989

he no longer ruled the Soviet Union,

ni več vodil Sovjetske zveze,

but that's the best picture that I can find.

a boljše slike nisem našel.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Telephones, infrastructures

Telefonske in ostale povezave

do not guarantee you economic growth.

ne zagotavljajo gospodarske rasti.

Country 2, that has fewer telephones,

Država 2, ki ima manj telefonov,

is China.

je Kitajska.

Since 1989,

Od leta 1989

the country has performed at a double-digit rate

se je država razvijala v dvomestnih enotah

every year for the last 20 years.

vsako leto zadnjih 20 let.

If you know nothing about China and the Soviet Union

Če o Kitajski in Sovjetski zvezi ne veste ničesar

other than the fact about their telephones,

razen podatkov o telefonskih povezavah,

you would have made a poor prediction

bi lahko napačno predvideli

about their economic growth

njuno gospodarsko rast

in the next two decades.

za naslednji dve desetletji.

Country 1, that has a longer system of railways,

Država 1, ki ima daljši železniški sistem,

is actually India.

je pravzaprav Indija,

And Country 2 is China.

Država 2 pa je Kitajska.

This is a very little known fact

Gre za zelo slabo poznano dejstvo

about the two countries.

o obeh državah.

Yes, today China has a huge infrastructure advantage

Danes ima Kitajska veliko boljše povezave

over India.

kot Indija.

But for many years,

A dolgo časa,

until the late 1990s,

do poznih devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja,

China had an infrastructure disadvantage

je Kitajska imela slabše povezave

vis-a-vis India.

v primerjavi z Indijo.

In developing countries,

V državah v razvoju

the most common mode of transportation

so najpogostejše prevozno sredstvo

is the railways,

železnice,

and the British built a lot of railways in India.

ki so se v Indiji izjemno razvile pod britansko vladavino.

India is the smaller of the two countries,

Indija je manjša od Kitajske,

and yet it had a longer system of railways

a je do poznih devetdesetih let

until the late 1990s.

imela daljši železniški sistem.

So clearly,

Očitno

infrastructure doesn't explain

infrastruktura ne pojasni,

why China did better before the late 1990s,

zakaj je pred poznimi devetdesetimi leti Kitajski šlo bolje

as compared with India.

kot Indiji.

In fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide,

Če pogledamo primere na svetovni ravni,

the evidence is more supportive of the view

ti bolj podpirajo načelo,

that the infrastructure are actually the result of economic growth.

da so povezave pravzaprav posledica gospodarske rasti.

The economy grows,

Ko gospodarstvo raste,

government accumulates more resources,

vlada pridobi več sredstev,

and the government can invest in infrastructure --

ki jih lahko vloži v izgradnjo infrastrukture,

rather than infrastructure being a cause

ki torej ni razlog

for economic growth.

za gospodarsko rast.

And this is clearly the story

V tem primeru gre očitno

of the Chinese economic growth.

za rast kitajskega gospodarstva.

Let me look at this question more directly.

Vrnimo se bolj neposredno k vprašanju.

Is democracy bad for economic growth?

Je demokracija ovira za gospodarsko rast?

Now let's turn to two countries,

Vzemimo dve državi,

Country A and Country B.

Državo A in Državo B.

Country A, in 1990,

Država A je imela leta 1990

had about $300 per capita GDP

300$ BDP na prebivalca,

as compared with Country B,

v primerjavi z Državo B

which had $460 in per capita GDP.

s 460$ BDP na prebivalca.

By 2008,

Do leta 2008

Country A has surpassed Country B

je Država A prehitela Državo B,

with $700 per capita GDP

in sicer s 700$ BDP na prebivalca

as compared with $650 per capita GDP.

v primerjavi s 650$ BDP na prebivalca.

Both countries are in Asia.

Obe državi sta azijski.

If I were to ask you,

Če bi vas vprašal,

"Which are the two Asian countries?

"Za kateri azijski državi gre

And which one is a democracy?"

in katera ima demokratični sistem?",

you may argue,

bi morda trdili,

"Well, maybe Country A is China

"Država A je najbrž Kitajska,

and Country B is India."

Država B pa Indija."

In fact, Country A

Država A je pravzaprav

is democratic India,

demokratična Indija,

and Country B is Pakistan --

Država B pa Pakistan,

the country that has a long period

država z dolgoletno

of military rule.

vojaško vladavino.

And it's very common

Zelo pogosto

that we compare India with China.

primerjamo Indijo in Kitajsko.

That's because the two countries

Razlog tiči v tem, da imata obe

have about the same population size.

približno enako število prebivalcev.

But the more natural comparison

A bolj primerna je pravzaprav primerjava

is actually between India and Pakistan.

med Indijo in Pakistanom.

Those two countries are geographically similar.

Ti dve državi sta si geografsko podobni.

They have a complicated, but shared common history.

Njuni zgodovini sta zapleteni, a se prepletata.

By that comparison,

Na podlagi te primerjave

democracy looks very, very good

vidimo demokracijo kot zelo spodbudno

in terms of economic growth.

za gospodarsko rast.

So why do economists fall in love

Zakaj so torej ekonomistom tako všeč

with authoritarian governments?

avtoritarne vlade?

One reason is the East Asian Model.

Eden od razlogov je Vzhodnoazijski model.

In East Asia,

V Vzhodni Aziji

we have had successful economic growth stories

poznamo zgodbe o gospodarskem uspehu,

such as Korea, Taiwan,

kot so Koreja, Tajvan,

Hong Kong and Singapore.

Hong Kong in Singapur.

Some of these economies

Nekatera od teh gospodarstev

were ruled by authoritarian governments

so bila pod avtoritarnimi vladami

in the 60s and 70s

v šestdesetih, sedemdesetih

and 1980s.

in osemdesetih letih 20. stoletja.

The problem with that view

Težava pri tem je enaka,

is like asking all the winners of lotteries,

kot če bi vprašali vse dobitnike loterije,

"Have you won the lottery?"

ali so kaj zadeli.

And they all tell you, "Yes, we have won the lottery."

Rekli bodo, da so zadeli glavni dobitek.

And then you draw the conclusion

Od tu sklepate,

the odds of winning the lottery

da so možnosti dobitka na loteriji

are 100 percent.

stoodstotne.

The reason is you never go

Razlog je v tem,

and bother to ask the losers

da se nikoli ne vpraša ljudi,

who also purchased lottery tickets

ki so prav tako kupili srečko,

and didn't end up winning the prize.

a niso zadeli ničesar.

For each of these successful authoritarian governments

Za vsak primer uspešne avtoritarne vlade

in East Asia,

v Vzhodni Aziji

there's a matched failure.

obstaja primer neuspeha.

Korea succeeded, North Korea didn't.

Južni Koreji je uspelo, Severni ne.

Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn't.

Tajvanu je uspelo, Kitajski pod Maovim režimom pa ne.

Burma didn't succeed.

Burmi ni uspelo,

The Philippines didn't succeed.

Filipinom tudi ne.

If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide,

Ob pregledu svetovnih statističnih podatkov

there's really no support for the idea

ne najdemo potrditve teze,

that authoritarian governments

da imajo avtoritarne vlade

hold a systematic edge over democracies

prednost pred demokracijami

in terms of economic growth.

na področju gospodarske rasti.

So the East Asian model

Vzhodnoazijski model

has this massive selection bias --

pa je izjemno selektivno naravnan

it is known as selecting on a dependent variable,

in deluje na podlagi odvisne spremenljivke,

something we always tell our students to avoid.

kar odsvetujemo našim študentom.

So exactly why did China grow so much faster?

Zakaj je torej Kitajska napredovala toliko hitreje?

I will take you to the Cultural Revolution,

Preselimo se v čas Kulturne revolucije,

when China went mad,

ko je Kitajska pobesnela,

and compare that country's performance with India

in primerjajmo delovanje države

under Indira Gandhi.

z Indijo pod vodstvom Indire Gandhi.

The question there is: Which country did better,

Vprašanje je: kateri državi je šlo bolje,

China or India?

Kitajski ali Indiji?

China was during the Cultural Revolution.

Kitajsko je zaznamovala Kulturna revolucija.

It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution,

A kljub revoluciji je v tistem času

China out-perfomed India

Kitajska prehitela Indijo

in terms of GDP growth

v rasti BDP-ja,

by an average of about 2.2 percent every year

in sicer povprečno za 2,2 odstotka letno

in terms of per capita GDP.

BDP-ja na prebivalca.

So that's when China was mad.

To je bilo, ko je Kitajska besnela.

The whole country went mad.

Cela država je bila na nogah.

It must mean that the country

Država je torej imela

had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth

nekaj tako spodbudnega za gospodarsko rast,

to overcome the negative effects

da je premagala negativne učinke

of the Cultural Revolution.

Kulturne revolucije.

The advantage the country had

Prednost Kitajske

was human capital --

je bil človeški kapital,

nothing else but human capital.

nič drugega kot človeški kapital.

This is the world development index indicator data

Tu vidimo podatke o kazalcih svetovnega razvoja

in the early 1990s.

v zgodnjih devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja.

And this is the earliest data that I can find.

Zgodnejših podatkov nisem našel.

The adult literacy rate in China

Stopnja pismenosti med odraslimi na Kitajskem

is 77 percent

je 77-odstotna,

as compared with 48 percent in India.

v Indiji pa 48-odstotna.

The contrast in literacy rates

Razlika med stopnjama

is especially sharp

je še posebej očitna

between Chinese women and Indian women.

med kitajskimi in indijskimi ženskami.

I haven't told you about the definition of literacy.

Toda kaj pismenost pomeni?

In China, the definition of literacy

Na Kitajskem pismenost predstavlja

is the ability to read and write

sposobnost branja in pisanja

1,500 Chinese characters.

1500 kitajskih pismenk.

In India, the definition of literacy,

V Indiji pa pismenost,

operating definition of literacy,

praktična pismenost,

is the ability, the grand ability,

pomeni izjemno sposobnost ljudi,

to write your own name

da zapišejo svoje ime

in whatever language you happen to speak.

v jeziku, ki ga govorijo.

The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy

Razlika med državama v pismenosti

is much more substantial

je precej znatnejša,

than the data here indicated.

kot je tukaj prikazano.

If you go to other sources of data

Če pregledamo druge vire podatkov,

such as Human Development Index,

kot je Kazalec človeškega razvoja,

that data series,

katerega podatki

go back to the early 1970s,

segajo do zgodnjih sedemdesetih let 20. stoletja,

you see exactly the same contrast.

vidimo popolnoma enako nasprotje.

China held a huge advantage

Kitajska je imela izjemno prednost

in terms of human capital

človeškega kapitala

vis-a-vis India.

v primerjavi z Indijo.

Life expectancies:

Pričakovana življenjska doba

as early as 1965,

je bila leta 1965

China had a huge advantage in life expectancy.

bistveno višja na Kitajskem.

On average, as a Chinese in 1965,

Na Kitajskem so leta 1965

you lived 10 years more

ljudje živeli 10 let dlje

than an average Indian.

kot povprečni Indijci.

So if you have a choice

Če bi lahko izbirali,

between being a Chinese and being an Indian,

ali bi živeli na Kitajskem ali v Indiji,

you would want to become a Chinese

bi raje bili Kitajec

in order to live 10 years longer.

in živeli 10 let dlje.

If you made that decision in 1965,

Če bi se tako odločili leta 1965,

the down side of that

bi se na žalost čez leto dni

is the next year we have the Cultural Revolution.

morali spopasti s Kulturno revolucijo.

So you have to always think carefully

Take odločitve je treba vedno

about these decisions.

dobro pretehtati.

If you cannot chose your nationality,

Če ne bi mogli izbirati narodnosti,

then you will want to become an Indian man.

bi v Indiji raje bili moški.

Because, as an Indian man,

Indijci imajo namreč

you have about two years of life expectancy advantage

dve leti daljšo pričakovano življenjsko dobo

vis-a-vis Indian women.

kot Indijke.

This is an extremely strange fact.

Gre za izjemno nenavaden pojav.

It's very rare among countries

Zelo redko se zgodi,

to have this kind of pattern.

da imajo države tak vzorec.

It shows the systematic discrimination and biases

To kaže na sistematično diskriminacijo in zapostavljanje

in the Indian society

indijske družbe

against women.

do svojih žensk.

The good news is, by 2006,

Na srečo je do leta 2006

India has closed the gap

Indija zapolnila vrzel

between men and women

med moškimi in ženskami

in terms of life expectancy.

na področju pričakovane življenjske dobe.

Today, Indian women have a sizable life expectancy edge

Danes indijske ženske živijo precej dlje

over Indian men.

kot indijski moški.

So India is reverting to the normal.

Indija se torej vrača v normalne okvirje.

But India still has a lot of work to do

Še vedno pa jo čaka veliko dela

in terms of gender equality.

na področju enakosti spolov.

These are the two pictures

Ti dve sliki prikazujeta

taken of garment factories in Guangdong Province

tekstilni obrat v provinci Kanton

and garment factories in India.

ter v Indiji.

In China, it's all women.

Na primeru Kitajske vidimo same ženske.

60 to 80 percent of the workforce in China is women

60 do 80 odstotkov kitajske delovne sile

in the coastal part of the country,

na obalnem območju države so ženske,

whereas in India, it's all men.

v Indiji pa so sami moški.

Financial Times printed this picture

Financial Times je objavil to sliko

of an Indian textile factory

indijskega tekstilnega obrata

with the title, "India Poised to Overtake China in Textile."

in jo naslovil "Indija dohiteva kitajsko tekstilstvo".

By looking at these two pictures,

Ob pogledu na ti dve sliki menim,

I say no, it won't overtake China for a while.

da Kitajske ne bo prehitela še kar nekaj časa.

If you look at other East Asian countries,

V drugih vzhodnoazijskih državah

women there play a hugely important role

imajo ženske izjemno pomembno vlogo

in terms of economic take-off --

pri gospodarskem zagonu,

in terms of creating the manufacturing miracle

pri ustvarjanju proizvodnega čudeža

associated with East Asia.

Vzhodne Azije.

India still has a long way to go

Indijo čaka še dolga pot,

to catch up with China.

preden dohiti Kitajsko.

Then the issue is,

Naslednje vprašanje pa je,

what about the Chinese political system?

vloga kitajskega političnega sistema?

You talk about human capital,

Poznamo pomen človeškega kapitala,

you talk about education and public health.

izobraževanja in javnega zdravstva.

What about the political system?

Kaj pa politični sistem?

Isn't it true that the one-party political system

Mar ne drži, da je enostrankarski politični sistem

has facilitated economic growth in China?

omogočil gospodarsko rast Kitajske?

Actually, the answer is more nuanced and subtle than that.

Odgovor je veliko bolj zabrisan.

It depends on a distinction that you draw

Temelji na razliki

between statics of the political system

med statičnim političnim sistemom

and the dynamics of the political system.

in dinamičnim političnim sistemom.

Statically, China is a one-party system,

Statično gledano ima Kitajska enostrankarski,

authoritarian -- there's no question about it.

avtoritarni sistem, o tem ni dvoma.

Dynamically, it has changed over time

Z dinamičnega vidika pa se je ta sčasoma spreminjal

to become less authoritarian and more democratic.

ter postal manj avtoritaren in bolj demokratičen.

When you explain change --

Ko razlagamo spremembe,

for example, economic growth;

na primer gospodarsko rast,

economic growth is about change --

ki predstavlja spremembo,

when you explain change,

ko poskušamo to razložiti,

you use other things that have changed to explain change,

se poslužujemo primerov drugih sprememb

rather than using the constant to explain change.

in ne primerov stalnic.

Sometimes a fixed effect can explain change,

Včasih pa lahko neka stalnica

but a fixed effect only explains changes

pojasni spremembe,

in interaction with the things that change.

a le v kombinaciji z drugimi spremembami.

In terms of the political changes,

Spremembe na političnem področju

they have introduced village elections.

so prinesle vaške volitve.

They have increased the security of proprietors.

S tem so še bolj zaščitili lastnike.

And they have increased the security

To so dosegli tudi

with long-term land leases.

z dolgoročnimi najemi zemljišč.

There are also financial reforms in rural China.

Tu so tudi finančne reforme podeželske Kitajske

There is also a rural entrepreneurial revolution in China.

in revolucija podeželskega podjetništva.

To me, the pace of political changes

Zdi se mi, da se politične spremembe

is too slow, too gradual.

odvijajo prepočasi in preveč postopoma.

And my own view is the country

Prav tako se bo morala država

is going to face some substantial challenges,

spopasti s precejšnjimi izzivi,

because they have not moved further and faster on political reforms.

ker so bile reforme preskromne in prepočasne.

But nevertheless,

Kljub temu

the system has moved in a more liberal direction,

pa se je sistem usmeril na bolj liberalno,

moved in a more democratic direction.

bolj demokratično pot.

You can apply exactly the same dynamic perspective on India.

Enako dinamično stališče lahko uporabimo pri Indiji.

In fact, when India was growing

Ko je Indija rasla

at a Hindu rate of growth --

s hindujsko stopnjo rasti

about one percent, two percent a year --

za odstotek, dva na leto,

that was when India was least democratic.

je bila država najdlje od demokracije.

Indira Gandhi declared emergency rule in 1975.

Leta 1975 je Indira Gandhi razglasila izredne razmere.

The Indian government owned and operated

Indijska vlada si je lastila in nadzorovala

all the TV stations.

vse televizijske postaje.

A little-known fact about India in the 1990s

Malo znano pa je dejstvo, da je Indija

is that the country

v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja

not only has undertaken economic reforms,

izvedla ne le gospodarske reforme,

the country has also undertaken political reforms

pač pa tudi politične

by introducing village self-rule,

in uvedla vaško samoupravo,

privatization of media

privatizacijo medijev

and introducing freedom of information acts.

in zakon o pravici do obveščenosti.

So the dynamic perspective

Dinamični vidik

fits both with China and in India

torej ustreza tako Kitajski kot Indiji,

in terms of the direction.

in njunim usmeritvam.

Why do many people believe

Zakaj še vedno veliko ljudi misli,

that India is still a growth disaster?

da je indijska rast porazna?

One reason

En od razlogov je,

is they are always comparing India with China.

da Indijo vedno primerjajo s Kitajsko.

But China is a superstar

Kitajska pa je superzvezda

in terms of economic growth.

gospodarske rasti.

If you are a NBA player

Če ste košarkar v NBA

and you are always being compared to Michael Jordan,

in vas vedno primerjajo z Michaelom Jordanom,

you're going to look not so impressive.

ne boste pustili velikega vtisa.

But that doesn't mean

Kar pa ne pomeni,

that you're a bad basketball player.

da ste slab košarkar.

Comparing with a superstar

Primerjava s superzvezdniki

is the wrong benchmark.

ni ustrezno merilo.

In fact, if you compare India

Če namreč primerjate Indijo

with the average developing country,

s povprečno državo v razvoju

even before the more recent period

še pred aktualnim obdobjem

of acceleration of Indian growth --

pospešene rasti Indije,

now India is growing between eight and nine percent --

ki je trenutno med 8 in 9 odstotki,

even before this period,

še pred tem

India was ranked fourth in terms of economic growth

pa je bila Indija na četrtem mestu po gospodarski rasti

among emerging economies.

med rastočimi gospodarstvi.

This is a very impressive record indeed.

To je res občudovanja vreden podatek.

Let's think about the future:

Pomislimo na prihodnost,

the dragon vis-a-vis the elephant.

zmaj nasproti slona.

Which country has the growth momentum?

Katera država je v zagonu rasti?

China, I believe, still has

Menim, da ima Kitajska še vedno

some of the excellent raw fundamentals --

nekaj izjemnih odločilnih lastnosti,

mostly the social capital,

predvsem družbeni kapital,

the public health,

javno zdravstvo,

the sense of egalitarianism

smisel za enakopravnost,

that you don't find in India.

česar ne najdete v Indiji.

But I believe that India has the momentum.

A menim, da je v pravem zagonu Indija.

It has the improving fundamentals.

Njene odločilne značilnosti napredujejo.

The government has invested in basic education,

Vlada vlaga v osnovno izobraževanje,

has invested in basic health.

v osnovno zdravstvo.

I believe the government should do more,

Menim, da bi lahko storila še več,

but nevertheless, the direction it is moving in

a njena usmeritev

is the right direction.

je kljub temu pravilna.

India has the right institutional conditions

Indija ima prave ustanovne pogoje

for economic growth,

za gospodarsko rast,

whereas China is still struggling

Kitajska pa se še bori

with political reforms.

s političnimi reformami.

I believe that the political reforms are a must for China

Menim, da so politične reforme nujne,

to maintain its growth.

da Kitajska vzdržuje svojo rast.

And it's very important to have political reforms,

Politične reforme so zelo pomembne

to have widely shared benefits of economic growth.

za splošno širjenje pridobitev gospodarske rasti.

I don't know whether that's going to happen or not,

Ne vem, ali bo do tega prišlo ali ne,

but I'm an optimist.

a ostajam optimist.

Hopefully, five years from now, I'm going to report to TEDGlobal

Upam, da bom lahko čez pet let na dogodku TEDGlobal poročal,

that political reforms will happen in China.

da so se politične reforme na Kitajskem zgodile.

Thank you very much.

Hvala lepa.

(Applause)

(Aplavz)