Poverty

[kellner at ue.ipc.hiroshima-u.ac.jp]

Sfauthor at aol.com wrote: 
>I think the perception of India as a poor country is quite a recent one. As
>for the causes of its poverty, both relative and absolute, I don't believe
>India's post-colonial economic policies have been mentioned: five-year plans,
>emphasis on heavy industry, autarky, and so on. The soviet model.
>
>When was the last time you heard the countries that didn't follow the soviet
>model--Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, S. Korea, and now Thailand,
>Malaysia, et al--described as poor countries? Many of them were on a par with
>India in 1947.

Many countries who would, at face value, not be described as "following the
Soviet model", would still be considered as poor, which makes "following the
Soviet model" quite inconclusive (er, anaikaantika, as some people would
have it). And, alas, I have heard people describing Thailand as poor, in
terms of social standards etc. (it is hardly conceivable that a business
such as "mail-order-brides" would thrive in a non-poor country). 

What you seem to suggest is that the perception of India as being poor is
more or less caused by its adoption of a Soviet model. In other words: First
India adopted a Soviet model, then there came poverty, and then this poverty
was (correctly) perceived in other parts of the world. This, again, suggests
an absolute breaking point, an economical demarcation line, a "start from
zero", in 1947. Although this is way off my field, I would severely doubt
this, based on "Hausverstand" (common sense). 

After all, factors such as infrastructure (e.g. the rail system, harbours,
pre-existing industry sectors) would "somehow" influence whatever strategy
is taken, no? 

In still other words: Specification, please. 

Birgit Kellner
Institute for Indian Philosophy
University of Hiroshima