Is health of Democracy stabilized in world?

The coming year will be full of elections. The world's most populous democracy, India, heads to the polls, and many other big emerging markets—including Indonesia, Brazil and Turkey—will elect presidents. Add to that mid-term elections in America, voting across all 28 countries of the EU for the European Parliament and many other polls, from Afghanistan to South Africa, and 2014 will see a great global exercise in democracy. Yet many people fret that, despite all this voting, democracy is in poor shape. Turnout in elections in the rich world has been dropping since the 1970s, from more than 80% to less than 70% (in the case of European Parliament elections, turnout has fallen every time since voting began in 1979, to just 43% in 2009). Voters in many countries are rejecting mainstream parties and turning to fringe groups. In America, politics too often look dysfunctional and gridlocked. Elsewhere, from Brazil to Thailand to Ukraine, people have taken to the streets in protest. Is all this evidence that representative democracy is failing to adjust to the age of the internet and social media? Or is democracy working more or less as it should, giving opportunities to citizens to express dissatisfaction with their leaders?

Is Congress speedometer at the end point?

Election phase 2004 ended, Sonia Gandhi came to power. Far from viewing liberalization as a major success, she portrayed India as tarnished, not shining, under Vajpayee. Her focus shifted from liberalization to welfarism. Bureaucrats got the signal, “Don’t liberalize more”. Thanks to earlier reforms and global buoyancy, GDP growth soared to a record 8.5%/year, but Sonia de-emphasized this.

Next came the financial crash of 2008-09 widely blamed on excessive deregulation and corporate greed. The world over, an outcry began for stiffer regulation and more controls. This had strong echoes in India too. Liberalization was seen as having gone too far, even though it was half-baked in India compared with the Asian tigers.

Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh endeavoured mightily to revitalize decision-making since late 2012. They devised the Cabinet Committee on Investment to spread the responsibility for decisions among relevant ministries, reducing risks for any one minister or bureaucrat. But though they cleared a mammoth Rs 6 lakh crore worth of projects, there is still no boom in capital goods or construction. Implementation paralysis continues because bureaucrats still find political signals mixed, and political protection inadequate.

By itself, the May election will not be a game changer. A fragile coalition won’t have enough unity of purpose to provide clear signals to the bureaucracy. Ministers in a fragile coalition may seek quick money in the short time available.

A new government with a substantial majority and clear policies is required to send bureaucrats the signal: “Fast implementation is safe, will be rewarded.” The new government must be seen focusing on economic revival, not black money: that itself will curb court activism. It must protect bureaucrats not guilty of personal gain in scams. It must promote decisive bureaucrats and sideline ditherers. That will end implementation paralysis, and revive fast growth.

Inequality: Why aren’t the poor storming the barricades?

That’s because the surging income gap often masks a narrowing difference in the actual consumption experiences of the rich and the rest of us. 'At the turn of the 20th century, only the mega-rich had mobile phones or cars,'. 'But mobile phones are now in all universe, even as mobile phone inequality continues to grow.'... where rich follows i-phone and poor follows only mobile phone. 

Massive inequality makes life difficult for poor people to rise up, especially because of issues like personal appearance and social intelligence. 

Rich people can afford braces, face lifts, and nice clothes. Poor people, by and large, cannot. This makes it visually obvious who is poor and wealthy. 

And rich people socially interact at different level than poor people, reflecting their past experiences. Conversation will not only be difficult, but almost like two foreign languages given the differences in daily living. 

This is important, because in addition to the education, hard work, resilience, risk taking etc. always wisely suggested for poor people to improve their lot, poor people will ultimately have to interact person-to-person with wealthy people for interviews, financing, advice, and more on a path of personal economic growth.

If the rich have expectations of physical appearance and social manners that the poor find hard to meet, that's one more obstacle on the way to becoming rich, or as jouris smartly pointed out, believe that it is possible. 

One more incentive for the poor to storm the barricades, but I don't think that will happen as long as people can keep their smartphones on and their auto payments/rent met.

Especially if pot becomes legal. Then the poor will be too stoned to realize that the barricades are there at all. :)

How you see China as a world-class innovator or world-class cheater ?

China's spectacular economic rise is producing some of the world's biggest and fastest-growing companies. Does this also mean that China is an innovation power on par with America? On the one hand, boosters point to the soaring number of patents held by Chinese technology firms like Huawei and Lenovo, the number of Chinese PhDs in technical fields graduating each year and the success of internet firms like Alibaba and Tencent as evidence that China is leapfrogging to the forefront of global innovation. On the other hand, sceptics highlight the lack of rule of law and respect for intellectual property rights inside the country, widespread corporate espionage and cybertheft, and forced technology transfers as evidence that China remains a copycat and a cheat.

Particularly important as the country's export-led growth model based on cheap labour runs out of steam. Now China's leaders openly talk about the need to shift from exports to domestic consumption, and of the need to boost services. They are explicitly targeting innovation as a national priority, in the hope of speeding the shift from brawn to brain that is required to prosper in this new century's ideas economy. So is China a world-class innovator or not? What do you think?

Yes, We are developing even in space?

ISRO is the crowning jewel of India. India’s space organisation, ISRO, launched a rocket  today carrying a small, unmanned spacecraft, the Mangalyaan (“Mars vehicle”). By the end of the month, the orbiter is set to stretch its solar wings and begin anine-month trip to Mars. Officially, it will look for signs of methane on Earth’s neighbor.  successful mission would swell national pride. But as the Mangalyaan begins its journey, many might wonder how a country that cannot feed all of its people can find the money for a Mars mission. How can poor countries afford space programmes?

India is not the only emerging economy with space ambitions. There are many countries regulating with over 70 space programmes, though only a dozen of these have any sort of launch capability. In this area China’s shown their advanced capability and : last year it put a woman in space, and in December it will launch its first (uncrewed) lunar mission. 

The glance of Indian edge, Inida still has immense numbers of poor people: two-fifths of its children remain stunted from malnutrition and half the population lack proper toilets. Its Mars mission may be cheap by American (or Chinese) standards, at just $74m, but India’s overall space programme costs roughly $1 billion a year. That is more than spare change, even for a near $2-trillion economy. Meanwhile, spending on public health, at about 1.2% of GDP, is dismally low. 

Needing alter development for general requirements: Trips to the Moon and Mars may well be mostly about showing off. But most space programmes are designed to get satellites into Earth’s orbit for the sake of better communications, mapping, weather observation or military capacity at home. These bring direct benefits to ordinary people. Take one recent example: a fierce cyclone that hit India’s east coast last month killed few, whereas a similar-strength one in the same spot, in 1999, killed over 10,000. 

One more sensitive nerve of China...

Most of people in china has common complaints…Water is the worst, not at one place but most place of China  ..the reason is ; because of its scarcity, and because of its pollution...actually Northern China is running out of water, yet government is showing awkwardness to find solution..,as we believe China is developing at a fast speed that never had before.China needs some time to handle certain problems,but water gets involved with people's daily life,so it plays an urgent role in the national affairs.I hope China will be more independent and solve most difficulties on our own. Mainly water problem is bounded them to hit limits of their water resources.(Source:-The economist)

Water crisis is every where in Asia. Either there are floods or droughts. We in India have so far paid little attention to need for recycling of waste water nor do we adopt farming techniques which ensure that available water resources are utilized properly. Pollution is also a major hazard. Indeed, the enormity of the water crisis has been realized by experts but the government authorities in many states are yet to implement water conservation programmes and educate public about the water crisis. In view of above probs who cares about India & small country of Asia, every one watching the negative part of China.

Deep fry of Indian economy scenario..

Boring economies of Europe, growing at 1-2%, which is too worst so that Billions came into India, and the sudden rush of money did lead to some growth. The government in power took the entire credit for it. “We have created growth,” but reality is more than just a growth rate formula in a spreadsheet. |New real state development terminology has also made equally growth fundamental error, because of Young M&A bankers bought apartments with a slum-and-racecourse view or a slum-and-sea view. Of course, the idea was to ignore the slum and focus on the sea view or the racecourse. Now Government committed to providing a pro-business, pro-growth economic environment? Is the Indian polity will favor new capitalist system? Are we socialist or are we market driven? If we are social then a socialist country cannot turn market-friendly overnight. 

The government spent way more than it earned. Consequently, private players faced interest rates of 15% for borrowings. The government printed so many rupees, it flooded the market and the currency bought less and less. Dollars stopped coming to India. Local players took their money out too. Growth slowed and the government blamed the media, the opposition, the foreigners and even the middle class for it. But reality is more than half leaders even don’t know the calculation of GDP. Now the situation of business analyst is , who were celebrating India a few years ago, are now telling their clients how to avoid India and its unreliable regime. If the world stops trusting India, this trust will take years to rebuild and decades to stabilize.