An essay exploring various factors that have led to economic development in different historical contexts. This essay will discuss and explore the various factors that have led to economic development in India and China discussing both historical and modern contexts for both economies.Firstly, what is economic development? According to Michael Todaro (2006) economic development “is an increase in living standards, improvement in self-esteem needs and freedom from oppression as well as a greater choice”. Economic development is the development of economic wealth of countries, regions, communities for the prosperity and happiness of their society. From a policy perspective, economic development is very much multi-dimensional and broader than economic growth and can be defined as efforts that explore improvements in the economic well-being and quality of life for inhabitants of these communities by creating employment, retaining jobs and supporting or growing incomes and the tax base. So what is economic growth? Economic growth is a much narrower concept than economic development referring to the increase or growth of a specific measure, for example, national income, gross domestic product (GDP), or per capita income. National income or product is commonly expressed in terms of a measure of the aggregate value-added output of the domestic economy called gross domestic product (GDP). When the GDP of a country rises economists refer to it as economic growth. Notably, there are significant differences between economic development and economic growth and in the context of this essay, I will examine both concepts in relation to India and China’s economies.India and China are two of theoldest civilizations still extant today both of which collectively had amassedexpansive wealth reserves and for centuries were seats of immense wisdom, a feat which did not go unseen to the eyes of Europeans.It was between the mid eighteen century and early nineteen century thatEuropean perceptions shifted. For Europeans,these countries became bywords for weak, passive, primitive countries. InChina’s case, this happened around thetime of Voltaire’s commendation for the country and Montesquieu rather coolerjudgement referring to the Chinese Empire as a “despotic regime, the principleof which is fear” (Richter, M, p.237). On the other hand India’s contrastingopinions differed as was that of Sir William Jones in which he desired to learnabout all-things India whilst James Mill, a Scottish historian, economist,political theorist, and philosopher dismissed Indian history regarding it asnothing but darkness stating “the darkness, the vagueness, and the confusion,which reign in it, need not be remarked; for by these the Hindu mythology isthroughout distinguished” (1817, p.203). By the twentieth century, perceptions of Europeans toward India and China deepened, by words such as misery, wretchedness, deprivation was not far fromthe actual conditions within these countries. Two countries that were and stillremain very populous countries, for example in 1820 combined populationestimated at half a billion which by the 1900‘s seen a population increase to700 million. By the twentieth century,the population trebled. This populous status combined with being two of thepoorest countries invoked thoughts of locations for disease, famine,underdevelopment, superstition, “women with bound feet and men with long pony tails, untouchables beyond the pale andmyriads of gods with many heads and limbs”  (Tseng &Cowen, 2005, p. 1).In the mid-twentieth century, particularly in the 1960’s, both countriesreached their lowest point. Two countries, independent republics, launched ontheir path of development, suffered catastrophic famines. China’s famine inwhich the ruling class tried to hide from the outside world followed swiftlyupon the fiasco of the Great Leap Forward, an economic and social campaigncreated by the Communist Party of China led by Chairman Mao, legislation aimedat transforming the country from an agrarian economy into a socialist society.India suffered a double harvest failure both in 1965 and 1966 which brought thecountry to its proverbial knees, uncovering inadequate foreign policy whichlater heavily relied on food aid from the United States. These two countrieswere “basket cases“ (Tseng &Cowen, 2005, p. 1) inthe then fashionable terms of international diplomacy.The following forty years and weare now discussing India and China, not in terms of their misfortunes orprevious failings or ancient wisdom butas dynamic modern economies. Economies feared by other nations such as theUnited States and the United Kingdom, forexample the Economist, a weekly English newspaper had to write editorialstelling the world not to be afraid of China’s economic power and legislators inthe United States had to pass laws preventing businesses outsourcing work toIndia especially to India’s booming I.T sector notably in the areas of softwareand telecommunication services. Prior to the financial crisis and in 2004according to International Monetary Fund (IMF),China ranked the second largest economy in terms of GDP in purchasing power parity(PPP) dollars whilst India ranked fifth. Cumulatively both countries accountedfor 19.2 % of world GDP with China 11.5% and India 7.7%. This was still belowtheir share of the world population whichstood at 37.5%, with China 21% and India 16.5% (International Monetary Fund[DOHC], 2004). Comparative causes had lead to contrasting economic performancesof both countries. There were also similarities toward modernization and futureprospects for both economies. Political similarities of both countries arenotable as to their twentieth-centuryhistory and twenty-first-centurychallenges.  India and China have long historiesbut their histories have been very different. China,for the most part, has been a stable centrally run state with briefperiods of instability lacking single authority while India’s history has beenquite the opposite. India’s political authority in even any of the country’smajor territories had been greatly inadequate and non-existent. In China therewas a desire for unification toward nationalism in the twentieth century, latercalled reunification and with the arrival of World War II, China was divided. Jonathan Spence, a British-born Americanhistorian and intellectual specialising in Chinese history expresses China’sdesire for nationalism,““The solidification of such a group of new states [i.e. war lords, KMT, communists and Japanese enclaves] would return China to the situation that had prevailed before the Qin conquests of 221 B.C., during the so-called Warring States period when ten major regimes controlled the country among them; or it might bring a recurrence of the shifting patterns of authority and alliances that typified China’s history from the third to sixth century A.D., and again from tenth to the thirteenth.”(Spence, 1999, p.426).India on the other hand neverreally had any ruling political authority on the country as a whole. India hasalways been an idea in world culture for millennia. The British could be saidto have ruled over two-thirds of India with the remaining territories underparamountcy with no direct rule of which werewith native princes. It is alsonotable that the British were perhaps the first rulers of India to try a moreabsolute and hierarchical structure of power within Britain’s governingterritories. The governance of Britishpolitical authority gave India structure amongthe country’s vast territories and laid the foundations to develop a centralgovernment which enabled the current Indian government tools to implementpolicy. It is also notable that the British gave India the English languagewhich has facilitated India’s economic success even today allowing access toglobal markets, developed legal systems of property rights and introduction tothe western orientation of the super-richand elite. Furthermore, the hegemonic political ideology of the nationalistmovement, liberal democracy, was also borrowed from the foreign rulers, hence,the India we talk of today is a nineteenth-centuryproduct in more than one sense.In contrast,China never really suffered foreign rule over its territories. It wasn’t untilthe 1930’s when Japan invaded Manchuria and occupied large territories inEastern and Central China that China really suffered imperial rule. In contrastto India China’s attitude to foreigners was quite hostile, in fact thishostility led to the removal of foreigners which became the driving force forChina, unlike India, soon after gaining independence quickly attempted toobtain foreign capital from public sources, rather than private sources, andalso from a wide variety of countries rather than relying on its old colonialmasters. China’s reliant on one country, the USSR, soon became after aregretful partnership. China, unlike India,had no single hegemonic ruling ideology and the country also had to strugglewith confronting Confucianism against Western ideologies such as liberalism,Fascism and Communism. These historical accounts shapedboth countries politically and economically and it was these historical legacies that drove India and China to defineindustrialisation rather than economic development. Both countries soughtindependence from foreign capital and self-sufficiency. India and Chinafeared foreign domination and considered the State as the driving force for economicgrowth, ideologies arose such as Marxism, Leninism,Maoism in China, Gandhism in India, forged during the road to independence. It wasn’t until after the 1960’s thatboth countries adopted fresh ideologies mainly due to failings in previous administrationwith more emphasis on suiting the rhythm of the world economy and theircomparators, South Korea and Taiwan, both of which had very successful growthstrategies. Chinaand India developed their own growth strategies focusing on the steel,cement, machine making machinery industries. Indiadiverted resources from domestic consumption goods production whilst Chinainitially concentrated its efforts on the basic goods sector switched emphasison heavy as well as light industries. The1990’s brought the new economic policy toIndia with economic liberalization, including industrial deregulation,privatization of state-owned enterprises, and reduced controls on foreign tradeand investment. This had a positive effect on the economy right up until thefinancial crisis with strong economic growth mainly in the country’sknowledge-based sectors such as I.T and pharmaceuticals while China, on the other hand, received a lot offoreign capital. China’s open door policy and its attitude to policy reformimproved its human capital with rapidgrowth in their manufacturing industry. With strong economic growth andimproved human capital, another notableaspect too buoyant economic success or analternative viewpoint on economies is to look at the Human Development Indexand according to the Human Development Report, released by the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1995 China is ranked 106 while India isranked 139. Similar HDI report in 2013 places China 101st while India is ranked136. Currently, as of 2016, China is currently ranked 90 while Indiais ranked 131. China’s strong emphasis on education for all at an early age andstronger incomes have seen China progresspositively while India’s poor education record, lower incomes and inequalitiesespecially toward women have India with a lot to do towards economicdevelopment reforms.ReferencesIMF Country Report. (2004, November). Retrieved December Tuesday, 2017, from International Monetary Fund: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2004/cr04351.pdfMill, J. (1817). The History of British India Vol. 1. London: Baldwin, Craddock, and Joy.Programme, U. N. (1995;2013;2016). Human Development Reports. Retrieved December Wednesday, 2017, from United Nations Development Programme: http://hdr.undp.org/enRichter, M. (1977). The Political Theory of Montesquieu. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Spence, J. (1999). The Search for Modern China 2nd Edition . New York: W.W. Norton.Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (2006). Economic Development. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Tseng, W., & Cowen, D. (2005). India’s and China’s Recent Experience with Reform and Growth. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Get Help With Your AssignmentIf you need assistance with writing your assignment, our professional assignment writing service is here to help!Find out more