In September 2019, India unveiled a "100 trillion rupees" infrastructure plan, which is a supplement to the economic and industrial leapfrog.
Judging from the current situation, this lesson has to be made up, and it is very necessary.
Which link to complement?
Secondary industry.
According to the official website of the Indian Bureau of Statistics in 2019, the country's industrial structure is as follows: 25% of the primary industry, 20% of the secondary industry, and 55% of the tertiary industry.
From the perspective of the proportion of the primary industry, this is still a transitional period in the agricultural era, but from the perspective of the proportion of the tertiary industry, it is already a stable level of developed countries.
Where did the industrial period go? Is it okay to skip the level directly without the secondary industry?
The realistic answer tells us: No!
The reason is simple, because the secondary industry is the cornerstone of material production and circulation.
In India, it's like a computer IT master without a computer.
I've seen a documentary about India: next to the highway, glittering billboards are filled with ads for cell phones, computers and holiday villas, and behind the clean and bright gas stations on the side of the road is the endless Indian countryside. In the fields, people are ploughing the fields with 3,000-year-old cattle, and in a golden rice field, there are ancient brick kilns. The photographer did his best to find only two factories along the nearly 100-kilometer route – a car assembly plant and a washing machine assembly plant.
So, when did India's leapfrog development model begin?
Checked it out, during the Nehru period.
Given that Nehru was India's first post-independence leader, we can consider this model of development "innate."
Since the 1950s, Jawaharlal Nehru has been convinced that by devoting limited financial resources to large-scale projects, India can become an industrial powerhouse after a generation of hard work.
As a result, we have seen some "leaps and bounds" of initiatives unfolding vigorously, and these "feats" seem to be somewhat out of step with India at that time.
At that time, India needed the most was rural land reform and increased grain production to solve the people's food and clothing; however, it built a large number of steel mills and aluminum smelting plants, which not only suffered heavy losses to a large extent, but also swallowed up India's precious foreign exchange reserves. While Indian farmers desperately need local irrigation projects to help them overcome the capricious monsoon, Nehru is committed to dams, many of which are now unusable and some of which have never been built. While the indian population needed to learn the basics of reading and writing, the Nehru authorities poured resources into universities for the middle class; Indians were in desperate need of antibiotics and medicines to treat malaria, but Nehru invested money in drug research, production and procurement to build new public health institutions in the city.
Interestingly, before deciding on such an economic development strategy, Nehru also conducted a comprehensive survey of India's first census since independence in 1951.
The results of the census show that the country's literacy rate is only 16%, only 51 million people can write their names among the 320 million people, the average life expectancy of the population is only 32 years, and more than half of rural children have a big belly due to protein deficiency.
At the time, some questioned why higher education received as much budgetary allocation as basic education in a country where 84 per cent of the population was illiterate. Why did New Delhi spend only 1/3 of its money on agriculture in the first five-year plan in 1952, and fall to less than 1/5 of the budget in the second five-year plan in 1957 , when 4/5 of India's population depended on agriculture for survival?
Is it nehru who has such an idea and makes such a decision, is it his own problem?
not necessarily.
According to the book The Political Economy of India, 1947-2004: Gradual Change, published by Oxford University. After India declared independence, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sent a team of experts to New Delhi to "assist" in the planning of economic strategies. At the same time, the Soviet Union, a rival of the United States at the time, also sent five experts from the National Planning Commission to India in the name of providing "advice".
MIT let Nehru engage in a liberal economy, while the Soviet Union proposed to play a state-planned economy. Therefore, after synthesizing the opinions of the two "big men", Nehru decided to industrialize through the planned economy and then let go of the play of liberalism.
But this high-achieving student graduated from Cambridge University and forgot to solve the problem of basic food and clothing before achieving industrialization.
After Nehru, India's rulers have thought of a different approach, but indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, a mother and son who are loyal fans of Nehru, quickly overturned the new model that their predecessors had just come out of in their 14 years of cross-government.
In this way, it continued until 1991.
Why 1991.
There were three reasons: the collapse of the Soviet Union in that year; the death of Rajiv Gandhi in that year; and india's foreign exchange reserves at that time were only $1 billion.
After Narasinha Rao, who studied in Britain and the United States for many years, came to power, he decided to abandon the chicken feathers left by the industrialization of the planned economy and engage in the service industry.
To be precise, it is an IT contractor for European and American companies.
Why? Because of this resource, Nehru worked hard to build an engineering and technical university and cultivated a lot of IT talents.
Thus, after 15 years of hard work, India's foreign exchange reserves have gone from $1 billion to $140 billion, and the software industry's revenue can cover the cost of oil imports – ending India's oil nightmare.
Since this road is right, let's continue to engage in it, don't do industry, and jump directly to the service industry.
It was not until a few years ago that India discovered that the original jump did not necessarily prove that it was a "genius", and it was likely that there was often a "failure" embarrassment. For example, after foreign investors came to stay for a few years, they found that the infrastructure was "failed" and left; for example, they wanted to play aerospace and found that the technology was "failed" and needed to go everywhere.
Eventually, there was the scene of "make-up lessons" mentioned at the beginning of the article.
Interestingly, due to the epidemic and the funding of infrastructure projects, india's class is also intermittent, and many projects have entered the "hibernation" mode at the beginning.
This article will be shared with you here, welcome to click to follow!
The original works of "Joke Finance" shall not be reproduced without permission!
bibliography:
1. Lloyd Rudolph and Susanna HerbedRudolf, In Search of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of India
2 Francine Frankl, The Political Economy of India, 1947-2004: Gradual Change