Why is India poor? Classifying the reasons
Published by Yazad Jal May 21st, 2004 in Economics, IndiaBefore picking up individual issues on why India is poor, I’d like to classify the issues that came out of the comments. The classification is not going to be perfect, but it allows me to club the issues into manageable morsels. BTW, these are in no particular order.
- Corruption (I’d include lack of ethics in this)
- Lack of education
- Democracy (including universal adult franchise)
- Over population
- Poor Governance and Development Policies (includes resouce mis-utilisation, top heavy fedralism, poor development, poor plan implementation, Nehruvian socialism, not enough emphasis on cities, monarchies in politics, equality “fetish”, agriculture un-reformed, bureaucracy / redtape, opaque and uneven taxes)
- Lack of a strong middle class
- Culture (Lots of points get clubbed here. Acceptance / appeasement of poverty, “we hate being rich,” laziness, service mentality, social and religious factors, family values, caste systems, feudalism, treating women badly, Indians are happy as they are, “monsoon complacency”)
- Colonialism
- Lack of economic freedom (including lack of micro finance institutions,
- War
- Weather (Does living in the tropics make you poorer?)
If there is something I’ve missed out, or newer points that someone just thought of, please let me know. If you want to add a new point or change the classification, give me compelling reasons to do so.
On May 22 / May 24, As soon as I get the time we can start the discussion. First topic will be overpopulation.
Hi,
yes..you forgot “laws” {or lack of implementation thereof)
Can we add that under poor governance?
As a pseudo-MBA who was instructed for two years in the art of top-down analysis I would appreciate it you could qualify what you mean by the rather open-ended term “poor”? Is it on absolute terms or is it relative? What are the metrics you are using to measure our poverty(so we can know when we stopped being poor…sometime in the hopefully near future)?
“India is poor” has a rather loose interpretation unless you choose to qualify/restrict it.
I’m sorry for not having asked for these clarifications in your earlier post, but then as the cliche goes, “better late than never” :)
Hey, where will my revolutionary reason fit in ;-)
How about expanding the category, ‘lack of strong middle class’, to include ‘lower class’ also…
How does corruption make people poor? How many poor Indians do you know who became poor because of corruption?
How does lack of education make a country poor? Education > intelligence
Over-population is actually a strength, not a weakness.
I meant education is not equal to intelligence
For some reason, the less than sign got stripped out of the comment.
Jivha,
Poor in a material / absolute sense. I don’t want to get into the poverty line / GDP / per capita income debate. Largely because we are poor in almost every sense of the word and splitting hairs on “how poor” etc is a good topic for a research paper, but I’d avoid it here.
For a quick intuitive feel, let me arbitrarily fix the poverty line to be $1,000 per person per annum (not PPP, nominal exchange rate)
Ramnath, your point is well represented in “Culture”
Asli, I intend to pick up all the points mentioned above and debate them in individual posts. Can you please hold on to your comments and then repeat them when population / education / corruption are discussed? Thanks!
Yazad
Is India poor? or are Indians poor?
You may want to answer this question before you go on.
oops. Just noticed Jivha has asked a similar question.
Nitin, I’ve also replied to Jivha question. Hope the same reply will suffice for you too!
Yazad,
If you had taken up economics at any stage of your life ,you would know that a statement like”India is a poor country” is completely fallacious.
what should be considered is the people’s ability to buy the basic necessities of life.
Also,determining the poverty levels and the reasons for it is a highly complex subject.In fact Amartya sen won the Nobel Prize for his efforts to determine the many dimensions of poverty.
Akash,
If you had taken up logic at any stage in your life, you would know that to call something “fallacious” when you probably mean “imprecise” is imprecise.
Akash, I have been a student of economics since 1987. From a purely economic point of view, India is definately poor as a large proportion of her people (30%+) are unable to buy the basic necessities of life. You could argue that India is spiritually rich, or rich in happiness, but in material things we definately are not.
Studying the reasons behind poverty could very well be complex. So? Just because we may encounter complexity, we should not discuss an issue? I disagree.
BTW, you called my statement fallacious without caring to explain the fallacy. Kindly follow through otherwise we in cyberspace have a habit of ignoring those who comment simply for the soundbite value.
A quick browse informs me that I might have studied economics for more years than Mr. Akash Bansal has been on this planet.
I have one more point…..though I don’t know where to classify it. Have been thinking about it for some days now.
A factor for poverty is living in the Monsoon zone. Since our country falls in a region that is by and large assured of continuous rainfall for a couple of months every year, the motivation for development of agriculture is comparitively less.
So while are farmers are happy for 9 monsoons, when the tenth one fails, they are devastated, and the effects of one bad year carries on for decades. Also, complacence in good years leads to meagre development of irrigation and the yield from Indian land is much less. Indian farmers are simply, happy with less.
Another reason that would probably fall under bad policies by the government which perpetuate India’s status as a predominantly agrarian economy. 200 years back, all countries were heavily dependent on agricultural, with most citizens having small holdings. Over the years, they sold their land to big farmers and moved to cities or other businesses, while in India the policies have encouraged farmers with a tiny land holding to stick to his land and lead a miserable existence.
SLI has also meant that there do not exist enough industries to absorb the labour that would quit agriculture.
But….again…that falls under bad governance.
Are we talking of the same country? When has rain ever arrived on time, and in continuous flow, as you have mentioned Gaurav? Last I heard, there were people killing themselves because of lack of rains.
And two CM’s haggling over which state is more affected by draught.
Another factor of poverty Yazad, which I failed to mention in the original post is that we are living n the tropical zone. If you look, most of the impoverished nations of earth fall between the two tropics, and are close to the equator.
Will that be a factor?
For good measure, let me also mention that lack of suitable training by governments before implementing the various developmental schemes and credit facilities. If they had taken a little pain in ensuring that evrybody knew what was coming to them in the development scheme, there wouldnt be exploitation by middlemen and the rich farmers.
Tag that under Bad Governance too, and maybe the middleman effect
Gaurav, your first point which I’d call “monsoon complacency” can be placed under culture. You’ve made a hypothesis. Is there any data for it? Start collecting before we discuss the topic ;-)
Your second point does fall under bad governance. Note that fragmented land holdings is not bad per se. When there are localised calamities like floods or pests that only affect part of a disctrict, then fragmentation is a boon as some fragments of land escape the calamity.
SLI? Do you mean small scale industries — SSI?
Ravages, I’ll add a category called “Weather” (does living in the tropics make you poorer?)
Poor training falls neatly into bad governance.
I am not sure if living in the tropics makes you poorer, but at-least going by current standards, most countries in the trpoics are poor. Ethiopia, Somalia, Most African nations, India, Bangladesh, Pakistann etc.
Maybe it is got something to do with the climate. Maybe, an excess of sun causes people to sweat all their earnings out.
Also, this is a long held theory of mine. A climate can describe and explain most of what is happening in the world.
In the cooler climes, people need to do some sort of physcial labour to be warm. WHich means, over time, they develop a tendency to work hard and live frugally (in order to provide for leaner times). That mindset isnt developed in tropical climates. People, when they are warm, tend to laze, or sleep. Therefore, there is no inclination or motive to work hard and improve their status.
That is my theory. (I think I have explained it badly, but I hope you get it.)
DO add the effect of Middle men in it yaz. They play a huge part in every facet of an Indian’s life.
everything from buying/renting a house, to marrying, to rations and supplies to everything. Middle men have a say in our lives. And most of them wouldn’t bat an eyelid to fleece us.
Bad Transportation and Infrastructure is another issue. No mobilisitation of resources from one part of the country to another. Infrasturcture plays a huge part in distributing incomes and wealth across the country.
So that could be a category.
Under bad governance is another point - most of our <sarcasm>esteemed and honoured</sarcasm> politicians and leaders have absolutely no clue about economics and and related issues. Which leads to poor and often wrong policies that get through the parliament.
The middle class/brahmanical mindset. No innovation, service metality. I am not sure if other have talked about this, I think they have, and so re-iterating it. No brahman/Upper Caste Hindu wants to start a business, or do something innovative. We would rather be servants, than bosses. (Except Gujaratis and some Rajasthanis)
SO here is my list, for easy reference.
Infrastructure.
Geographical Positioning and the “Sun” factor.
Illiterate Politicans and clueless bozos beaurocracy.
Brahmanical Mindset, lack of innovation and entrepreneurship
Laziness (probably derived from the Sun and climate factor)
Power and control issues of so called leaders.
It’s 24 May, dude! Ding dong!
With regard to the weather issue - the theory was examined by Jeffrey Sachs. For a quick summary of his famous study see
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_36/c3747033.htm
This is the link to the Sachs paper on NBER
http://www.nber.org/digest/jun01/w8119.html
May 25!
Helloooooo?
Begin with the discussion already..!!!
Work has a funny way of catching up with you just when you want a breather to post on your blog. Leaving office for the day and shall post in the night. Patience my dear readers!
Lack of entrepreneurial drive. Has that been covered under any head?
You should also add health. Interesting thoughts though.
From a human factors angle, outdoor manual laborers are definitely less productive in tropical climates, especially when humidity is high. The climate also affects reasoning ability, and ability to act with precision. Whether and the extent to which the efficacy,accuracy and reasoning abilities of manual workers affects the country’s economic prospects, I’ll leave to the economists.
I still think culture doesn’t adequately cover “preoccupation with bowel movements”. :P
Hey, We’re all waiting (with bated breathe, I might add) for the discussion to begin.
Let’s see some action please
And why havent you put up my easy reference list on the post?
I think we should also discuss infrastructural deficiencies and the middle man effect. And tropics.
Before Mr. Madman comes breathing down my neck I’ll change the typo error (notice, I said typo, not spello)
bated breath* There.
I do not think there is any “problem” with the poverty India has….it is natural..All countries that are/were comparable to the position in time India is in now…..are/were quite similar or more impovorished.
Bad governence/corruption…..these are mere symptoms of poverty……ethics is practised only by those who can afford it.
The reason I think we are where we are today : we missed the bus on Industrial Revolution and the 2 subsequent revolutions……so it takes time to recover.
Nilu wrote, “ethics is practised only by those who can afford it.”
Yazad - please get the debate started. I’m dying to shred the above statement to pieces. :-)
oh yeah…am game!….
I cant imagine someone questions that sun rises in the east!
The reason I think we are where we are today : we missed the bus on Industrial Revolution and the 2 subsequent revolutions……so it takes time to recover.
Exactly. War has always been a key factor in Industrial Development. We were fighting wars during that time, but as mercenaries for the British Empire.
u have enumerted many points. Yer Indiand are economical poor but spiritually they are ok. they are contented. their happiness level is high. Coefficent of happiness is ratio of Achievements to desire, Since desire is low and most of the times less than achievement the coefficient is greater than one. I have seen indians in USA , JAPAN, MALASIA , who are extreemly rich but are not happy.
Its very difficult to find a smiling Japaneese, -but you will find smiling street children in slums of india flying kites , playing cricket and lady folks watching ,enjoing and laughing to hearts content.
Finaly is it not important to be happy , cheerful than to have materia comforts..
I’ve been following this debate from its very inception and almost all the points raised here are very thought-provoking. I havent been able to contribute as I’ve found that whatever I can think of, people here can think about it quicker. The plethora of views that have come up remind me of the song Eclipse by Pink Floyd. Is there anything else left that isnt elisted here?
India is a poor country because:
Poor governance from the Gandhi family, especially Nehru and Indira Gandhi. But what people usually misses to point out is the essensce of Nehruvian socialism and that was Indias poverty wasn’t Indias fault, it should be blamed on the west. This mindset ruled India in 40 years and still countinues to hunt our country through the European Lefts various institutions, like The World Social Forum, Attac etc.
My 2 cents :
1. Check out this intriguing link that compares the Indian and Chinese IQs, and correlates them to affluence/poverty levels.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000828.html
2. The diaspora in the US/UK is also not a representative sample, which explains why *some* members of the Indian diaspora are successful. Much of the jingoistic chest-thumping by Indian supremacists on “superior” Indian intellect is bullshit ( and essentially racist). In Malaysia and Singapore, I gather Indians don’t perform all that well when compared to the Han people. The IQ of Indians in South Africa is also a standard deviation below that of Whites (Rushton’s data available upon request). In Fiji, the IQ of Indians is in the lower 80s (not very different from that of the Melanesians there). Only voluntary immigrants who have been selected on the basis of their education are academically competitive abroad.
3. Indian history is completely made up and yet Indians call for a subaltern revisionist view of what they term a “eurocentric” view of history. If you had to rate the contributions of various civilizations to science it would be :
European > East Asian > Arab > Indian > African
I’ve also read fabricated theories that supposedly highlight the superiority of Indian intellect - about how Indians performed “brain surgery” (what a perversion of the silliest of “surgeries” - trepanning, which is 25,000 years old and was common across the world) or about Indians first solving cubic equations ( it’s accepted through much of the world that Omar Khayyam was the first to solve cubic equations). Even Zero was used in Sumeria, though there was later a wave of immigration from that region into what is now Norh-Western India. Anyway, I digress.
4. Here’s a table that gives the average IQ Vs actual per-capita income for various countries :
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm
I’ll be glad if someone can point to a data set that shows that a *representative* sample of Indians is academically competitive with East Asians or Europeans. “Flynn Effect” also doesn’t seem to be working in India due to dysgenic breeding (for the record, i’m no neo-eugenicist).
5. Lastly, something that might interest you. Here’s the well-known American paleoconservative, Steve Sailer’s, take on “the remarkably intelligent race of Zoroastrians” who, he says, are to South Asia what Hungarian Jews were to pre-Holocaust Europe :
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=04062002-091157-4598r
Wonder what you make of it. Parsi smarts = Parsi affluence, or will you go with some half-baked Gouldian theory ?
RR,
Interesting viepoint. I was quite ignorant of the material you have quoted until I read it from the links you supplied, so what follows is a humble hypothesis.
One can speculate that a lot of the stats on the ability of the diaspora in various countries depended on (a) their background (b) access. By restricting immigration to a certain segment of Indians, the US has had a economicaly and academically succesful Indian population. While in Fiji, Windies and South Africa, the Indian diaspora was relatively poor to begin with (indentured laborers) and they had little access to trade and education. [The access came much later, but there was little capital.] - Unfortunately, the IQ study does not mention “class” and limits the discussion to “caste”. The Indian caste system, by the way, never restricted access to capital or trade. The trading community, in fact was considered lower than the warrior or the priestly community.
Regarding Parsis - one can argue that the original Parsis who migrated to India probably had access to capital to begin with (which is how they could afford the long journey + the risk to establish trade here). After they came to India, they also had unhindered freedom to practice trade. That is why they succeeded. The Parsi sample is quite analogous to the Indian situation in the US, without the background of religious persecution “back home”.
There are quite a few math books available in public libraries here in the US that contend that a lot of contributions of the Arabs to science and math were a result of their interaction with Indians. Not withstanding the contribution of the famous work Al Jabr wa’al muqabalah by Al Khowarizmi, of course. :-) It has been years since I read a math book, and so I can’t recollect the names of the authors at this moment.
In any case, I agree with you that it is difficult to write Indian history now, since much of it was wiped out from 800 A.D. onwards.
But if IQ matters, how do we explain that China is so poor? People tend to forget that China is one of the poorer countries in the world.
This is a comparison between American states:
http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQschools.htm
You will find that the average IQ ranges from 113 in Connecticut to 85 in Missisippi. Five american states have a lower IQ than 90, the average income in these states is $26.655 which is average among the OECD states despite the fact that the average IQ of these five states is way lower than the average OECD country.
If the average IQ in India means that India will never overtake China remains to be seen, but the average IQ in India is not the reason behind Indias poverty.
Here’s a reply to the points raised by Quizman and Deb :
1. Class vs Caste : Class is a much better predictor of IQ (and vice-versa) in the West. Much of Herrnstein and Murray’s controversial book, The Bell Curve, is devoted to class and not race - the “cognitive elite” vs the cognitively challenged underclass. That won’t really hold true in a stratified and ossified society such as India’s, where social mobility is limited and perhaps even completely restricted for the lower castes. Besides, in a tech-driven economy like America’s, wealth correlates very strongly with IQ. In India this again doesn’t hold true - wealth is more a function of caste than IQ. Basically, there are too many confounding factors in India to suggest that caste and IQ are strongly related, but the general trend is one of low IQ across the board.
2. The Indian diaspora : Yep, the descendants of indentures laborers of Indian origin haven’t really managed to shine the way their brethren in the West have. Compare this to Chinese immigrants *anywhere* in the world - the pattern universally is one of high educational achievements and affluence. Malaysia’s Bumiputra policy was meant to reverse the assymetric distribution of wealth -the Chinese being the market dominant minority.
As Steve Sailer says,
“After anti-Chinese riots in 1969, the Malaysian majority voted itself affirmative action at the expense of the Chinese. Chua considers this quota system a success. Malaysia has avoided subsequent violence.
Still, long-time Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, the world’s pre-eminent Muslim statesman (granted, the competition isn’t stiff), has become disillusioned with his plan. As he put it recently: “I feel disappointed because I achieved too little of my principal task of making my race a successful race…” The same week that President Bush tacitly endorsed college admissions quotas, the strong-willed Mohamad ended them”
And about Indonesia :
” The Chinese made up 3% of its vast population, yet owned the great majority of all businesses. The dictator Suharto, whose family had lucrative ties to the Chinese community, fell in 1998. Democratization set off a vicious pogrom against the Chinese, many of whom fled to Chinese-majority Singapore. The government expropriated $58 billion in assets.
Not surprisingly, the native Indonesians proved inept at running the businesses nationalized from the Chinese, and the economy collapsed”
The descendants of Chinese indentured laborers, *irrespective of their background*, have become economically successful market dominant minorities. The fact is, Chinese peasants test at similar levels to those of the Indian middle class, so in capitalist societies they can make it.
3. The Parsis : Your hypothesis is spot-on. Throw in the “winnowing through persecution” theory - that only those with the smarts and will to survive Arab persecution managed to stay alive. That’s the cream of the Zoroastrian crop that we’re talking about. Similar theories have been used to explain Jewish smarts. Ashkenazim Jews (average IQ is 115) win roughly 15% of all Nobel prizes though their population is less than 15 million. That’s *massive* over-representation. The Sephardic Jewry isn’t really very successful. Anyway, I highly recommend this brilliant article by Greg Cochran on Ashkenazim smarts :
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail264.html#smarts
Also check out this link on Jewish Nobel laureates :
http://jinfo.org/
It’s pretty mind-boggling stuff. Anyway, I’m digressing.
4. Yep, China is very poor, but you can pin the blame on the Maoist version of communism. Communism is a destructive ideology, and nobody ever claimed that a high-IQ implies affluence. Case in point : N.Korea Vs S.Korea. Similar IQs and *very* different per capita incomes.
All I’m saying is that a low-IQ ensures poverty even if economic policies are sound. Right now, IQ isn’t the main bottleneck to growth. India has loads of smart people who can compete with anyone anywhere. But there will come a time when IQ will become a factor - probably when India comes close to the $2000 per capita level, which Vanhanen and Lynn think is an appropriate estimate for where India will eventually end up, given its IQ.
Anyway, I’ve rambled on and on …
Another little thing, Deb. The IQ table for American states is a hoax. The link itself says that. Basically, a bunch of Democrat loonies trying to portray Republicans as low-IQ rednecks, while the opposite seems to be true. To quote Steve Sailer again :
“Also, his method of faking the IQ scores off the income data badly underestimates the IQ of the big empty Republican states where the cost of living is much lower because there is so much land per person. That’s how he got ridiculous numbers in the low 90s and even 80s for almost all-white states in the Great Plains and Great Basin, where people can enjoy a high standard of living on a lower income than on the two crowded coasts. In reality, those states are among the highest scorers on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests. But incomes are relatively low there because the cost of living is so low”
RR
I apologize, I’ve seen that list in a newspaper but couldn’t find it. So I tried to find it with a google serch. But as you say, the list is a hoax.
You have to remember that the Bell curve has been very criticized, I admit it could be because of the politically incorrect message of the book. Here is one article about it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/intelligence/clever.shtml
I agree that communism/socialism is a very destructive ideology, and that was my point originally. India is or atleast was as communist as any of the undemocratic versions in China or Vietnam. Can you think of anything more destructive than Indira Gandhis license raj? The ultimate reason behind Indias poverty can be found among Nehrus and his daughters policies.
I would also like to ask, if libertarianism is the glue that holds us together do we really believe that poverty is a relative term and not an absolute term and is the wealth of the world really finite? While there certainly is a moral side of libertarianism, I am more tempted by it’s effectiveness to create and distribute wealth among the citizens.
To me the question if India can overtake China is irrelevant, Indias average income in relation to China isn’t what decides if India is a rich or poor nation. I believe that malnutrition, lack of education etc are the hallmarks of poverty not the GDP ranking. If poverty is a relative term, I certainly can understand why socialism is a tempting ideology.
The prediction that IQ will become a bottleneck for India when GDP comes close to $2000 suggests that the wealth of the world is finite. If that is true distributing wealth between rich and poor will become a necessity if we want to eradicate poverty in the world and within nations. That would almost make libertarianism an immoral ideology.
Real quick :
1. I think both social/environmental determinism and biological determinism are extreme positions. The fact is genes do matter, as does access to education.
2. The article is the work of a master sophist - a combination of half-truths and blatant falsehoods. I’ve read far more compelling rebuttals, like the ones by Lewontin and Block, but even those were replete with errors. Anyway, the author says,
“Black children adopted into white middle class families score significantly higher on average than those in working class families- implying a cultural slant to tests”
A few points regarding what the author says :
a) They are part of the middle class *because* they are smarter than those belonging to the underclass.
b) Thernstrom’s data shows that students belonging to African-American families with incomes of $ 70,000 score *less* on the SAT than students belonging to White families with incomes of $15,000.
c) There’s no culture bias - why would East Asian FOBs (recent immigrants) score higher than Whites if tests were biased. Culturally unbiased Raven’s Matrices are used for these tests, on which Chinese peasants score close to one standard deviation more than African-Americans/Indians.
3. “I would also like to ask, if libertarianism is the glue that holds us together do we really believe that poverty is a relative term and not an absolute term and is the wealth of the world really finite?”
I don’t think I really understand what you’re saying. Poverty is a relative term in that it is defined by the benchmark one uses to group people together under different economic classes. There’s no “absolute” definition for poverty - the American “poor” are way richer than the Ethiopian “rich”. Besides, the benchmark undergoes constant revision as the standard of living rises with time. As long as there’s an unequal distribution of wealth in any society or the world, you’ll be able to group people into rich and poor. In that sense, there’s no absolute definition for poverty.
4. “If poverty is a relative term, I certainly can understand why socialism is a tempting ideology”
Yeah, it’s always tempting for the relatively poor to plunder from the rich - whether a nation belongs to the 1st world or the 3rd world.
5. “The prediction that IQ will become a bottleneck for India when GDP comes close to $2000 suggests that the wealth of the world is finite”
Actually, no. It takes into account the fact that dysgenic trends will only grow stronger, neutralizing the growth that would occur due to innovation. To put it bluntly, if the poor have high total fertility rates (quite a fair assumption to make), the standard of living would tend to reduce. The countervailing factor, of course, is the growth due to innovation. Some sort of equilibrium will be attained between the two. Dysgenic trends have started to kick in only in the last few decades, both in the West (gotta thank the welfare state ) and in the 3rd world ( working professionals have fewer children).
Anyway, it’s likely that methods to boost intelligence will be found within a few years. Professor Joseph Tsien at Princeton has already managed to boost the intelligence of mice (google “doogie mouse”). So, methods to reverse the dysgenic trend should be available in a decade or two. Whether politicians in the politically correct climate of the West have the balls to even admit that intelligence varies between different races ( leave alone sanctioning public money to create the “doogie human”) is the big question. It’s more a matter of political will than scientific constraints.
6. “If that is true distributing wealth between rich and poor will become a necessity if we want to eradicate poverty in the world and within nations. That would almost make libertarianism an immoral ideology.”
There’s no way to “eradicate” poverty, though the concept of what constitutes the rich and poor changes through time. What’s the plan you have in mind ? Looks like the “smart man’s burden” to me. Libertarianism isn’t immoral - it’ll lift all boats in a way that communism never can, even though it might widen the gap between the rich and the poor (though Surjit Bhalla denies even this)
RR
I do not deny that race, even though the concept of different human races doesn’t exist, is a factor when it comes to IQ. My point is that I believe that IQ is a completely irrelevant factor when we are discussing Indias poverty. You may explain why China will remain a richer country, but it doesn’t explain why Indian babies are malnurished.
Discussing the average IQ in India is also irrelevant since it cannot be affected, unless you’re going to copy Singapores solution to the problem and give financial incentives for the middle class to reproduce while dicouraging the working class to do the same. But I doubt that since you are a libertarian.
“Libertarianism isn’t immoral - it’ll lift all boats in a way that communism never can, even though it might widen the gap between the rich and the poor (though Surjit Bhalla denies even this)”
But that is my point, poverty is an absolute term even for you. The average IQ of a nation may limit how a nation performs relative to others. But it does not limit what a nation can achieve. As libertarians we do believe in an integrated world economy and thus inventions will benefit all.
I too believe that libertarianism will widen the gap between rich and poor ( poor in relative terms), but the poor will in time not live in poverty. Also I believe that libertarianism will make the middle class the dominating class every where in the world unlike to day. The classical rant of the European left “the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer” always ignores this fact for political purposes.
The IQ numbers coming out of China have been known to be “fuzzed” to “save face” as usual. Also, IQ is a big function of nutrition in early life. For example average IQ and height both increased in Japan after they got prosporous.
Bad nutrition can lower IQ by a huge amount– just remember that. For example in the west they have found something called flynn effect which points towards increasing average IQ every generation. This has been explained by nutrition.
See http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/
Here is an even better link on the Flynn effect
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml
This talks about how IQ increases of up to 25 points have been seen **per generation** due to nutritional/education/socital factors.
True, IQ levels will probably increase with higher living standards. But IQ levels of those who live today won’t, so India will struggle with a lower average IQ for many years.
RR do you even understand what you are talking of when you talk of IQ? An IQ of less than 90 is considered subnormal by psychologists and at an IQ of 70 people are considered retarded If Indians have an average IQ of 80 odd, it means that half of us are below 80 (assuming a normal distribution - other possible distributions make it worse, I assure you) and a significant proportion (say 30-40%) of us are below 70. Does it seem really likely to you that retardation is so highly prevalent among Indians. Please note that I am talking of real retardation, not in the metaphorical sense. They will be unable to do their daily functions properly, can’t understand the simplest things, etc. Those figures just don’t make sense and there are bound to be serious errors in any study that gives those figures.
The tests are culturally biased, how do you test an illerate peasant from rural India? It does raise serious questions about how the average IQ in China was measured, since illiteracy is prevailing in China as well.
Deb,
you are right. IQ tests are known to be culturally biased.
See
http://www.liberalartsandcrafts.net/contentcatalog/social/bias.shtml
BBC on IQ
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/intelligence/iq.shtml
As, for China, as I said the tests in China figures are “fuzzed” because Chinese wanted to “save face” as usual, and the tests were done by local university collaborators. You can fill in the rest. As, is true for pretty much all statistics coming out of china, take them with a pinch of salt.
My point is that an illitarate farmer probably will be as helpless as a retard in the western society. City slickers would on the otherhand not do very well in rural Sudan. However I do believe genes matter.
I just don’t think that IQ is very relevant when discussing why India is poor.
1. “As libertarians we do believe in an integrated world economy and thus inventions will benefit all”
I beg to disagree. The ability of a population to absorb and use technology depends on its IQ. Vanhanen and Flynn have fixed a cut-off of 90 (rather arbitrary, IMO) for economies to be technologically driven.
2.”The IQ numbers coming out of China have been known to be “fuzzed” to “save face” as usual”
There’s no proof you have to claim that China fudged its IQ numbers. I’ve already provided data on how the descendants of Chinese indentured laborers out-perform the natives everywhere in the world. Whether it is South Africa, or in parts of the Carribean, or in Malaysia, or in Indonesia. They are the market-dominant minority in most countries. Read Amy Chua’s “World on fire” to see how Chinese minorities perform throughout the world.
3. “Bad nutrition can lower IQ by a huge amount– just remember that. For example in the west they have found something called flynn effect which points towards increasing average IQ every generation. This has been explained by nutrition”
I had mentioned Flynn Effect in an earlier comment. Now, I don’t disagree that inadequate nutrition stunts cognitive growth, but there are a couple of points regarding Flynn Effect that you need to keep in mind :
a) It doesn’t close the IQ gap between different populations. The Black-White IQ gap has stayed constant at a little over 1 standard deviation ever since the Stanford-Binet tests came into existence.
b) Flynn Effect hasn’t, at worst, been observed in India (due to dysgenic fertility trends) and hasn’t, at best, followed the trajectory it has in the West. In 1968, when Sinha estimated the IQ of India, the value he arrived at was 86. Two data sets that Lynn used for India, which were taken in the 1980s, estimated the Indian IQ at 81.
4. “RR do you even understand what you are talking of when you talk of IQ?”
I guess not. I’d be glad if you’d be kind enough to educate me on this.
5. “Does it seem really likely to you that retardation is so highly prevalent among Indians”
It’s probable. Numbers don’t lie. Besides, the plural of anecdote isn’t data. We aren’t talking of one isolated data set here - it’s multiple data sets in multiple locations around the world.
I’d have to be in denial to claim that the samples are flawed or that the tests are biased *only* for Indians/Blacks *everywhere* in the world. Sure, it doesn’t pass the smell test, but there’s WAY too much evidence to suggest that the numbers are flawed.
Anyway, Chris Brand has suggested that the IQ-80 retardation level could be suitably applied only to Whites. Indians/Blacks at that level will be able to function normally, except when it comes to tests of cognitive ability - the usual classroom tests and exams we have, as well as standardized tests like the SAT/GRE.
6. “It does raise serious questions about how the average IQ in China was measured, since illiteracy is prevailing in China as well”
Nope, on the other hand, it confirms that the tests have no bias built into them. If an illiterate Chinese peasant can score reasonably well on those tests, it dispels every doubt one could have about the bias that has been “programmed” into these tests by “evil White men”(TM).
Believe what you believe about China’s numbers, but just go and email the US universities collecting these figures and ask them “who collected figures for China?”, and then make your own opinion.
I don’t agree that Indian diaspora hasn’t shined elsewhere in the world. Let us take a couple of examples that I can think of off hand outside of the computers and Academic field in USA
a) Success of patels in capturing >40% share of the hotel market in USA
b) Success of Jains in replacing Jews(who used to control 80% trade) in Diamond trade in Antewerp withing 7-8 years. The result that Jains control 80% of the trade now.
c) Very successful in UK, South Africa etc.
Also there is a book called “Tribes…” (can’t remember the exact name, but will find out), which was written in 1970s much before the IT success. That book talks about 5 tribes in the world which have been very successful outside their countries — they were–”Chinese, Indians, British, Jews, ..?”. That book chronicles the success of Indians outside Indian much better.
Ofcourse success of Indians in IT in US is well known. But, just to make sure you kow the extent of success — 40% of all new startups in sillicon valley have an Indian founder. Indians are the richest ethnic community in US, far surpassing chinese, japanese and jews.
P.S. Indonesia is a special case, where Indians are/were heavily discriminated against, while chinese were not at least initially.
here is the name of the book as I promised…
“Tribes : How Race, Religion and Identity Determine Success in the New Global Economy
by Joel Kotkin (Author)”
Review of the book
“From Library Journal
Francis Fukuyama, move over. The theory of individualism as the prime motivator in a new world system is being challenged. Kotkin, an economic reporter and coauthor of The Third Century (Crown, 1988) here offers a different paradigm for the future of the global economy, asserting that ethnic solidarity has been and will continue to be an important force in world business. Kotkin focuses on five groups: Jewish, British, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian. In trying to explain the material success of these particular “tribes,” he emphasizes historical patterns common to them all: a strong ethnic identity that allows the group to undergo economic and political changes without loss of essential unity; a global network based on mutual trust and communal self-help; and an open-minded approach to the adoption of scientific and technological innovations. On this basis, he argues that potentially powerful economic groups of the future may include Palestinians and Armenians. Ethnic stereotyping is dangerous territory, and Kotkin jumps headlong into the controversial minefield. Highly recommended for all libraries. See also Lawrence Harrison’s Who Prospers? How Cultural Values Shape Economic and Political Success , LJ 7/92.–Ed.
- Ruth M. Mara, U.S. Information Agency, Washington, D.C.”
Kautilya : This is my last comment - let’s just agree to disagree.
1. I never claimed that the Indian diaspora didn’t have its share of successes. My point has been that voluntary immigrants from India who have the education/skills to be competitive in tech-driven economies are affluent/academically competitive, while the rest are not.
2. “Indians are the richest ethnic community in US, far surpassing chinese, japanese and jews.”
I doubt if Indian-Americans are richer than American Jews. Data for Jews is not separately tabulated because it has, in the past, been used by White Nationalist groups to ignite anti-semitism. A bit if trivia : Hitler had banned IQ tests after coming to power as it didn’t square with his theories on Jewish untermenschen.
3. “Indonesia is a special case, where Indians are/were heavily discriminated against, while chinese were not at least initially”
Nope! There’s no evidence of that at all. Anyway, even if it were true that the Indians faced greater discrimination that the Chinese, it wouldn’t affect the results of IQ tests. African-American IQ scores stayed at one standard deviation below the White mean even after the Civil Rights Bill was passed, and the gap shows no sign of closing.
I think I’ve presented enough evidence to substantiate my POV. You’re free to continue remaining in denial.
RR,
a) your point 1 is what I don’t agree with. you should read the book that I pointed out.
b) point –search on the web and you will find enough material supporting my view. and, by the way in uk and usa you can compare chinese and indians
c) point 3– that indians faced and still face discrimination in indonesia is well known, again use google. and, by the way I don’t think anybody reported iq scores for indian/chinese separatly in indonasia.
sorry to say, but except for rhetoric, I see no evidence. so, yes let us agree to disagree…
I guess I will go on feeling superior, while you can go on feeling whatever…
P.S. does it seem interesting to you that chinese IQ average is reported to be smack at 100, the exact number which is considered to be average in IQ.
“Anyway, Chris Brand has suggested that the IQ-80 retardation level could be suitably applied only to Whites. Indians/Blacks at that level will be able to function normally, except when it comes to tests of cognitive ability - the usual classroom tests and exams we have, as well as standardized tests like the SAT/GRE”
Brilliant. And doesn’t this kind of undermine the claim that IQ tests measure something intrinsic to you and/or the claim that IQ tests can be generalised across races? If an Indian can have an IQ of 70 and still function normally while a White with an IQ of 70 is retarded, isn’t it possible that an Indian who will be a genius by white standards has an IQ of just 100? IQ numbers aren’t sacred by themselves. They are good only to the extent that they actually measure an attribute that is actually present in you.
For example, if you have an IQ of 140 and still cannot understand the logic I presented in the previous paragraph, it means that you are an idiot, regardless of what your IQ test told you. It simply means that your IQ test was flawed. Got it?
RR
“Nope, on the other hand, it confirms that the tests have no bias built into them. If an illiterate Chinese peasant can score reasonably well on those tests, it dispels every doubt one could have about the bias that has been “programmed” into these tests by “evil White men”(TM).”
It goes with out saying that you can’t do an IQ-test if you are illitarate.
by the way, Google for “Richard Lynn racist” and see goodies. It seems that this guys edits a white superemacist magazine called “mankind quaterly”. If that is not pre-built bias, I don’t know what is.
In past and up to some extent even now, Natural resources make some one/country reach or poor.
But in last 100 years it is not only Natural resources which decides Rich Vs Poor but mainly how well utilized/organized/committed/developed/.. Human capital is.
In today’s world noting matters as much as human brain. We definitely have brains but lacking some thing so does not use collectively for every body’s (or for most of the people’s) gain but use it for individual or some group’s benefit.
We need to figure out what is that “some thing” and how we can correct that if at all we can.
[quote]Indians are the richest ethnic community in US, far surpassing chinese, japanese and jews. [/quote]
no they’re not. Iranian, Persian immigrants are richer. Check the U.S. census data for any year.
an indian hypernationalist posts one false facts and all other indians quickly start believing it.
Amin, that point was debated. Perhaps you could show us a link to the relevant data and back up your assertion that Iranian, Persian immigrants are richer?
I also think that the main issue here is that Indians in the US are one of the richest communities, if not the richest.
The blah blah about hypernationalists and gullibility I will ignore this time around. Avoid ad hominem attacks please.
“Amin, that point was debated. Perhaps you could show us a link to the relevant data and back up your assertion that Iranian, Persian immigrants are richer? ”
an MIT study showing the mean incomes of Iranian-American families;
http://web.mit.edu/isg/ U.S. census data for every minority group for every year can be found at, believe me, Iranians are better off than every other recently arrived minority group including Chinese, Indian, Korean and Japanese (after 1990- Japanese mean per capita income was slightly higher for that year);
http://www.census.gov/
“I also think that the main issue here is that Indians in the US are one of the richest communities, if not the richest.”
It is an important distinction as to who is THE richest. There is a sense of the importance of ‘who is the winner’ inherint in all people. When Indian immigrants make claims without making sure they are correct, it exposes their ethnic chauvinism and disregard for the truth.
“The blah blah about hypernationalists and gullibility I will ignore this time around. Avoid ad hominem attacks please.”
I said it because I feel it is very deceitful to make false claims about your groups performance in a way that makes them look smart/smarter than others.
Amin, give relevant links, not general stuff. The US census page I too can go on. Where’s the data to back you up?
And you seem to be overreacting with words like “deceitful” — get a grip. I’d happily debate you and you’re welcome to show data to support your points.
You can find the data for each group for numerous years in the U.S. census bureau site.
I will use the word ‘deceitful’ because that is what happens. I have a grip.