Q.1 What is the central argument of the Asiaphoria by Lant Pritchett and Larry Summers? (300 words)
The central argument of the Asiaphoria by Pritchett and Summers (2013) is that the accelerate growth rate of China and India will tend to a full regression to the mean abruptly. They conclude a pessimistic outcome on the prediction of growth in China and India in the further one or two decades. They argue that it is hard to use the past growth performance to predict the future growth and it seems unlikely for China and India to continue the abnormally rapid growth rates it currently anticipated. Furthermore, according to their model forecast, they found the most possible result of the super-rapid growth rate is to ‘regression to the mean’. …show more content…
Oppositely, I believe the slowdown process of the economic growth will gradual in a long-term before it regresses to the mean, which is same with the BRICs theories from O’Neill (2013). He considers the trend growth of real percentage GDP change in China and India will gradually slow down to the average growth rate from 2011 to 2050 and China will face aging population problem. This is also involved in one of the queries to the argument from Pritchett and Summers (2013). When they analyse GDPPC, they never involved any resources related to the growth population which could be seemed as an impression factor to the economic growth in Asia area (Tsen, W. H., & Furuoka, F., 2005; Savaş, B., …show more content…
The BRICs theories have held a similar vision that the economies of developing countries may have much more weight in the global economy and will still driving the global growth (O’Neill, J., 2013). However, different from the high expectation on China and India, Pritchett and Summers (2013) are worry about the driving global growth of the Asia Giants in the further decades and they pointed out the bullish forecasts from the BRICs theories are just a possible scenario. In short, the theories of BRICs are not compatible with the argument of Pritchett and Summers (2013). Though they have several similar points, they deliver different kinds of view of China and India from optimistic and pessimistic
The central argument of the Asiaphoria by Pritchett and Summers (2013) is that the accelerate growth rate of China and India will tend to a full regression to the mean abruptly. They conclude a pessimistic outcome on the prediction of growth in China and India in the further one or two decades. They argue that it is hard to use the past growth performance to predict the future growth and it seems unlikely for China and India to continue the abnormally rapid growth rates it currently anticipated. Furthermore, according to their model forecast, they found the most possible result of the super-rapid growth rate is to ‘regression to the mean’. …show more content…
Oppositely, I believe the slowdown process of the economic growth will gradual in a long-term before it regresses to the mean, which is same with the BRICs theories from O’Neill (2013). He considers the trend growth of real percentage GDP change in China and India will gradually slow down to the average growth rate from 2011 to 2050 and China will face aging population problem. This is also involved in one of the queries to the argument from Pritchett and Summers (2013). When they analyse GDPPC, they never involved any resources related to the growth population which could be seemed as an impression factor to the economic growth in Asia area (Tsen, W. H., & Furuoka, F., 2005; Savaş, B., …show more content…
The BRICs theories have held a similar vision that the economies of developing countries may have much more weight in the global economy and will still driving the global growth (O’Neill, J., 2013). However, different from the high expectation on China and India, Pritchett and Summers (2013) are worry about the driving global growth of the Asia Giants in the further decades and they pointed out the bullish forecasts from the BRICs theories are just a possible scenario. In short, the theories of BRICs are not compatible with the argument of Pritchett and Summers (2013). Though they have several similar points, they deliver different kinds of view of China and India from optimistic and pessimistic