评论《南亚难题:将潜力转化为持续进步》

IF 4.5 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Arvind Subramanian
{"title":"评论《南亚难题:将潜力转化为持续进步》","authors":"Arvind Subramanian","doi":"10.1111/aepr.12496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Kathuria (<span>2025</span>) should be congratulated on writing about the experiences of five or six countries in South Asia given the heroic nature of the task. I will concentrate my comments in my remarks in kind of three broad areas.</p><p>My first set of comments relates to some of the common challenges and opportunities that Kathuria did not touch upon. The first and most obvious common challenge is climate change. We have seen recently real environmental extreme and even calamitous events in Nepal, India, and Pakistan. So, what would South Asia have to do to address some of these climate-related challenges? The second obvious common thing that is happening in all these countries, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal, is the rise of identity-based majoritarian politics. Does this kind of majoritarian politics have any implications for addressing the challenges? Even the economic challenges that Kathuria has so carefully and elaborately laid out. There are two dimensions to this. One is of course that it affects bilateral relations, and therefore it is good to be made aware that economic cooperation on some of these issues will be much more difficult. It is going to have a kind of direct impact on bilateral relations and bilateral approaches to cooperation and regional cooperation more broadly. What is it going to do within each country, to the investment climate, to the scope for conflict and all of those things that affect a long-run development? These may be political issues, but I think in this case we cannot escape at least some of the economic long-term economic consequences of politics.</p><p>Is South Asia's demographic dividend one common kind of opportunity? If you look at all these alarming population projections that we are seeing around the world, we observe aging in advanced countries, and absolute declines in population in China, Korea, East Asia, and maybe even in Europe. Is there a possibility that South Asia could benefit from their labor surplus compared to other countries, advanced countries in even in Asia that are going to face growing labor shortages? So is there a kind of common kind of South Asian opportunity stemming from not just its own demographic dividend, but also from the kind of demographic collapse in the rest of the world?</p><p>My second set of comments relate to Kathuria's approach of going through the challenges in each country. The approach I would like Kathuria (<span>2025</span>) to have taken is to examine South Asia through a regional approach rather than through individual country approaches. The latter could be dealt with in more detail in some of the other papers in this issue. Let me give just two examples related to macroeconomic instability and trade. Kathuria very rightly and nicely points out that Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, and even Bangladesh, and Nepal have experienced macroeconomic instability, but India has escaped this. Why is it that you know one country seems to have escaped macroeconomic instability and all the others have kind of fallen into this. Is it all just a country-specific explanation? That is, did India do all the right things on macro stability, while all the other countries did not, or is there some commonality that one can draw upon to explain the phenomenon of most South Asian countries falling into macroeconomic instability?</p><p>Is there a more common unified explanation for what is happening on the trade front? Is it just a change in the global zeitgeist where everyone is turning inward and therefore these countries are also turning inward? Given the way the world is changing, then maybe it is not so unusual that these South Asian countries are changing too. But this begs the question is South Asia right to succumb to these global winds of change? What is it about India (or maybe Bangladesh) that makes it less or more unsuitable for industrial policy or protectionism than say China or the United States? What is the case for India to do or not do industrial policy if the rest of the world is also doing it? This is the kind of common patterns where I think we would nicely benefit from some kind of common explanation or at least a contrast with what is happening in the rest of the world. If all these countries are turning inward, does it enhance the case for a South Asian cooperation trade integration or not? Similarly, in the context of climate change and the push to renewables, what is the role for South Asian cooperation?</p><p>Regional cooperative approaches offer one way of addressing some of the common challenges. What kind of role can India in regional cooperation? Is it incumbent on India, to create the conditions for, greater energy cooperation, greater trade cooperation? If not, why not? If yes, how should this be done? What should India be doing?</p>","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"20 1","pages":"55-56"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12496","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comment on “South Asia's Conundrum: Turning Potential into Sustained Progress”\",\"authors\":\"Arvind Subramanian\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aepr.12496\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Kathuria (<span>2025</span>) should be congratulated on writing about the experiences of five or six countries in South Asia given the heroic nature of the task. I will concentrate my comments in my remarks in kind of three broad areas.</p><p>My first set of comments relates to some of the common challenges and opportunities that Kathuria did not touch upon. The first and most obvious common challenge is climate change. We have seen recently real environmental extreme and even calamitous events in Nepal, India, and Pakistan. So, what would South Asia have to do to address some of these climate-related challenges? The second obvious common thing that is happening in all these countries, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal, is the rise of identity-based majoritarian politics. Does this kind of majoritarian politics have any implications for addressing the challenges? Even the economic challenges that Kathuria has so carefully and elaborately laid out. There are two dimensions to this. One is of course that it affects bilateral relations, and therefore it is good to be made aware that economic cooperation on some of these issues will be much more difficult. It is going to have a kind of direct impact on bilateral relations and bilateral approaches to cooperation and regional cooperation more broadly. What is it going to do within each country, to the investment climate, to the scope for conflict and all of those things that affect a long-run development? These may be political issues, but I think in this case we cannot escape at least some of the economic long-term economic consequences of politics.</p><p>Is South Asia's demographic dividend one common kind of opportunity? If you look at all these alarming population projections that we are seeing around the world, we observe aging in advanced countries, and absolute declines in population in China, Korea, East Asia, and maybe even in Europe. Is there a possibility that South Asia could benefit from their labor surplus compared to other countries, advanced countries in even in Asia that are going to face growing labor shortages? So is there a kind of common kind of South Asian opportunity stemming from not just its own demographic dividend, but also from the kind of demographic collapse in the rest of the world?</p><p>My second set of comments relate to Kathuria's approach of going through the challenges in each country. The approach I would like Kathuria (<span>2025</span>) to have taken is to examine South Asia through a regional approach rather than through individual country approaches. The latter could be dealt with in more detail in some of the other papers in this issue. Let me give just two examples related to macroeconomic instability and trade. Kathuria very rightly and nicely points out that Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, and even Bangladesh, and Nepal have experienced macroeconomic instability, but India has escaped this. Why is it that you know one country seems to have escaped macroeconomic instability and all the others have kind of fallen into this. Is it all just a country-specific explanation? That is, did India do all the right things on macro stability, while all the other countries did not, or is there some commonality that one can draw upon to explain the phenomenon of most South Asian countries falling into macroeconomic instability?</p><p>Is there a more common unified explanation for what is happening on the trade front? Is it just a change in the global zeitgeist where everyone is turning inward and therefore these countries are also turning inward? Given the way the world is changing, then maybe it is not so unusual that these South Asian countries are changing too. But this begs the question is South Asia right to succumb to these global winds of change? What is it about India (or maybe Bangladesh) that makes it less or more unsuitable for industrial policy or protectionism than say China or the United States? What is the case for India to do or not do industrial policy if the rest of the world is also doing it? This is the kind of common patterns where I think we would nicely benefit from some kind of common explanation or at least a contrast with what is happening in the rest of the world. If all these countries are turning inward, does it enhance the case for a South Asian cooperation trade integration or not? Similarly, in the context of climate change and the push to renewables, what is the role for South Asian cooperation?</p><p>Regional cooperative approaches offer one way of addressing some of the common challenges. What kind of role can India in regional cooperation? Is it incumbent on India, to create the conditions for, greater energy cooperation, greater trade cooperation? If not, why not? If yes, how should this be done? What should India be doing?</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Economic Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"55-56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12496\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Economic Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aepr.12496\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Economic Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aepr.12496","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

考虑到这项任务的英雄性质,应该祝贺Kathuria(2025)写了五到六个南亚国家的经历。我将把我的评论集中在三个方面。我的第一组评论涉及到Kathuria没有涉及的一些共同的挑战和机遇。第一个也是最明显的共同挑战是气候变化。我们最近在尼泊尔、印度和巴基斯坦看到了真正的环境极端甚至是灾难性的事件。那么,南亚需要做些什么来应对这些与气候有关的挑战呢?在所有这些国家——斯里兰卡、印度、巴基斯坦、孟加拉国和尼泊尔——发生的第二个明显的共同现象是,基于身份的多数主义政治正在兴起。这种多数主义政治对应对挑战有什么启示吗?即使是卡图里亚精心规划的经济挑战。这有两个维度。其一,这当然会影响双边关系,因此最好认识到,在其中一些问题上的经济合作将会困难得多。这将对双边关系、双边合作方式以及更广泛的区域合作产生直接影响。在每个国家内部,对投资环境,对冲突的范围以及所有影响长期发展的事情会有什么影响?这些可能是政治问题,但我认为在这种情况下,我们至少无法逃避政治带来的一些长期经济后果。南亚的人口红利是一种共同的机会吗?如果你看看我们在世界各地看到的这些令人担忧的人口预测,我们观察到发达国家的老龄化,以及中国,韩国,东亚,甚至欧洲人口的绝对下降。与其他国家相比,南亚是否有可能从他们的劳动力过剩中受益,发达国家甚至亚洲国家将面临日益严重的劳动力短缺?那么,南亚是否存在一种共同的机遇,这种机遇不仅源于其自身的人口红利,还源于世界其他地区的人口崩溃?我的第二组评论与Kathuria在每个国家应对挑战的方法有关。我希望《Kathuria》(2025)采用的方法是通过区域方法而不是单个国家方法来研究南亚。后者可在本期其他一些文件中作更详细的论述。让我举两个与宏观经济不稳定和贸易有关的例子。卡图里亚非常正确而巧妙地指出,巴基斯坦、斯里兰卡、甚至孟加拉国和尼泊尔都经历了宏观经济的不稳定,但印度却幸而幸免。为什么一个国家似乎摆脱了宏观经济的不稳定,而其他国家却陷入了这种不稳定。这只是一个针对特定国家的解释吗?也就是说,印度是否在宏观稳定方面做了所有正确的事情,而其他所有国家都没有,或者是否有一些共同点可以用来解释大多数南亚国家陷入宏观经济不稳定的现象?对于贸易方面正在发生的事情,有没有一个更普遍、更统一的解释?这只是全球时代精神的变化吗?每个人都在向内转,因此这些国家也在向内转?考虑到世界变化的方式,那么这些南亚国家也在发生变化也就不足为奇了。但这引出了一个问题,南亚是否应该屈服于这些全球变革之风?是什么让印度(或者孟加拉国)比中国或美国更不适合实施产业政策或保护主义?如果世界上其他国家也在实施产业政策,那么印度实施或不实施产业政策的理由是什么?这是一种共同的模式,我认为我们将从某种共同的解释中受益,或者至少与世界其他地区发生的情况进行对比。如果所有这些国家都转向内部,这是否加强了南亚合作贸易一体化的情况?同样,在气候变化和推动可再生能源的背景下,南亚合作的作用是什么?区域合作方式是解决一些共同挑战的一种方式。印度在区域合作中可以发挥什么样的作用?印度是否有责任为加强能源合作和贸易合作创造条件?如果不是,为什么不呢?如果是,应该怎么做?印度应该怎么做?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comment on “South Asia's Conundrum: Turning Potential into Sustained Progress”

Kathuria (2025) should be congratulated on writing about the experiences of five or six countries in South Asia given the heroic nature of the task. I will concentrate my comments in my remarks in kind of three broad areas.

My first set of comments relates to some of the common challenges and opportunities that Kathuria did not touch upon. The first and most obvious common challenge is climate change. We have seen recently real environmental extreme and even calamitous events in Nepal, India, and Pakistan. So, what would South Asia have to do to address some of these climate-related challenges? The second obvious common thing that is happening in all these countries, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal, is the rise of identity-based majoritarian politics. Does this kind of majoritarian politics have any implications for addressing the challenges? Even the economic challenges that Kathuria has so carefully and elaborately laid out. There are two dimensions to this. One is of course that it affects bilateral relations, and therefore it is good to be made aware that economic cooperation on some of these issues will be much more difficult. It is going to have a kind of direct impact on bilateral relations and bilateral approaches to cooperation and regional cooperation more broadly. What is it going to do within each country, to the investment climate, to the scope for conflict and all of those things that affect a long-run development? These may be political issues, but I think in this case we cannot escape at least some of the economic long-term economic consequences of politics.

Is South Asia's demographic dividend one common kind of opportunity? If you look at all these alarming population projections that we are seeing around the world, we observe aging in advanced countries, and absolute declines in population in China, Korea, East Asia, and maybe even in Europe. Is there a possibility that South Asia could benefit from their labor surplus compared to other countries, advanced countries in even in Asia that are going to face growing labor shortages? So is there a kind of common kind of South Asian opportunity stemming from not just its own demographic dividend, but also from the kind of demographic collapse in the rest of the world?

My second set of comments relate to Kathuria's approach of going through the challenges in each country. The approach I would like Kathuria (2025) to have taken is to examine South Asia through a regional approach rather than through individual country approaches. The latter could be dealt with in more detail in some of the other papers in this issue. Let me give just two examples related to macroeconomic instability and trade. Kathuria very rightly and nicely points out that Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, and even Bangladesh, and Nepal have experienced macroeconomic instability, but India has escaped this. Why is it that you know one country seems to have escaped macroeconomic instability and all the others have kind of fallen into this. Is it all just a country-specific explanation? That is, did India do all the right things on macro stability, while all the other countries did not, or is there some commonality that one can draw upon to explain the phenomenon of most South Asian countries falling into macroeconomic instability?

Is there a more common unified explanation for what is happening on the trade front? Is it just a change in the global zeitgeist where everyone is turning inward and therefore these countries are also turning inward? Given the way the world is changing, then maybe it is not so unusual that these South Asian countries are changing too. But this begs the question is South Asia right to succumb to these global winds of change? What is it about India (or maybe Bangladesh) that makes it less or more unsuitable for industrial policy or protectionism than say China or the United States? What is the case for India to do or not do industrial policy if the rest of the world is also doing it? This is the kind of common patterns where I think we would nicely benefit from some kind of common explanation or at least a contrast with what is happening in the rest of the world. If all these countries are turning inward, does it enhance the case for a South Asian cooperation trade integration or not? Similarly, in the context of climate change and the push to renewables, what is the role for South Asian cooperation?

Regional cooperative approaches offer one way of addressing some of the common challenges. What kind of role can India in regional cooperation? Is it incumbent on India, to create the conditions for, greater energy cooperation, greater trade cooperation? If not, why not? If yes, how should this be done? What should India be doing?

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The goal of the Asian Economic Policy Review is to become an intellectual voice on the current issues of international economics and economic policy, based on comprehensive and in-depth analyses, with a primary focus on Asia. Emphasis is placed on identifying key issues at the time - spanning international trade, international finance, the environment, energy, the integration of regional economies and other issues - in order to furnish ideas and proposals to contribute positively to the policy debate in the region.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信