Why are there no Indian cities as rich as Chinese ones like Hong Kong, Shanghai, or Beiing? Why doesn't India focus on develo one advanced small economy first and then spread its personel to other regions?

为什么印度不像中国拥有香港、上海或北京那样富裕的城市呢?为什么印度不先重点发展一个发达的小规模经济体上，然后再扩展到其他地区?

QUORA网站读者评论：

来源：三泰虎 https://www.santaihu.com/45865.html 译者：Joyceliu

外文链接：https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-no-Indian-cities-as-rich-as-Chinese-ones-like-Hong-Kong-Shanghai-or-Beiing-Why-doesnt-India-focus-on-develo-one-advanced-small-economy-first-and-then-spread-its-personel-to-other-regions

Norm Matloff

India, I believe, has a far wider disparity in wealth than China. Sadly, though, China is rapidly “catching up.”

我认为，印度的贫富差距要比中国大得多。遗憾的是，中国正在迅速“迎头赶上”。

Jiahao Fu, B.A Electrical Engineering, Naning Tech University

Well,I don’t want to comment about those have the so called de ocracy on the tip of tongue all day.I never see a kind of de ocracy can have women with such low status.

好吧，我不想评论那些整天在嘴上谈论所谓民*的人。我从来没见过哪个民*国家会有地位如此低下的女性。

As for me ,there exst some problems in Indian as follows:(I don’t want to explain them in details because they are so much

在我个人看来，印度存在一些问题如下:(我不想详细解释它们，因为内容太多了）

1.caste system,a ridiculous system that basically deny the values of people in bottom

1、种姓制度，这是一个荒谬的制度，基本上否定了底层人民的价值

2.weak central government and strong local power（OK，this is really a strength and a representative of de ocracy in someone’s eyes)

2、孱弱无力的中央政府和强大的地方权力(好吧，这在某些人的眼中真的是一个优势，是民*的典型代表)

3.religion conflicts in many areas

3、在许多地区发生宗教冲突

No consistent language like mandarin

4、没有像普通话一样的统一语言

5.relatively low investment in education

5、教育投资相对较少

6.wide gaps between the wealth and the poor with many corruption problems

6、贫富差距大，腐败问题多

7.many lands is privately controlled and can’t be used by government

7、许多土地是私人控制的，政府不能使用

8.economic rely too much on services and unstable oversea investment

8、经济过于依赖服务业、海外投资不稳定

9.the control of population is still not enough

9、人口控制仍然不到位

JIasheng Xu

Because India has no politics although it has some politicians.

因为印度没有政治，尽管它是有一些政客。

Wasu Koysiri, A Chinese descendant in Thailand who can speak Chinese

In my opinion, they do. They focus on develo some cities like Mumbai, Bangalore, Cochin City etc. However, unlike China, India is a liberal country and because of such they cannot limit the number of migrant workers cramming into those cities. Therefore, though the economy of those cities may be good, the cities won’t look good because they are slums all over the place. This fact might make you mistake those cities as poor cities.

在我看来，他们有的。他们专注于发展孟买、班加罗尔、科钦等城市。但与中国不同的是，印度是一个自由的国家，正因为如此，他们无法限制涌入这些城市的农民工数量。因此，尽管这些城市的经济可能很好，但市容市貌看起来并不好，因为到处都是贫民窟。这个事实可能会让你误以为这些城市是贫穷的城市。

Joseph Boyle

India has Bangalore, Mumbai, and Delhi. This is not so different from the Chinese pattern with Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Beiing.

印度有班加罗尔、孟买和德里。这与中国深圳、上海和北京并没有太大区别。

Anonymous

There are a few things which make it hard to do:

有一些事情很难做到:

Political power is fairly decentralized in India, such that investing heavily in only a few cities is just politically hard to do

在印度，政治权力是相当分散的，因此在少数几个城市大举投资在政治上是很难做到的

Yet, political power is also centralized enough such that a true autonomous region like Hong Kong, Macau, or Shenzhen is hard to make. A big reason of India slow development is the relative lack of economic freedom, which is largely due to the federal government’s policies

然而，政治权力也足够集中，以至于像香港、澳门或深圳这样的真正的自治区是很难实现的。印度发展缓慢的一个重要原因是相对缺乏经济自由，这在很大程度上是由于联邦政府的政策

It’s hard to spread the economic development when your infrastructure is a joke. India’s infrastructure is a joke

当基础设施还是一个笑话时，经济发展就很难延伸开来。印度的基础设施就是个笑话

Samuel ie, lived in China

Indian government is a de ocracy. Even though the “original city” voters will want to keep migrants out and start working on improving the city, the rural voters will say otherwise, and outnumber.

印度政府是一个民*国家。尽管“原籍城市”的选民希望将移民拒之门外，并开始着手改善城市，但农村选民的意见却截然相反，他们的数量甚至超过了城市选民。

In China, this is not possible. The government decided that limiting migrants was imperative to security and economic growth, and it made the right decision. For this reason, Chinese cities do not have the big slums that are present in most of develo Asia.

在中国，这是不可能的。政府认为限制移民对安全和经济增长至关重要，并作出了正确的决定。由于这个原因，中国城市不像大多数亚洲发展中国家那样有大型贫民窟。

India will have to find more money or develop slower than Chinese cities.

印度将不得不寻找更多的资金，不然发展速度就是比中国城市慢。

If the central government directs resources to just one portion, this will not work. People in other parts will be upset that money is not being directed there. In China, no one cares if you are upset that your village didn’t become Shenzhen. It is for the good of the country.

如果中央政府只把资源分配到其中的一部分，这是行不通的。其他地方的人会因为钱没有直接流向那里而感到不安。在中国，没有人在意自己的村庄没有变成深圳而心烦意乱。这都是为了国家的利益。

Nana Siddharth, Physicist

There wasn't a political need to create or demand to live in such cities. It is no longer true. Most people want them now.

过去我们并没有必须建造或要求住在这种城市的政治需求。但现在不再是事实。大多数人都希望如此。

SEZs' experience in China aren't instructive in the Indian context. This is because capitalism and free trade was an ideological gamble in PRC. That isn't the case in India. There isnt significant ideological opposition to free markets from the Indian public.

中国的经济特区的经验在印度并没有什么指导意义。这是因为在中国，zb主义和自由贸易是一场意识形态的冒险。但在印度却不是这样。印度公众对自由市场没有明显的意识形态上的反对。

Reforming governance for an municipal SEZ is the same as doing it at the national scale for entire country. No point following the extremely slow route.

改革城市经济特区的治理与在全国范围内对整个国家进行治理是一样的。走这条极其缓慢的路线是没有意义的。

Thankfully, internal bureaucratic opposition to the removal of earlier economic and administrative controls is being discussed and importantly awareness is rising. People expect this to be tackled and are demanding radical change and reform.

值得庆幸的是，国内官僚反对取消之前的经济和行政控制的做法正在讨论中，重要的是，人们的意识正在提高。人们希望能解决这一问题，并要求彻底改革。

AFAIK, the municipal filth and dysfunction is because of a total apathy and lack of institutional capacity in adminstering basic municipal functions. Changing the political system of government or even funding (which is a problem currently) won't change that.

城市的污秽和功能障碍是由于对城市基本功能的管理缺乏制度能力而造成的。改变政府的政治体系或者资金规模(这是目前的一个问题)都不会改变这一点。

Many reasons for this, chiefly - there is no way for urban residents to track municipal news. Terrestrial broadcasters (FM and TV) aren't allowed to broadcast news. Only the public broadcaster has a terrestrial license, and they aren't interested in this type of hyper local content.

造成这一现象的原因有很多，主要原因是城市居民无法获悉市政新闻。地面广播(调频和电视)不允许广播新闻。只有公共广播公司拥有地面牌照，他们对这种本地新闻并不感兴趣。

Many reasons for this, chiefly - there is no way for urban residents to So nobody really knows anything about city issues or whom to hold accountable. This creates a never ending negative feedback loop.

因此，没有人真正了解城市问题，也没有人知道应该追究谁的责任。这就形成了一个永无止境的负反馈循环。

Charlie Thomas

First of all, it is important to recognise that India does have a number of significantly wealthy cities (like Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata), only they may not seem as ‘rich’ as the Chinese cities you named from a purely subjective point of view. Externally, these cities do not appear wealthy because India has not been known to follow a significant policy of gentrification. The Indian economy is growing wholesale at a steady pace and is a member of the BRICS nations, with its GDP having grown at a rate of 7% in the past financial year.

首先，重要的是要认识到，印度确实有一些非常富裕的城市(比如孟买、德里和加尔各答)，但从纯粹的主观角度看，它们可能不像你提到的中国城市那么“富有”。从外部看，这些城市似乎并不富裕，因为众所周知，印度并没有遵循重要的住宅高档化的政策。印度经济正在稳步增长，并且成为金砖国家的一员，在过去的财政年度里，印度的GDP以7%的速度增长。

Now on to the Chinese cities you have named. Hong Kong, primarily, was a trading colony of the United Kingdom from 1842–1997, as such it was (and officially still is) a de ocratic and actively capitalist city. The benefits this provides, such as significant income and trading capital, allowed the UK to expand and increase quality of life in the city. A similar case to this would be Singapore, both cities being former trading colonies, and both regions heavily involved with banking and finance. Thus, some may consider it to be wealthy due to British ownership.

现在我们来看看你提到的中国城市。从1842年到1997年，香港基本上是英国的贸易殖民地，因此它曾经(现在仍然是)是一个民*的、积极zb主义的城市。这带来的好处有如可观的收入和贸易资本，使英国得以扩大和提高城市生活质量。类似的例子还有新加坡，这两个城市都是前贸易殖民地，都是与银行业和金融业关系密切的地区。因此，一些人可能认为它是富有的，因为英国的所有权。

Shanghai and Beiing are Chinese cities that benefited heavily from the Liberal economic reforms initiated by Deng iao in 1978, additionally they are effectively the economic capitals of their respective Chinese regions. The inghu High-Speed Railway connects the two cities and their major economic regions, the Yangtze River Delta and the Bohai Economic Rim. Moreover, China invested roughly USD$50 Billion in to reconstruction of Beiing in preparation for the 2008 Olympics, undoubtedly there was economic benefit to such an undertaking as it would have provided solid and modern financial infrastructure to the city.

上海和北京是中国城市，它们从1978年邓发起的经济改革中获益颇丰，而且它们实际上是各自所在地区的经济中心。京沪高铁连接着这两个城市及其主要经济区——长江三角洲和环渤海经济圈。此外，中国为筹备2008年奥运会为北京的重建投入了大约500亿美元，这一项目无疑会带来经济效益，因为它将为北京提供坚实而现代化的金融基础设施。

India, on the other hand, despite similarly being developed under the influence of the United Kingdom lacked the sufficient maritime cities, the major exception being Mumbai. Resultantly, the cities never received the direct income that would expand their economic capabilites. That being said, New Delhi has a strongly growing economy and this will trickle-down to the perimeter regions.

另一方面，印度尽管在英国的影响下也在发展，但缺乏足够的海上城市，主要的例外是孟买。结果，城市从来没有得到直接的收入，以便扩大他们的经济能力。尽管如此，新德里有着强劲的经济增长，这将会渗透到周边地区。

Furthermore, India is the world’s largest liberal de ocracy and it has a requirement to provide relatively equal attention to each of its regions

此外，印度是世界上最大的自由民*国家，它要求对每个地区给予相对平等的关注;

Paul Denlinger, lived in Beiing, China

For once, this is actually a good question!

终于发现了这个好问题!

I think that there are several problems for India:

我认为印度有几个问题:

The first special economic zones (SEZs) in China were all in the south, and were established near Hong Kong. The predominant SEZ was Shenzhen.

中国最早的经济特区(SEZs)都在南方，在香港附近建立。主要的经济特区是深圳。

All the SEZs carefully controlled people moving in an out, and even had their own immigration and customs (no longer true), so that they could control the quality of people moving in and out. Could Delhi do that? I don’t think it’s likely.

所有的经济特区都谨慎地控制着迁入和迁出的人口，甚至有他们自己的移民和海关(不复存在)，这样他们就可以控制迁入和迁出的人口的质量。印度能做到吗?我认为不太可能。

The Shenzhen SEZ, and the other SEZs, had their own officials appointed by the Beiing central government, and they were authorized to pursue more business-friendly, and close to capitalist, policies. This would also be hard to do in India.

深圳经济特区和其他经济特区都有自己的官员，由北京中央政府任命，他们有权利采取更有利于商业、更接近zb主义的政策。这在印度也很难做到。

What is happening now in India, is something similar to what happened in China, but in an Indian political and social context.

现在在印度发生的事情和中国过去曾发生的事情很相似，但是却发生在印度的政治和社会背景下。

Karen Ip

Highly recommend Huang Yukon, a Chinese-American former retired World bank executive’s talk on Debunking the Chinese myths on YouTube.

The key difference for China, compared to a de ocratic country like India, is Deng iaopeng’s intentional heavy resources allocations to all the SEZs or other key cities for development while purposely “ignore” or putting less emphasis on budget allocations to other provinces in order to facilitate the SEZs development. He argued that this was impossible for a de ocratic country to achieve, let alone the fact that there were hundreds of SEZs in India waiting for resources allocations.

与印度这样的民*国家相比，中国与印度的关键区别在于，邓为了促进经济特区的发展，有意将大量资源配置到所有经济特区或其他发展重点城市，而故意“忽略”或不太重视对其他省份的预算分配。他认为，民*国家不可能做到这一点，更不用说印度有数百个经济特区在等待资源分配。

The changes of performance indicators/ requirement for the mayor/head of the governments by linking their responsible cities/regions/provinces economic performances to their own career prospects. And later on, performance indicators also including level of develo or utilizing/ producing green technology, level of development of certain key industry or technologies etc. The government heads of states and cities in a de ocratic setting will be elected by people instead of based on the above mentioned performances.

调整绩效指标/要求，将城市/地区/省份的经济表现与市长/政府领导的职业前景联系起来。后来，绩效指标还包括绿色技术的开发利用/生产水平、某些关键产业或技术的发展水平等。民*环境下的国家元首和城市首脑将由人民选举产生，而不是基于以上表现。

I was still little during the late 80s to 90s. During that develo stage, I recalled vaguely that there were checkpoints (not sure if I should call them Custom office) in and out of the SEZs by limiting migrants into the areas ( to avoid overcrowding the cities and in the end becoming uncontrollable slums). (Note: Unfortunately I am not familiar with how the mechanism worked, eg. like how migrant security were checked or prevented from entering the cities etc, and somehow I couldn’t find someone who could answer this question either.)

80年代末到90年代的时候，我还很小。在那个发展阶段，我模糊地记得，当时还采取过限制移民进入经济特区的政策(以避免城市过度拥挤，最终成为无法控制的贫民窟)，经济特区内外有检查站(我不确定是否应该称之为海关办公室)。(注：很遗憾，我不熟悉这种机制的工作原理。比如如何检查移民的安全或被禁止移民进入城市等等，我也找不到能回答这个问题的人。）

In my opinion, chinese is very capable of building up the infrastructures connecting both within cities and connecting expanding their physical areas by incorporating neighbouring villages or small towns and suburban areas (like Shenzhen from a fishing villiages with thousands of population to 12+ million). If one visits 2nd tier Chinese Cities like Wuhan, Qingdao, iamen, i’an, Dalian etc. They are as developed as other major cities in Asia.

在我看来，中国非常有能力建设连接城市内部的基础设施，并通过合并邻近的村庄或小城镇和郊区(比如深圳，从数千人的渔村到1200多万人口)来扩展他们的自然地域。你们要是去过中国二线城市，如武汉、青岛、厦门、西安、大连等，就会发现，这些城市与亚洲其他主要城市一样发达。

继续阅读：香港   上海   北京

此文由 三泰虎 编辑，未经允许不得转载！：首页 > 印度人看中国 » 为什么印度没有中国香港、上海或北京那样富裕的城市呢?