Growth and Prosperity Data Meet India and China's Realities
Economic growth is important for generating prosperity. India as well as China has helped millions be lifted out of poverty using separate development trajectories. Still, questions about income distribution remain a difficult topic that policy makers in both nations often are unwilling to look at with deeper persistence because plenty of inequalities still exists and the subject remains potentially divisive.
China’s low income population is extremely large. Professor Li Shi’s research argues that nearly 300 million people in China are earning less than 1000 Yuan ($149 USD) per month in 2021, while nearly 98 million had monthly incomes below 500 Yuan ($75 USD).
The same is true for the majority in India. As per the Pahle Foundation research shows nearly 91% of India’s workforce remains in the informal sector where their annual per capita incomes are below ₹2.5 lakh Rupees or ₹20,800 Rupees per month ($217 USD per month).
Although industrial and wage models are different comparatively, for instance in China the industrial sector includes 32% of the total working age population and produces an estimate of 36 to 37% of the GDP. And 22% of China’s workforce are employed in agriculture and produce close to 7% of GDP. In India a higher share of the people are in agriculture – close to 45%, and generate roughly 15-18% of the nation’s GDP.
However, there are still problems in both countries regarding inequality via wage disparities of citizens. When income growth is stagnated or not growing, fixed assets capital formation is difficult. People save less and invest less, which in turn makes the economic consumption story difficult. This is happening in China and in India.
Regarding growth, Professor Li listed a series of mounting pressures: China’s growth rate has fallen from its high-speed era of 8 to 10% to around 5%. Household income growth has slowed sharply and the weakest gains are among the poorest groups. Urban wage growth has also softened. Consumption remains structurally weak. Fixed-asset investment, especially private investment has lost momentum. Unemployment, particularly among young people remains elevated. These are not separate problems. Taken together they raise a harder question, whether China can still generate the level of growth needed to meet its 2035 and 2050 prosperity targets?
India between 2015–2016 experienced significant growth driven by consumption, investment and services expansion. After Covid-19 its growth has stabilized around 6 to 7%, yet higher levels of prosperity are not clearly visible for many and inequality has widened.
The unemployment rate among those aged 16 to 24 in China has remained around 16% for an extended period, fluctuating during seasonal reasons. Unemployment among other age groups have also risen gradually, indicating clear pressure in the labor markets.
In India the unemployment for youth aged between 16 to 25 of age is 42%, per a Azim Premji University Surveys and State of Working India report in 2023. This unemployment rate is double the ratio of what we are witnessing in China.
While in China the education departments have shifted towards STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine). India still focuses on Social Science curriculums and students who study within these fields often cannot find job opportunities in the labor market.
India for many years hasn’t invested a substantial amount of energy and commitment to build a vibrant manufacturing sector. Yet, studies have shown that every job created by manufacturing exports creates two additional jobs in related sectors like transportation and logistics.
China’s wealth inequality via income has risen sharply, Professor Li Shi estimates the wealth Gini coefficient above 0.7 in 2023. India’s wealth inequality may be even more concentrated. Various estimates place India’s wealth inequality/income distribution per the Gini coefficient above 0.80, indicating an extremely unequal distribution of assets and accumulated capital.
However, the structures of inequality differ between the two economies. In China inequality emerged alongside rapid industrialization, urbanization and export, and led to manufacturing growth. A large industrial economy generated substantial wealth – but distributed it unevenly between labor and capital.
In India inequality is shaped not only by a wealth concentration at the top, but also by the persistence of low productivity via employment, informal labor markets, weak wage growth, and limited human capital investment across large sections of the population. Thus, while China faces the challenge of emphasizing prosperity within a middle income industrial economy, India continues to struggle with the deeper structural problem of trying to create broad based household income growth in the first place. The differential also sheds light on industrial sector based employment and those in agricultural jobs comparatively between the two nations regarding wage context.
Hard questions that China should ask include if their employment force – who are without many social protections and suffer a lack of higher wages, will allow China to attain competitive advantage over the rest of the world? While its manufacturing products are in demand, it doesn’t help the average Chinese person see realized wages go up and nor creates a dignified life. And China’s trading partners do not benefit, because a lack of competitive advantage destroys industries and makes unemployment problems even worse in other nations. It’s not a question about advantage only, it’s also about why this surplus and deficit competitive problem is growing rapidly and makes stable prosperity unachievable over the long term.
In India despite being proclaimed as the fastest growing global economy, if the young population don’t get jobs and cannot create income for their families, then what’s the purpose of this high GDP growth? Yes, the nation gets to show good growth numbers while hoping to achieve additional investment, but problematic results still occur.
Economic growth without wage growth leads to widening inequality, social unrest and sometimes political backlash. For growth to be inclusive, wages need to rise along with GDP. This requires not just distribution, but a transformation like raising the average productivity of every worker and ensuring they receive their fair share of the economic pie.
