Comparative study of Asian economies: lessons for India

Abstract

Purpose

This paper represents a comparative study of five Asian countries, namely, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, China and India, based on the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2015-2016 published by the World Economic Forum. The purpose of this study is to assess India’s position vis-a-vis the various comparator Asian economies and to identify areas for improvement so as to enhance India’s competitiveness.

Design/methodology/approach

The study is based on the comparisons and analysis of the ranks of each country. These ranks are based on the indicators related to three categories, i.e. “Basic Requirements”, “Efficiency Enhancers” and “Innovation and Sophistication” Factors. The GCI included data from internationally recognised agencies such as the IMF, the WHO and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Findings

On the basis of the aforementioned comparisons among these five Asian economies, it was found that Singapore (Rank-2) has made stupendous economic progress and is amongst the top five successful economies of the world. Taiwan, South Korea and China also have taken significant economic strides and are ranked globally at 15, 26 and 28, respectively. India, on the other hand, is ranked 55 out of 140 nations.

Research limitations/implications

In this paper, the countries were compared on the basis of their rank in the GCI Report 2015-2016. For an in-depth and more holistic study, comparison can be done by taking into consideration other important reports and analysis in this regard.

Originality/value

This is an original study where the developments that have taken place in the five Asian economies have been analysed based on the GCI. Most importantly, this study identifies the area/indicator in which India needs to improve to be placed among the developed nations.

Citation

Bhardwaj, M., Naosekpam, A.S. and Tewari, R. (2018), "Comparative study of Asian economies: lessons for India", Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-07-2016-0013