Report Card of India & China at a glance

 

This paper* to attempts to compare the competitiveness of India and China over the last decade:

 

China's GDP was three times that of India in 2007. China's share of GDP to the world was 10.8%, which was double that of India. The average annual growth of per capita GDP of China was just double that of India in 2007. There was current account surplus for China (9.4% of GDP) against current account deficit for India (-1.1% of GDP). Adult literacy rate was 61% for India against 91% for China during 1995-2005. India and China both had followed centralised planning but China adopted an approach of communism to implement policies, whereas India's approach was to implement policies in a democratic system. China carried forward the reform process aggressively in 1980s and 1990s, whereas India initiated reform process in 1991 and carried forward moderately. The structure of output in India has moved in favour of services sector from 42.1% of GDP in 1991 to 52% GDP in 2007, whereas in China it has moved in favour of industry from 42.1% of GDP to 48.6% of GDP during the same period. China strictly followed the traditional development model, but India tried to jump from agriculture to services sector resulting in a relatively low manufacturing growth. Manufacturing value-added growth for India was just 6% during 1993-2003, whereas it was 12% for China during 1990-2005. The low manufacturing growth of India resulted in low overall growth of the country.

 

PR Bhatt; Competitiveness of India and China: A Comparison; Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, IIMK/WPS/54/STR/2009/10

 

This paper* attempts to analyse whether CEOs are utility maximisers:

 

Are individuals expected utility maximisers? This question represents much more than academic curiosity. In a normative sense, at stake are the fundamental underpinnings of the bulk of the last half-century's models of choice under uncertainty. From a positive perspective, the ubiquitous use of benefit-cost analysis across government agencies renders the expected utility maximisation paradigm literally the only game in town. In this study, we advance the literature by exploring CEO's preferences over small probability, high loss lotteries. Using undergraduate students as our experimental control group, we find that both our CEO and student subject pools exhibit frequent and large departures from expected utility theory. In addition, as the extreme payoffs become more likely, CEOs exhibit greater aversion to risk. Our results suggest that the use of expected utility paradigm in decision-making substantially underestimates society's willingness to pay to reduce risk in small probability, high loss events.