Comparison of leading‐industrialisation and crossing‐industrialisation economic growth patterns in the context of sustainable development: Lessons from China and India

Abstract

Various economic growth patterns differ in sustainability. Taking China and India as examples, this study parses the connotation of leading-industrialisation and crossingindustrialisation economic growth patterns. In addition, a theoretical framework of sustainable development, including economic, social, environmental and demographic sustainability, is constructed. Furthermore, the comparative analysis and case study method are used to compare the sustainability of the two patterns. Results demonstrate that the leading-industrialisation pattern relies on abundant and skilled human resources to promote the manufacturing industry, thereby achieving rapid and highquality economic growth at the expense of the environment. Although it is superior in social sustainability, such as poverty proportion, employment rate, price stability and health condition, the pattern can lead to a gap in wealth and an imbalance in urbanisation. By contrast, we reveal that the crossing-industrialisation pattern depends on the elite talents and technological progress to promote the service industry with high economic potential, which is resource-efficient and environmentfriendly. Meanwhile, it is characterised by a small gap between the rich and the poor, relatively balanced urbanisation and future demographic dividends. However, it cannot guarantee adequate employment, public health and stable prices with serious poverty. This study enriches the multidimensional framework of sustainable development and proposes several practical implications for the sustainable development of the two economic growth patterns.

European environment policy for the circular economy: Implications for business and industry stakeholders

“…The increase in the global extraction of resources is driven by higher living standards and from major infrastructural investments that are happening in developing and transitioning countries (EU, 2020b; Zhang, Hassan, & Iqbal, 2020). The rise of rapid urbanization within the emerging economies is expected to intensify the competition for certain raw materials and to destroy our natural environment (Huang, Chen, Su, & Wu, 2020; Rodrigues & Franco, 2019). Eventually, this can have (it already has in some parts of the world) a devastating effect on our global climate (Salvini, Dentoni, Ligtenberg, Herold, & Bregt, 2018).…”

Redefining Economic Growth for Green Economy: the Review of Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 Progress

“…The Sustainable GDP indicator will have certain policy implications for developed and developing countries: Developed countries with stabilized population growth and stabilized industrial growth may implement the following policy objectives: ensure that new infrastructure and built environment developed for the primary industries will be green; establish additional provisions and investment to provide an access to ICT in rural areas; facilitate the transition to Industry 5.0 with the focus on government, education, and healthcare while investing into robotics and smart machines; organize the sharing of knowledge and technological spillovers via the global companies' expansion in developing countries; ensure the transition to renewable energy by taxation measures; facilitate greening of the existing ICT infrastructure mainly focusing on transportation costs; organize the direct investment into "smart factories" while considering the location of highly skilled labor and existing ICT infrastructure; implement smart manufacturing and lean manufacturing; improve reverse logistics by product design and supply chain greening; and deliver the advanced manufacturing transformation via innovation, R&D, and direct state investment. Developing countries with a growing population as a consumer base and growing primary industries may implement the following policy objectives: ensure that new infrastructure and built environment developed for the primary industries will be green; allow the direct adoption of low-carbon technologies, including built environment and infrastructure; introduce smart manufacturing and lean manufacturing; implement direct transition to services (Industry 3.0) and information and telecommunication technology (Industry 4.0) by skipping the primary industry and secondary industry development step (Industry 1.0 and Industry 2.0) (Huang et al, 2020); facilitate by statutory policy instruments the direct investments in green ICT infrastructure; introduce reverse logistic frameworks such as recycling and remanufacturing; and facilitate the transformation via innovation, R&D, and direct foreign investment.…”

Comparison of the Impact of Different Economic Patterns on Population Inflows: Evidence from China’s Guangdong, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang Provinces

“…For regions that focus on the Sunan pattern, characterized by an industrialization-led growth pattern, the emphasis should be on accelerating their progression toward the higher end of the global value chain [87]. On the one hand, these regions should strive to create advanced production factors, develop a private sector, and attract elite talents.…”