1)Given that China's tax rate is relatively low at 22% of GDP, how does its government get so much latitude in economic policy?

2)The economic policy of Congress is influenced by Dr. Amartya Sen while that of BJP by Dr. Bhagawati. Why are both of these not so successful in terms of equality and poverty?

3)What economic policies have a generally accepted "correct" treatment by economists but are still debated among politicians and voters?

1)Given that China's tax rate is relatively low at 22% of GDP, how does its government get so much latitude in economic policy?

2)Dr. Amartya Sen and Dr. Jagdish Bhagwati are the two finest Indian economists.

Sen is of the view that India should invest in social infrastructure so as to increase the productive capacity of its people and thus achieve higher economic growth whereas Bhagwati is of the view that the concentration should be on the growth policies which will eventually lead to an improvement in the social infrastructure and individual capabilities of the people. Sen propagated investments in health and education and further believes that without such investments economy will face problems of inequalities of income and wealth whereas Bhagwati states that a high growth rate might increase inequality in the initial phase of economic expansion but eventually the fruits of the economic growth would be enjoyed by the entire economy.

Both of their take on the economic policy has not given desired results in the Indian Economy because of the extremities. The growth policies should be designed keeping an overall balance to achieve the desired results.

3)There are various economic policies that are generally accepted by economists but do not go well with politicians and voters. For example, economists would argue in favor of reducing corporate taxes. Most politicians and voters disagree with this, despite the fact that reducing corporate taxes would encourage corporate growth. Another major issue where politicians and economists disagree has to do with free trade. Most politicians and voters would disagree with free trade being completely unrestricted, despite the fact that, as economists would tell you, free trade grows the economy, which makes everyone better off.