印度经济在东亚危机中保持稳定、继续增长 ,并不意味着存在另外的某种经济模型。印度对市场改革、尤其是对资本控制所采取的谨慎办法 ,确实使其经济得到保护而免于东亚危机的波及。但印度之实施资本控制 ,更多地是出于偶然而不是有意为之。而且 ,尽管东亚地区发生了危机 ,印度居民的平均生活水平仍旧远远低于这个地区的平均水平。印度在改革过程中大范围地采取谨慎从事的态度 ,更多地是受到强迫而不是主动选择的结果。 1 990年代头几年 ,市场改革一经引入便遭到政治领域和公众的反对 ,历届政府的自由化放慢脚步。除了对市场改革的抵制之外 ,又出现了一种党派分化而且互不相让的民主过程。除非能就各种经济问题达成广泛的政治共识 ,就很少有什么可能做出某种政治决策 ,推进经济转型而促使印度深重的贫困发生巨大变化。而且 ,虽然从 1 990年代初期开始改革以来经济增长迈出了实实在在的步伐 ,这种增长总是时作时缀 The stability and continuous growth of the Indian economy during the crisis in East Asia does not mean that there is another certain economic model. India’s cautious approach to market reforms, and especially to capital controls, has indeed protected its economy from the crisis in East Asia. However, India’s implementation of capital controls is more by accident than by intention. And, despite the crisis in East Asia, the average living standard of Indian residents is still far below the average in the region. India’s broad-based cautious approach in the reform process is more of a result of coercion rather than proactive choice. In the early years of the 1990’s, when market reforms were introduced, they were opposed by the political arena and the public, and the liberalization of successive governments slowed down. In addition to the boycott of market reforms, there emerged a process of democratization in which parties are divided and mutually exclusive. Unless a broad political consensus on various economic issues can be reached, there is little chance of making some kind of political decision-making and promoting economic restructuring that have brought about drastic changes in India’s deep poverty. And, although economic growth has taken real steps since the reforms began in the early 1990s, this growth is always punctuated