Is India a major power?

Washington Quarterly

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 129-144

  Perkovich, George ^a  

^a CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27944478637     PISSN: 0163660X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/016366003322596963     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Penn.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), pp. 191-192.
2. Martin Ravallion, presentation to the Brookings Institution-Carnegie Endowment for International Peace conference "Making Globalization Work," December 2, 2002, pp. 7-8 (transcript of panel 1) (hereinafter Ravallion presentation).
3. See Martin Ravallion and Gaurav Datt, "Why Has Economic Growth Been More Pro-Poor in Some States of India than Others?" Journal of Development Economics 68 (2002): 381-400, http://poverty.worldbank.org/files/13995_JDE2002.pdf (accessed October 28, 2003).
4. Sanjaya Baru, "The Strategic Consequences of India's Economic Performance," in India's National Security Annual Review 2002, ed. Satish Kumar (New Delhi: India Research Press, 2003), p. 177.
5. Ravallion presentation.
6. Pradeep Agarwal et al., Policy Regimes and Industrial Competitiveness: A Comparative Study of East Asia and India (Houndmills, UK: Macmillan, 2000), p. 272.
7. Leading debt-reduction options are to reduce the size of government by cutting payrolls and privatizing state enterprises or, alternatively, increase the productivity of government workers and enterprises; attract foreign investment, particularly in infrastructure; or increase tax collections, not necessarily tax rates.
8. S Baru, "Strategic Consequences of India's Economic Performance," p. 191.
9. T. N. Srinivasan and Suresh D. Tendulkar, Reintegrating India with the World Economy (Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 2003), p. 28.
10. Yasheng Huang and Tarun Khanna, "Can India Overtake China?" Foreign Policy (July-August 2003): 74-81.
11. Ashley J. Tellis et al., Measuring National Power in the Postindustrial Age (RAND, 2000), pp. 22-27.
12. B. R. Nayar and T. V. Paul, India in the World Orders: Searching for Major-Power Status (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 60;
13. Francine Frankel, "Contextual Democracy: Intersections of Society, Culture and Politics in India," in Transforming India, eds. Francine Frankel et al. (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 20.
14. F Frankel, "Contextual Democracy," p. 5.
15. Achin Vanaik, "Interface between Democracy, Diversity and Stability,",in Democracy, Diversity, Stability, eds. D. D. Khanna, L. L. Mehrotra, and Gert W. Kueck (New Delhi: MacMillan India Ltd., 1998), p. 301.
16. Using Samuel Huntington's controversial categories, the world can be seen as divided along the following civilizational lines: Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist, and Japanese. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).
17. For a more thorough discussion of these developments, see George Perkovich, India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2001), pp. 495-501 (paperback ed.).
18. Sanjay Singh, "Thin Red Line: New Delhi's Balancing Act," Pioneer, March 23, 2003.
19. Ibid.