This paper attempts to examine the growth performance and its impact on inequality and poverty in China and India. The recent upsurge in growth rates in China and India is seen widely as the "success" story of globalisation. It is also claimed that these developments will make a significant impact on the reduction of global inequalities and poverty.Although a number of scholars have analysed the recent economic performance of China and India, however, these studies have not taken into account the past policies and its impact on current performance. We find there is a gap in the current discussion, which overlooks historical and economic factors on the recent performance.This article critically asses the claimed fall in global poverty due to mainly the rise of China and India in recent years. The article questions the "pro-globalisation" argument, which suggests that there is a link between 'market liberal' free market polices and falling poverty. It is argued instead that the evidence concerning poverty reduction is ambiguous, and is not that the most successful economies have adopted pro-globalisation policies.Studying the developmental changes taking place in these two countries is important because they together account for 37.5% of the global population. These populous neighbours, regarded as symbols of poverty and failure until two decades ago, contain large numbers of people are living below the officially defined poverty line. Key WordsChina, India, neoliberal economic reforms, economic growth, FDI, poverty, inequality, inter-sectoral and regional variations. IntroductionThis study is a modest attempt to understand the dynamics of the development of the economies of China and India, particularly since the adoption of neoliberal economic reforms. Although a number of scholars have analysed the recent economic performance of China and India, (Ahluwalia, 2004; Bhalla, 2003; Srinivasan, 2006 and others) however, these studies have not taken into account the past policies and its impact on current performance. We find there is a gap in the current discussion, which overlooks historical and economic factors on the recent performance. We will also critically analyse the issue of poverty reduction in these two economies presented by international financial institutions. (World Bank, 2006)

Singapore has gone through a rapid transformation during the last forty-five years. From an entrepot predominantly towards commerce and services in the mid-1960s into an economy, which presently specialising in high value manufacturing activities, and regional financial hub for business services in East Asia. This paper aims to overview the issues of the role of state and foreign investment, which has played an important role in achieving rapid economic growth. For instance, in 2002 Singapore's GDP was 24 times compared to 1965 levels. The average annual growth rate for GDP between 1965 and 2006 was nearly 8 % and GNP increased slightly higher over this period. The study examines the international environment and how it contributed to achieve higher rates of growth. It seems that these aspects are overlooked by the researchers. And with the end of the Cold War and with the recent surge in globalisation of production Singapore's economy is being affected. The study will also argue that the historical factors seem to be important in determining a country's development strategies.

Some 42% of the world's population (i.e. 3 billion people) live in Brazil, Russia, India and China, collectively known as BRICs. Of these four, India and Brazil also have a higher than average birth rate. The combined economy of the BRICs made up 25.6% of the global GDP in 2015 and has been projected to increase to 33% by 2020. Studying the BRICs economies is important for a number of reasons including: their rapid economic growth rates, large populations, and fast-growing markets for goods and capital. Their average per capita annual income ranges from about US$ 3,000 to nearly US$ 15,000 in PPP terms. However, in 2015 their average annual GDP growth exceeded 6%, which is much higher than the 1.9% of the OECD countries. It is estimated that their share in the world economy could double over the next two decades, from 25.6% to 40%.

The study will focus on the current financial crisis and its impact on the growth, trade and employment in emerging market economies (EMEs) namely China and India. The emerging market economies are characterized as transitional, which means that they are in the process of moving from a closed to an open market economy. It is said that by adoption of neoliberal policies, the economy will suppose to lead to a better economic performance levels, as well as transparency and efficiency in the capital market.

No abstract

This study analysis developing country's experiences of the last three decades after many of these countries had adopted neoliberal economic policies. An attempt is being made to study their achievements in terms of reducing poverty and unemployment. Also explores neoliberalism and globalisation and its impact on the process and development of democracy in developing countries in the present framework of global capitalism.

Japan, the world's second largest economy, is experiencing the worst economic crisis since the Second World War and the government is attempting to avoid a return to the "lost decade" of the 1990s when it was stuck in a deflationary spiral. To fight back recession, the Bank of Japan has kept the interest rate to 0.1 %, even lower than Bank of England's 0.5 %. Japan's economy has grown only at an average of 1% annually since 1992. Equally, the country's recovery of 2003-07 did not have any long term effect on the growth.In many respects Japan remains very unique among the developed countries. The country's economic miracle of the 1950s and 1960s has encouraged debate among the scholars to the significance of Japan's economic past. It is widely seen as due to different model of development in areas such as industrial organisation, the role of the state, social institutions and history. Her appeal lies in the dramatic growth rates and economic transformation. Japan was first Asian country to break the western monopoly of modern industrialisation. Less than a generation ago, Japan was viewed an exemplary success story in terms of rapid economic growth and a model to be emulated by other developed and developing countries. Here I will argue that the Japanese economy suffers from severe problems that are not cyclical but structural in nature. Such structural problems are the most serious impediments to economic dynamism and the future long-run economic success of the country.

Since the pro-market reforms were launched, the Indian economy has grown from 4.7% in the 1990 to 9% in 2011 before slowing down dramatically to nearly half of that rate in recent years. From launching of reforms until 2011, it did manifest some vivid and impressive signs of India moving towards high growth and increase in living conditions of its population. The purpose of this article is to access the likely effects of reform measures on the society, because the mainstream approach suggests that the reforms can be expected to increase economic growth and incomes. However, this study finds that the mainstream economists ignore the role of domestic aggregate demand and inequality. India's growth was led by the services sector, which included real estates, IT, telecommunications and banking, and contributed nearly 50% to the GDP in 2012. Manufacturing, which experienced remarkable growth and transformation in the East Asian economies, had rather grown much slower. The agriculture sector, which still employs nearly two-third of India's workforce, remains stagnant. The study suggests that education and health have been neglected in India and this will compromise productivity and growth.