“The process of liberalization of India's economy since 1991 has brought with it considerable development both of its financial markets and the legal institutions which support these. An influential body of recent economic work asserts that a country's 'legal origin' - as a civilian or common law jurisdiction - plays an important part in determining the development of its investor protection regulations, and consequently its financial development.
An alternative theory claims that the determinants of investor protection are political, rather than legal. We use the case of India to test these theories. We find little support for the idea that India's legal heritage as a common law country has been influential in speeding the path of regulatory reforms and financial development. There is a complementarity between
(i) India's relative success in services and software,
(ii) the relative strength of its financial markets for outside equity, as opposed to outside debt, and
(iii) the relative success of stock market regulation, as opposed to reforms of creditor rights.
Conclude that political explanations have more traction in explaining the case of India than do theories based on 'legal origins'.” In India’s case, political explanations have a greater bearing in explaining India’s growth, and that its legal heritage as a common law country has not played a significant role towards that end.
Thus like all other economies, politics has affected had affected and will be affecting India. It’s a part of India always. It has both positive and negative impacts on every economy. It is necessary to run the government and the nation and have a control over the country and its people. Conversely it hampers the growth of a nation because it comprises of fraudulent politicians too along with those who really strive hard for the nation’s betterment. On the whole, politics is essential but must be for the nation’s growth.
An alternative theory claims that the determinants of investor protection are political, rather than legal. We use the case of India to test these theories. We find little support for the idea that India's legal heritage as a common law country has been influential in speeding the path of regulatory reforms and financial development. There is a complementarity between
(i) India's relative success in services and software,
(ii) the relative strength of its financial markets for outside equity, as opposed to outside debt, and
(iii) the relative success of stock market regulation, as opposed to reforms of creditor rights.
Conclude that political explanations have more traction in explaining the case of India than do theories based on 'legal origins'.” In India’s case, political explanations have a greater bearing in explaining India’s growth, and that its legal heritage as a common law country has not played a significant role towards that end.
Thus like all other economies, politics has affected had affected and will be affecting India. It’s a part of India always. It has both positive and negative impacts on every economy. It is necessary to run the government and the nation and have a control over the country and its people. Conversely it hampers the growth of a nation because it comprises of fraudulent politicians too along with those who really strive hard for the nation’s betterment. On the whole, politics is essential but must be for the nation’s growth.