1. Introduction

In recent decades, China and India have transformed into key global centers of economic development, significantly reshaping the balance of power in the global economy. Both countries are showing impressive growth rates, but their paths to prosperity are based on various combinations of government regulation, the role of private business, the importance of domestic consumption and involvement in international trade. The analysis of these economic models makes it possible to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, as well as predict their further development.

The relevance of this comparison is due to several factors. Firstly, China and India are the main driving forces of the world economy of the 21st century, making a huge contribution to global GDP growth and forming a significant share of demand for raw materials and industrial goods. Secondly, their experience is of particular value to other developing countries seeking to determine their growth trajectory. Third, increased competition between China and India has a direct impact on global production chains, investment inflows, and technology development [1].

2. Methods and materials

The study is based on a comparative analysis of two economic models using a set of methods. A historical and economic approach was used to study the evolution of the economic strategies of China and India from the end of the 20th century to the present. Statistical analysis was used to compare macroeconomic indicators, including the dynamics of GDP, GDP per capita, the structure of the economy and investment flows. The case-stage method was also used to study specific programs and initiatives — special economic zones in China (using the example of Zhuhai), the «Made in China 2025» strategy, the Bangalore IT cluster and the Indian «Make in India» program. The institutional analysis allowed us to assess the impact of political and administrative factors on economic development.

The practical implementation of the economic strategies of the two countries, which can be interpreted as natural experiments, is considered as an empirical basis.

The Chinese model: China has implemented a strategy of a «socialist market economy» with the dominant role of the state. The key elements were: the creation of special economic zones (for example, Zhuhai) with preferential conditions for foreign investors; a high level of capital accumulation and investment in industry; an active export policy; the «Made in China 2025» initiative aimed at technological breakthrough [4].Observed results: a long period of GDP growth at a rate of more than 10% per year, reaching a GDP per capita of about 12,500 US dollars, a high share of exports and foreign investment.

The Indian model: India, on the contrary, has gone from import substitution and public sector dominance to the liberalization of the 1990s. The model is focused on the domestic market and the service sector. Key elements: the development of an IT cluster in Bangalore, integration into the global digital economy, and the «Make in India» program to stimulate industry. Observed results: acceleration of GDP growth to 6-8% per year, transformation into the world’s third economy in terms of PPP, but significantly lower GDP per capita (about $ 2,500), structural shifts in favor of industry [3].

3. Results and discussions

Comparative analysis revealed the following patterns. The Chinese model has provided a faster start and a longer period of accelerated growth, making it possible to significantly reduce the economic gap and achieve a high level of per capita income. The key success factors were centralized decision-making, efficiency in the implementation of infrastructure projects and a high capital accumulation rate. However, China is currently facing the problem of an aging population and a slowdown in growth rates to 4-5% per year [2].

The Indian model has developed more moderately and unevenly, but has demonstrated less vulnerability to external shocks due to reliance on the domestic market and the service sector. India benefits from a demographic dividend — an increase in the share of the working-age population, which contributes to maintaining high growth rates (6-8% per year). At the same time, the country faces institutional difficulties, diverse regional interests, and lower per capita incomes.

In the short term, China retains its superiority in terms of development and technological base. However, in the long term, it is India that has greater growth dynamics and the potential for catching up. The most promising model is one that combines China’s industrial potential and export orientation with an emphasis on human capital, services, and the domestic market, typical of India.

4. Conclusion

China and India have chosen radically different paths of economic development. The Chinese model was characterized by active government intervention and export orientation. The Indian one is based on the development of the domestic market and the service sector.

The Chinese strategy has made it possible to quickly achieve a high level of income, but has faced demographic challenges. The Indian economy, on the contrary, is showing steady growth, which is facilitated by a young population and a significant domestic market. Nevertheless, India is still inferior to China in terms of the welfare of its citizens.

The experience of both Asian powers clearly demonstrates that economic success directly depends on the compliance of the chosen strategy with specific national conditions. Further competition between these two giants will have a significant impact on the formation of global economic trends.