--- canonical_url: "https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-33/how-does-the-productivity-and-economic-growth-performance-of-china-and-india-compare-in-the-post-reform-era-1981-2011/" title: "How Does the Productivity and Economic Growth Performance of China and India Compare in the Post-Reform Era, 1981-2011?" author: name: "CSLS" url: "https://csls.ca/author/cslc/" date_published: "2026-07-13T07:42:38+00:00" date_modified: "2026-07-13T07:42:38+00:00" post_type: "ipm" summary: "" ipm_issue_period: - "Fall 2017" ipm_keyword: - "1981-2011" - "APPF" - "China" - "financial crisis" - "growth accounting" - "India" - "KLEMS" - "post-reform" - "productivity" - "TFP" - "WTO" ipm_research_theme: - "Productivity trends and comparisons" ipm_country_focus: - "China" - "India" - "International" featured_image: "https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/IPM_50_banner.webp" status: "publish" --- # How Does the Productivity and Economic Growth Performance of China and India Compare in the Post-Reform Era, 1981-2011? Canonical URL: https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-33/how-does-the-productivity-and-economic-growth-performance-of-china-and-india-compare-in-the-post-reform-era-1981-2011/ # How Does the Productivity and Economic Growth Performance of China and India Compare in the Post-Reform Era, 1981-2011? [Download full PDF article](https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IPM-Issue-33-6-Wu-Krishna-Das-Das.pdf) Cite this article × Cite this article as: Wu, Harry, K. Krishna, Deb Kusum Das, and Pilu Chandra Das. 2017. “How Does the Productivity and Economic Growth Performance of China and India Compare in the Post-Reform Era, 1981-2011?” International Productivity Monitor, No. 33 (Fall 2017): 91–113. https://www.csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-33/how-does-the-productivity-and-economic-growth-performance-of-china-and-india-compare-in-the-post-reform-era-1981-2011/ ## Authors: - Harry Wu Department of Accounting and Finance, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University - K. Krishna Delhi School of Economics - Deb Kusum Das Ramjas College - Pilu Chandra Das Kidderpore College ## IPM Issue 33 Fall 2017 pp. 91–113 ## Related IPM articles [Efficiency Adjustment of Hours Worked: Two Possible Modifications of a Jorgensen Production Model Barbara Fraumeni Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 103–115](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/efficiency-adjustment-of-hours-worked-two-possible-modifications-of-a-jorgensen-production-model/) [The Relationship between Efficiencies Defenses for Mergers and TFP Growth Robin Shaban Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 82–102](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/the-relationship-between-efficiencies-defenses-for-mergers-and-tfp-growth/) [Labour Productivity as a Measure of Technological Change Ulrich Kohli Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 64–81](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/labour-productivity-as-a-measure-of-technological-change/) [Adult Skills and Productivity: New Evidence from PIAAC 2023 Dan Andrews, Balázs Égert, Christine de La Maisonneuve Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 41–63](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/adult-skills-and-productivity-new-evidence-from-piaac-2023/) [The Potential Impact of Pro-competitive Regulatory Reforms on Productivity and Growth in Canada Gilbert Cette, Jimmy Lopez, Giuseppe Nicoletti, Océane Vernerey Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 3–40](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/the-potential-impact-of-pro-competitive-regulatory-reforms-on-productivity-and-growth-in-canada/) [IPM Issue 49 Editors’ Overview Andrew Sharpe, Bart van Ark, Paul Schreyer Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 1–2](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/) [Appendix: UK Productivity Growth Rates Across Data Vintages and Studies Josh Martin Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 65–73](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/appendix-uk-productivity-growth-rates-across-data-vintages-and-studies/) [The UK Productivity Slowdown: A Review of Timing, Magnitude, and Drivers Josh Martin Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 1–34](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/the-uk-productivity-slowdown-a-review-of-timing-magnitude-and-drivers/) [Opportunities and Risks of Artificial Intelligence for Productivity Francesco Filippucci, Peter Gal, Katharina Laengle, Matthias Schief, Filiz Unsal Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 1–26](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/opportunities-and-risks-of-artificial-intelligence-for-productivity/) [Using Ecosystem Accounting to Integrate the Environment in Measures of Multifactor Productivity Carl Obst Fall 2024 | IPM Issue 47 | pp. 87–108](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-47/using-ecosystem-accounting-to-integrate-the-environment-in-measures-of-multifactor-productivity/) ## Abstract ## Résumé EN FR Copy link Email LinkedIn Applying an aggregate production possibility frontier (APPF) framework for growth accounting à la Jorgenson et al. to economy-wide Chinese and Indian industry productivity accounts, constructed in the spirit of the KLEMS principle, we estimate and compare growth and productivity performance in China and India over their post-reform period from 1981 to 2011. We show that during this period China grew over 50 per cent-faster than India in value added (9.4 versus 6.1 per cent per annum) but about 25 per cent-slower than India in TFP (0.83 versus 1.13 per cent per annum). The two economies also experienced very different growth and productivity performances over sub-periods distinguished by special policy regimes and governing systems. While both countries appeared to enjoy their best performances in the 2002-2007 period following China’s WTO entry, China faltered much more in terms of total factor productivity growth in the wake of the global financial crisis. Benef iting fr om their mark et-oriented En appliquant un cadre de frontière de possibilités de production globale (FPPG) pour la comptabilité de la croissance à la Jorgenson et coll. aux comptes de productivité industrielle de l’économie chinoise et indienne, construits dans l’esprit du principe KLEMS, nous estimons et comparons la performance de croissance et de productivité en Chine et en Inde sur leur période post-réforme de 1981 à 2011. Nous montrons que durant cette période, la Chine a crû plus de 50 % plus vite que l’Inde en valeur ajoutée (9,4 contre 6,1 % par année) mais environ 25 % plus lentement que l’Inde en termes de PMF (0,83 contre 1,13 % par année). Les deux économies ont également connu des performances de croissance et de productivité très différentes selon les sous-périodes. [Download full PDF](https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IPM-Issue-33-6-Wu-Krishna-Das-Das.pdf)