Comparison of leading‐industrialisation and crossing‐industrialisation economic growth patterns in the context of sustainable development: Lessons from China and India

Various economic growth patterns differ in sustainability. Taking China and India as examples, this study parses the connotation of leading‐industrialisation and crossing‐industrialisation economic growth patterns. In addition, a theoretical framework of sustainable development, including economic, social, environmental and demographic sustainability, is constructed. Furthermore, the comparative analysis and case study method are used to compare the sustainability of the two patterns. Results demonstrate that the leading‐industrialisation pattern relies on abundant and skilled human resources to promote the manufacturing industry, thereby achieving rapid and high‐quality economic growth at the expense of the environment. Although it is superior in social sustainability, such as poverty proportion, employment rate, price stability and health condition, the pattern can lead to a gap in wealth and an imbalance in urbanisation. By contrast, we reveal that the crossing‐industrialisation pattern depends on the elite talents and technological progress to promote the service industry with high economic potential, which is resource‐efficient and environment‐friendly. Meanwhile, it is characterised by a small gap between the rich and the poor, relatively balanced urbanisation and future demographic dividends. However, it cannot guarantee adequate employment, public health and stable prices with serious poverty. This study enriches the multidimensional framework of sustainable development and proposes several practical implications for the sustainable development of the two economic growth patterns.