IESET.
Hypotheses·growth·india_1991_liberalisation_growth_acceleration

India's 1991 balance-of-payments-crisis-driven liberalisation programme (Manmohan Singh's package: rupee devaluation, industrial delicensing, trade liberalisation, FDI opening, partial financial- sector reform) produced a sustained acceleration in per-capita GDP growth.

Pre-reform (1965-1990) annualised real GDP-per-capita growth was substantially lower than post-reform (1992-2019, pre-COVID) annualised growth by at least 2 percentage points per year on a sustained basis. The effect is identifiable even at the smaller within-country structural-break scale.

SUPPORTEDengine/runs/india_1991_liberalisation_growth_acceleration

SUPPORTED — post-1991 annualised log-growth +4.67%/yr vs pre-1991 +1.96%/yr; acceleration +2.70pp/yr (threshold +2.00pp/yr).

confidence cueThis is a clear pass for the claim as written. It still applies only to this sample, period, and method.

policy briefNeeds review

In ordinary language

Over a long period, do more market-oriented institutions translate into higher income or productivity, once the comparison looks beyond a single success story?

plain answer

The data clearly moved in the predicted direction. post-1991 annualised log-growth +4.67%/yr vs pre-1991 +1.96%/yr; acceleration +2.70pp/yr (threshold +2.00pp/yr).

why it matters

Growth claims can look convincing in single success stories. This test asks whether the pattern survives a broader comparison.

how the test works

It compares 1 country or place units from 1965 to 2019, using a descriptive design.

what was measured
What we checked
  • Log income pc constant usd
what this does not prove

A single test is not the whole truth. It narrows the claim under a specific sample, time period, and method. Strong policy conclusions need the pattern to survive nearby tests, alternative data, and serious objections.

verification

1 input datasets, 0 unresolved missing series, provenance status: partial provenance.

Results

engine/runs/india_1991_liberalisation_growth_acceleration
descriptive sketch · model not yet run
Loading chart…

Who has skin in the game — schools predicting on this

17 schools list this hypothesis as a test of their position. The chips below are school-level scoreboard outcomes, not a second hypothesis verdict.

hypothesis verdict vs scoreboard outcome

The banner verdict judges this hypothesis as written. The scoreboard asks whether each school's polarity-corrected prediction was right. Raw status is not a school win: SUPPORTED supports schools that needed SUPPORTED, but refutes schools that needed REFUTED.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT)wins if SUPPORTEDschool supportedChicago School Monetarismwins if SUPPORTEDschool supportedClassical Liberalwins if SUPPORTEDschool supportedDegrowth / Ecological Macroeconomicswins if REFUTEDschool refutedDemocratic Socialism (Bernsteinian revisionism + modern)wins if REFUTEDschool refutedStructuralist / Developmentalistwins if MIXEDpartial/no-callEco-Socialism / Red-Greenwins if REFUTEDschool refutedEmpirical Pragmatist (the framework's house position)wins if MIXEDpartial/no-callNew Institutional Economicswins if MIXEDpartial/no-callMarket Socialism (Lange-Lerner tradition)wins if REFUTEDschool refutedMarxian Political Economywins if REFUTEDschool refutedMarxism-Leninism (central-planning implementation)wins if REFUTEDschool refutedModern Monetary Theorywins if REFUTEDschool refutedNew Keynesian (mainstream synthesis)wins if MIXEDpartial/no-callOrdoliberalism (Freiburg School)wins if SUPPORTEDschool supportedPost-Keynesianwins if REFUTEDschool refutedSocial Democraticwins if REFUTEDschool refuted

Pre-registration

pre-registered
first-spec commit bae09ab · 2026-04-29T22:09:42Z

India's 1991 balance-of-payments-crisis-driven liberalisation programme (Manmohan Singh's package: rupee devaluation, industrial delicensing, trade liberalisation, FDI opening, partial financial- sector reform) produced a sustained acceleration in per-capita GDP growth. Pre-reform (1965-1990) annualised real GDP-per-capita growth was substantially lower than post-reform (1992-2019, pre-COVID) annualised growth by at least 2 percentage points per year on a sustained basis. The effect is identifiable even at the smaller within-country structural-break scale.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

PRIMARY (dispositive): falsified if the annualised log-growth rate 1992-2019 minus the annualised log-growth rate 1965-1990 is less than 0.02 (2 percentage points per year). A reversed sign would be decisive refutation. INFORMATIVE (not gating): the acceleration should be larger (≥0.025) if the pre-window is trimmed to 1975-1990 (excluding earlier commanding-heights experiments that pulled down the pre-reform baseline).

formal test & threshold
test:      india_pre_post_1991_annualised_growth_gap
threshold: PRIMARY: annualised_log_growth(1992-2019) - annualised_log_growth(1965-1990) >= 0.02 INFORMATIVE: trimmed-window robustness (1975-1990 pre vs 1992-2019 post) yields a similar or larger gap. METHOD_VALID: WDI NY.GDP.PCAP.KD available for IND across 1965-2019.

Method

Template
descriptive
Clustering
none
Sample
1 countries · 1965 – 2019
Evidence type
descriptive

Pre-post annualised log-growth comparison. Primary statistic is the difference between mean annualised log-growth 1992-2019 and 1965-1990. Visualise as a kinked trend line with a break at 1991. No DiD — the 1991 package is abrupt and well-documented; this is a within-country structural break.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
log_gdp_pc_constant_usd
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2
log

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — India 1991 liberalisation growth acceleration

Verdict: SUPPORTED — post-1991 annualised log-growth +4.67%/yr vs pre-1991 +1.96%/yr; acceleration +2.70pp/yr (threshold +2.00pp/yr).

Headline numbers

  • Series: WDI NY.GDP.PCAP.KD (constant 2015 USD).
  • Pre-reform window 1965-1990 annualised log-growth: +1.961%/yr (cumulative +0.490 log-points, ~+63%).
  • Post-reform window 1992-2019 annualised log-growth: +4.666%/yr (cumulative +1.260 log-points, ~+252%).
  • Acceleration: +2.705pp/yr (post − pre).
  • Trimmed-pre robustness (1975-1990 vs 1992-2019): +2.353pp/yr.

Threshold applied

  • PRIMARY: annualised_log_growth(1992-2019) − annualised_log_growth(1965-1990) >= 0.02 (2pp/yr).
  • INFORMATIVE: trimmed-pre window (1975-1990) yields a similar or larger acceleration.

| Component | Threshold | Realised | Pass | |---|---:|---:|:---:| | Annualised acceleration | >= +2.00pp/yr | +2.705pp/yr | yes | | Trimmed-pre robustness | >= primary | +2.353pp/yr | no |

Interpretation

This is a within-country structural-break descriptive comparison; results are a pattern match, not causal identification. The 1991 BoP-crisis liberalisation package is bundled with subsequent reforms (1990s telecoms, 2000s services-export boom) and global tailwinds (China-driven commodity supercycle, IT-services offshoring). The descriptive estimator documents the break; it does not isolate the marginal contribution of 1991-specific instruments.

Sources

  • World Bank WDI NY.GDP.PCAP.KD (vintage NY.GDP.PCAP.KD@2026-04-28T125340Z.parquet).

Steelman live concerns

See hypotheses/steelman/india_1991_liberalisation_growth_acceleration.md.

Strongest opposing argument

Every hypothesis ships with its charitable opposing argument. The framework earns credibility by handling objections at their strongest, not weakest.

Notes

Canonical natural-experiment tier (HYPOTHESIS_FRAMEWORK_AUDIT.md §E6 case #10). Runnable today with WDI data. Primary spec deliberately simple (structural-break descriptive comparison) — in a framework that can handle magnitudes smaller than the China 1978 case, this 2-pp annualised acceleration is still a first-order signal.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.