The global financial and economic crisis that unfolded from 2008 onwards in the epicentre of capitalism appeared to have affected large ‘emerging’ economies such as India and China less in its initial phase. This was explained by some experts using a ‘decoupling’ hypothesis, where it was hypothesised that the high growth rates of these economies did not seem to be affected by turbulence in the international economy, particularly the crisis in the US economy. While the idea of decoupling had its origins in the explanations for India's and China's supposed relative immunity, it was also used to explain the cases of Brazil and other Latin American countries regarding the independence of their growth rates from the growth rate of the US (Wyrobek and Stanczyk 2013). In fact, for over a year from when the crisis unfolded, it appeared that many emerging Asian economies, especially India and China, would not only remain relatively insulated from the crisis, but would also play a major role in moderating the global downturn and paving the way for a worldwide recovery.

Several features distinguished the recent crisis from the various financial crises that affected mostly emerging economies in different parts of the world in the phase of globalisation. Firstly, the origin of the crisis was at the core of capitalism, in the US economy, rather than in emerging markets that were typically perceived as more vulnerable. The rapid spread of the crises’ contagion to the entire global economy differed from previous crises that were usually confined to one region or a small number of countries. Indeed, the intensity of the crisis was revealed as a complex financial entanglement exposing the fragility of even supposedly healthy institutions and countries. This global crisis spread rapidly and extensively to economic agents, sectors and economies that were previously perceived to be relatively immune. The fact that the crisis could not be blamed on faulty domestic policies of ‘errant’ governments in emerging economies, as had happened previously with crises in Asia, Latin America and Russia, called into serious question the rationale for full openness and complete reliance on market signals in economic activity under neoliberal economic regimes