Search results

In the context of India's growth and development benchmarked against China, this paper aims to address two important research questions: How do the growth models and market potential of China and India compare? What are some policy lessons to be learned?

This paper presents a critical analysis and review of the empirical results.

While India has adopted policies that have stimulated consumer demand and fostered entrepreneurship, China has adopted policies that have encouraged resource‐mobilization. China's physical infrastructure, while impressive, may have come at the cost of social investments (e.g. primary and secondary education). Empirical result shows that social investments are important for an economy's sustained growth, more than incentives to attract foreign direct investments. While the structure of the economy appears to be more promising for India, there is one enigmatic issue yet to be understood: China's path of economic development (agriculture to industry to services) has been demonstrated to be viable but India's path of development (almost directly agrarian to services‐based) may or may not be viable (the jury is still out). Finally, data from China and India are not yet discriminating enough to answer the question: is growth driven by greater export‐import trade recommended for long‐term and stable growth?

This study shows that while China and India have adopted two different models of growth, India's model is likely to be more sustainable.

The introduction of the 22 member countries of the 4+10+2+6 model of the Asian economy is the immediate task. Japan, Korea, China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar constitute the now-famous 4+10 model. Following the principle of inclusion, Mongolia, Chinese Taipei, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka, as they belong to the regional map of the continent of Asia, are the eight remaining member countries (see Chapter 1). An overview of Asia's 22 member continental economy the AE-22, with its 3.6 billion people (2006) who have made the region of Asia their home in a land area of 20.5 million km² should be welcome. To put these figures in perspective, the AE-22 comprises only 13.7 percent of the world's land area, but is home to over half the world's population. Tables 2.1–2.4, presented below, illustrate the various figures relating to population, land area, GDP, and GDP per capita of the member nations of the AE-22.

One of the highly debatable issues in the arena of international economics in recent years is whether a country should go for full capital account convertibility. In terms of the timing and process of capital account liberalization, India and China have been remarkably similar. Both started with a more or less closed capital account in the 1970s and the 1980s, in the context of a heavily state-influenced, planned economy. And in both countries, the first wave of liberalization came in the early 1990s and thus, the journey began. The objective of this chapter is to provide a critical analysis of both India and China's approach to the capital account liberalization program in the backdrop of the recent financial crises and to give an account of the theoretical issues that have arisen in international discussions on CAC and India's standpoint on this issue in particular. Second, how far is the capital account liberalization justified in the context of the recent episodes of financial crises that India and China have witnessed? Using a macroempiric model, this chapter tries to answer whether every member country in the IMF should hurriedly go for CAC or not. In addition, empirically through FMOLS, the authors pool in the “Rupee Convertibility” and “Renminbi Internationalization” along with exchange rate variation and its implications for India's and China's BoP situation (in terms of the export–import position and FDI flows) based on data from 1992 to 2017. ^{1 , 2}

The origins of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have been widely attributed to the work of scholars, and business managers as well, in North America and Western Europe. Inevitably, however, as the economic interaction of individual firms and entire nations has grown over the past several decades — call it globalization — so too has the concept and the practice of CSR spread throughout the world. It is certainly time to explore how CSR is being incorporated into the practice of business management in other regions and other countries. Therefore, in this chapter we will focus on Asia: specifically on Japan, South Korea, India, and China. It is interesting for academicians to understand how CSR is being absorbed and adapted into the business cultures of these four countries. Perhaps of even greater importance, it is vital that business managers know what to expect about the interaction between business and society as well as the government as their commercial activities grow in this burgeoning part of the world.

For each of these four countries, we will provide an overview of the extent to which CSR has become a part of the academic community and also how it is being practiced and incorporated in everyday management affairs. We will see that there are very significant differences among these countries which lead to the natural question: why? To answer this question, we will use an eight-part analytical framework developed specifically for this purpose. We will look at the history, the dominant religious beliefs, the relevant social customs, the geography, the political structures, the level of economic development, civil society institutions, and the “safety net” of each country. As a result of this analysis, we believe, academicians can learn how CSR is absorbed and spread into commercial affairs, and managers can profit from learning more about what to expect when doing business in this increasingly important region.

The focus of this paper is to provide an assessment of the impact of imports from China on Indian manufacturing and capture the multifarious dimensions of India–China bilateral trade flows. By examining the comparative disadvantage imports (RCA<1), the paper critically examines their significance on India's industry output and performance and underlines factors beyond trade competitiveness.

For examining the impact of India's manufacturing imports from China on industry performance, four stages of analysis is adopted. First, the imports with RCA <1 have been identified. For these, BRCA was also computed. Second, trends in industry performance associated with high imports from China. Third, for estimating the impact of imports on industry output, augmented production function was specified and estimated with imports from China as a potential determinant. And fourth, comparison of industry performance between India and China.

The impact of imports from China on industry output is positive and significant. A 1% increase/decrease in the share of China in world imports will result in output increasing by 0.31%. The rise in imports from China seems to be on account of non-availability of necessary intermediate and capital goods domestically, thereby making these imports critical and complementary for production. This negates the threat perception of imports from China.

The paper recognizes the need for understanding the firm heterogeneity in import decisions and R&D intensity of imports. Across industries, the drivers for firms' decisions to import are “learning by importing’ and “self-selection” (Camino-Magro et al., 2020). Also, another important dimension at the firm-level analysis is the elasticity of substitution between foreign and domestic inputs. If the elasticity of substitution is low then high import barriers will lead to reduction of domestic output. These firm-level issues are important for effective policy interventions.

One, the inward looking focus of the industry which is exhibited in low export intensity will not provide the necessary impetus to propel the manufacturing sector to a higher technology frontier and translate the productivity gains to export competitiveness. Two, unless the domestic manufacturing is propelled from the current low/medium technology to high technology products, the current policy thrust on “self-reliance” cannot be realized.

Analysis is based on manufacturing imports with RCA<1 from China thereby underlining factors beyond trade competitiveness not covered by RCA methodology. Complementing the quantitative analysis with economic policy developments in China and India and contrasting the same has provided insights into the real factors determining India–China bilateral trade.

This paper aims to identify and discuss new and novel business paradigms in China and India. In addition, this study examines the new business environment in those countries (2020 onwards) in the context of COVID 19 and explores the challenges and opportunities in the post COVID period.

Based on content analysis, this study discusses contemporary topics such as innovation, exports, foreign direct investment, technology, social capital, board independence as part of corporate governance and explores novel themes such as consumer behaviour in regard to luxury brands and women entrepreneurship in an emerging country context in this paper.

It was found that there are several novel paradigms in the context of China and India. A paradigm shift in diplomatic relations has taken place as an aftermath of COVID-19 in the world.

This paper explores most of the unique dimensions of new and novel paradigms in the context of China and India.

The authors test the effect of expenditure decentralization and fiscal equalization on short- and long-run economic growth and estimate two-step generalized method of moment (GMM) simultaneous equations models, using panel data for China and India for the period 1985 to 2005. The authors estimate two simultaneous equations: a growth equation and equalization equation and find that expenditure decentralization has a negative and statistically significant effect at conventional levels on short-run economic growth for both China and India. However, the authors also find that this result is sensitive to the set of included explanatory variables. This leads the authors to conclude that expenditure decentralization has no effect on short-run economic growth for either country. The authors also find that expenditure decentralization has a positive and statistically significant effect on fiscal equalization for both countries but find no evidence that fiscal equalization affects short-run economic growth for either China or India. In contrast, the authors find that expenditure decentralization has a positive effect on long-run economic growth in the case of India, but not in the case of China. Finally, the authors report evidence that fiscal equalization has no effect on long-run economic growth in the case of China; however, the authors find that equalization has a positive and statistically significant at conventional levels effect on long-run economic growth in India.

The authors estimate two-step GMM simultaneous equations models, using panel data for China and India for the period 1985 to 2005. To examine the effect of fiscal decentralization (FD) policies on economic growth in China and India, the authors estimate two equations: a growth equation and an equalization equation. For the growth equation, the authors adopt a production-function-based model that is widely used in the empirical literature on growth; however, the authors do make some compromises with this specification due to the unavailability of certain data. For the equalization equation, the authors include variables that economic theory and empirical evidence suggest influence fiscal disparities among subnational governments which in turn influence the demand for horizontal fiscal equalization (HFE). To the extent possible, the authors employ the same econometric specification, variable constructions and sample periods for both China and India. The authors believe this strategy provides a more rigorous test of the FD hypothesis.

The authors find that expenditure decentralization has a negative and statistically significant effect at conventional levels on short-run economic growth for both China and India. However, the authors also find that this result is sensitive to the set of included explanatory variables. This leads to conclude that expenditure decentralization has no effect on short-run economic growth for either country. The authors also find that expenditure decentralization has a positive and statistically significant effect on fiscal equalization for both countries but find no evidence that fiscal equalization affects short-run economic growth for either China or India. In contrast, the authors find that expenditure decentralization has a positive effect on long-run economic growth in the case of India, but not in the case of China. Finally, the authors report evidence that fiscal equalization has no effect on long-run economic growth in the case of China; however, the authors find that equalization has a positive and statistically significant at conventional levels effect on long-run economic growth in India.

Due to the importance of FD policies, especially to many developing countries that are currently pursuing decentralization reforms, future research should examine the effect of FD on economic growth for other countries. Furthermore, although it would be difficult to do so, future research should examine whether FD promotes political stability on ethnically diverse countries.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no one has examined the effect of FD policies on India's growth experience. What is more is that this is also the first of its kind to have a comprehensive empirical investigation into these two major developing countries with very interesting similarities and differences in FD policies. It is thus of great importance to examine the effect of expenditure decentralization and HFE on economic growth in China and India.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the history of the Sino-Indian conflict and to evaluate recent changes as reflected in the high level meetings between President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It explores the evolving relationship in terms of three types of bargaining: elusive, tacit and convergent.

By adopting a historical approach one gets a better sense of the evolving pattern of relations between China and India and the circumstances in which the evolution is occurring.

China-India relations are similar to a journey where the progress is measured in terms of small steps rather than a final peace settlement. Relations have changed slowly towards a positive direction in economic relations, and there is a pattern of stability in border talks but the issue is complicated by the linkages between the Tibet question and border issues.

This topic requires considerable research because it is important for the future of Asian international relations and it is under-researched. Perhaps there could be an edited volume which brings together researchers from different backgrounds and expertise. The suggested work must be empirical but with a theoretical framework related to different types of bargaining cultures and experiences in Asia.

As China and India evolve in their diplomatic practices and thinking, as Asian powers are readjusting their policies in the light of new circumstances, there are insights for policy analysts and practitioners in China and India among other Asian countries.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the characteristics of agribusiness firms in India, China and Pakistan, as well as the challenges they face in doing business.

This study is based on the World Bank’s Enterprises Survey (WBES) data. The survey was carried out through a questionnaire survey from the owner and top managers of 716, 247 and 174 agribusiness from India, Pakistan and China, respectively. This enterprises survey has comprised the information regarding the wide range of firms’ characteristics and 16 parameters of business obstacles. Simple statistical tools such as chi-square and analysis of variance have been used to analyze the data.

Chi-square test shows the statistically significance difference in firms’ characteristics across agribusiness firms of India, China and Pakistan. Chinese firms are better in terms of having an international quality certification, own websites and getting credit. In Pakistan, access to land for agribusiness is an obstacle while for India and China, it is easy to acquire land for agribusiness purposes. In Pakistan, tax rate and political stability is a moderate obstacle while in India and China, it is a minor obstacle in agribusiness. Labor regulation does not perceive any considerable obstacle in doing business in India and Pakistan.

This study provides an understanding of differences in the agribusiness environment in emerging economies such as India, Pakistan and China based on WBES data. This study can be helpful for agribusiness managers and government policymakers for promoting agriculture-based entrepreneurship.

It is the first attempt to compare the profile of agribusiness firms in growing Asian economies such as India, Pakistan and China, as well as perceived business hurdles, using a comprehensive enterprises survey data of World Bank.

In recent years, China and India have been experiencing a process of economic and social transformation that is unprecedented in recent human history. The consequences of the spectacular resurgence of these two Asian giants are profound and far‐reaching, and are causing the centre of gravity of the world economy to be drawn inexorably toward these countries. The aim of this paper is to offer a comparative approach to the reality of China and India as regards business and strategic management.

The paper reviews previous literature that has focused on comparing various issues related to business and management in China and India.

The paper highlights the points of convergence and divergence in the developmental patterns of China and India, the key factors for success in each country, the entry modes that could be used and the business opportunities they offer.

The paper provides a comparison between China and India with regard to business and strategic management, analysing the main similarities and differences between the two Asian giants.