Search results

1 – 10 of over 4000
Expert briefing
Publication date: 5 October 2018

China's Made In China 2025 industrial policy framework.

Details

DOI: 10.1108/OXAN-DB238973

ISSN: 2633-304X

Keywords

Geographic
Topical
Expert briefing
Publication date: 22 October 2018

China's global market presence in the sectors targeted for development by Made In China 2025.

Details

DOI: 10.1108/OXAN-DB239200

ISSN: 2633-304X

Keywords

Geographic
Topical
Expert briefing
Publication date: 18 October 2018

The impact of US tariffs on China's Made In China 2025 industrial policy framework.

Details

DOI: 10.1108/OXAN-DB239199

ISSN: 2633-304X

Keywords

Geographic
Topical
Expert briefing
Publication date: 17 August 2018

China's industrial policy.

Details

DOI: 10.1108/OXAN-DB236808

ISSN: 2633-304X

Keywords

Geographic
Topical
Expert briefing
Publication date: 17 November 2022

The Chinese leadership eventually removed MIC 2025 from its policy agenda, and it no longer serves as a framework for the upgrading of China's manufacturing sector. However, the…

Details

DOI: 10.1108/OXAN-DB274086

ISSN: 2633-304X

Keywords

Geographic
Topical
Article
Publication date: 2 November 2021

Mohit Goswami and Yash Daultani

In this research, the emphasis is multifold. First objective is to study differences amongst India's Make-in-India, Germany's Industry 4.0 and China's Made-in-China 2025 on a…

1276

Abstract

Purpose

In this research, the emphasis is multifold. First objective is to study differences amongst India's Make-in-India, Germany's Industry 4.0 and China's Made-in-China 2025 on a macro level. Second objective is to identify where does individual industry segment out of the five broad segments (prioritized by Make-in-India initiative) represented by ten firms in India stand in terms of adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies. Third objective is to identify key barriers for each of these five industry segments. Finally, socio-technical interventions are also proposed aimed at faster adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies.

Design/methodology/approach

A mixed methodological approach is followed to achieve the research objectives. First, for the macro-level comparison of three pertinent countries, extant research and industry literature have been relied upon. Thereafter, at a micro level, inputs from experts belonging to focal sectors are included in this study to ascertain the current level of readiness of adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies and the barriers to adoption. Finally, the authors argue for and propose some socio-technical interventions that are aimed at mitigation of barriers for adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies.

Findings

It has been ascertained that amongst the ten firms (two each from given focal sectors) considered in the study, the automotive and the software firm are perhaps best placed to adopt the Industry 4.0 technology, while the infrastructure project management firm is least ready for Industry 4.0 technologies. The common barriers to adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies, as elaborated by experts belonging to each of the ten firms, are also identified. These three commons barriers are resistance to change, unclear economic benefits and problems related to coordination and collaboration.

Research limitations/implications

The study is one of first attempts to understand the nuances related to technology readiness across focal industries pertaining to the Make-in-India initiative and Industry 4.0. The study furthers the extant understanding of common and distinct barriers across industries. Employing the soft-systems methodology, the study advocates for a number of socio-technical interventions pertaining to establishment of e-skill ecosystem, community learning clusters and sector-focussed skill acquisition and augmentation. Since the study considers only two firms corresponding to each of the five focal sectors, including more firms across industries could have resulted in further validation of study as well.

Practical implications

Contrasting the initiatives of the three countries results in identification of different thematic focus of the respective initiatives. While India's Make-in-India initiative has a strong social dimension, Germany's Industry 4.0 and Made-in-China 2025 have key objective related to integration of cyber-physical systems and to graduate to innovation-driven country, respectively. Further, analysis on the technology readiness for adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies based on the respective experts' assessment results in understanding of the underlying barriers.

Social implications

Adopting the soft-systems perspective linking nuances of stakeholders, socio-technical systems and socio-economic characteristics results in several propositions to further the social objectives of India's Make-in-India initiative. These propositions advocate for pathways in which extant strengths in terms of technology, people and existing socio-technical structures can be brought together to cater to the requirements related to employability and skill augmentation of new as well as existing workforce.

Originality/value

Extant research literature is primarily focussed on certain specific topics within Industry 4.0 implementation and is mainly based on conceptual or theoretical basis. From a practitioners' perspective, only a few empirical papers could be found that too are typically focussed on single case studies resulting from pilot applications of Industry 4.0. However, such papers have not examined the broad implications of Industry 4.0 in terms of differences between key countries' manufacturing initiatives, readiness of key sectors, sectoral barriers and accompanying policy-level implications associated with implementation of Industry 4.0. Thus, the objective of this research is to abridge these research gaps.

Details

The TQM Journal, vol. 34 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1754-2731

Keywords

Executive summary
Publication date: 26 June 2018

CHINA: 'Made In China 2025' may be superseded

Details

DOI: 10.1108/OXAN-ES235709

ISSN: 2633-304X

Keywords

Geographic
Topical
Article
Publication date: 7 December 2021

Jinjing Zhao and Jongchul Lee

The study aims to analyze the role of the Made in China 2025 (MIC2025) initiative in China's Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI) and the factors affecting the success or…

Abstract

Purpose

The study aims to analyze the role of the Made in China 2025 (MIC2025) initiative in China's Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI) and the factors affecting the success or failure of Chinese enterprises' OFDI from the perspectives of the heterogeneity of home country enterprises.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on data on China's OFDI obtained from the China Global Investment Tracker (CGIT), the study uses the difference-in-differences model to analyze 2,670 completed OFDI deals and 211 failed OFDI deals by Chinese enterprises, from 2009 to 2018.

Findings

The study found that the effect of MIC2025 on Chinese enterprises' OFDI varies according to the ownership structure of the home country's enterprises. For successful OFDI, MIC2025 significantly impacted central state-owned enterprises (CSOEs), while it did not significantly influence local SOEs and privately owned enterprises. For failed OFDI, the MIC2025 plan only increased the failure of CSOEs' OFDI for the technology-seeking motivation in high-income host countries. Further, the investment options of local SOEs differ from those of CSOEs. Considering their aim to drive the local economy and seek profits, they are more similar to those of privately owned enterprises.

Originality/value

This study used a new database (i.e. the CGIT) to analyze Chinese enterprises' OFDI. It discussed the role of MIC2025 for different enterprises from the perspectives of successful and failed OFDI. It thus provided a new basis for analyzing policy affecting the OFDI of Chinese enterprises.

Details

International Journal of Emerging Markets, vol. 18 no. 10
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1746-8809

Keywords

Expert briefing
Publication date: 1 May 2020

The impact of the Wuhan COVID-19 lockdown on China's high-tech development plans.

Details

DOI: 10.1108/OXAN-DB252316

ISSN: 2633-304X

Keywords

Geographic
Topical
Open Access
Article
Publication date: 4 February 2019

Min-hyung Kim

According to the conventional wisdom, trade is not a zero-sum game, but a positive-sum game. By allowing countries to focus on producing the goods that they can produce relatively…

36605

Abstract

Purpose

According to the conventional wisdom, trade is not a zero-sum game, but a positive-sum game. By allowing countries to focus on producing the goods that they can produce relatively efficiently, free trade is largely beneficial for everyone involved. Then, why are the world’s two largest economies (i.e. the USA and China) currently engaged in a trade war, which is likely to hurt their own economies? What is the driving force for the trade war between the two economic giants? The purpose of this paper is to offer an explanation of the underlying cause of the US–China trade war.

Design/methodology/approach

In an effort to make sense of the trade war between the USA and China, the paper draws the insights from the two international relations theories – i.e. hegemonic stability theory and power transition theory.

Findings

As China continues to threaten US hegemony in the world in general and East Asia in particular, the Sino–US competition for hegemony will intensify over time. As a result, the trade war between the two countries may persist longer than many anticipate. Further, even if the trade war between the two superpowers ends soon, a similar type of conflict is likely to occur later as long as the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry continues.

Originality/value

The central thesis of this paper is that “US fear” about its declining hegemony and China’s rapid rise as a challenger of US hegemony is driving a US-launched trade war with China. Since the underlying cause of the trade war between the world’s two largest economies is political (i.e. the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry) rather than economic (e.g. US attempts to improve the trade balance with China by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods), the paper contends that the full understanding of the trade war requires close attention to the importance of power competition between the two superpowers.

Details

International Trade, Politics and Development, vol. 3 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2586-3932

Keywords

1 – 10 of over 4000