The Possibility of India Surpassing the Foreign Policy of the Government of China - Case Study Example

ARTICLE REVIEW Course name: Professor’s Name: University name: Date of Submission: Introduction For this specific review, we evaluate the possibility of India surpassing the foreign policy of the government of China. For the lead manufacturing boom in China regarding export is majorly a result of a foreign direct investment. Over the last two decades, the economy of China has significantly sprung off. However, hardly any local institutions have trailed, thereby rendering the private sector deficient of topnotch global companies to contend the big corporations. India, on the other hand, has not enticed as much aggregate FDI as China. Relatively, this inequality replicates the assurance international investor’s harbor in the projections of China. It also echoes and the investor's cynicism over the commitment of India to the idea of free-market reforms. Never-the-less, the difference is also an account of two entities. From the populous and rich diaspora, China has well-received income due to their urge to develop their home country (Mukherjee, 2011). On the contrary, the Indian diaspora, despite massive business success, has been reluctant to invest in India. Whereas this piece establishes substantial study in support of the view, India has progressively succeeded in brooding several competitive companies which now compete worldwide with the finest in Europe and the USA. Additionally, these firms operate in the most lucrative disciplines. The author is of the opinion that India has over the times experienced better infrastructural development that has boosted private enterprises (Malone, 2011). Unlike China’s, the Indian capital market functions with better transparency and efficiency as well as a much more sophisticated legal mechanism despite minor flaws. Additionally. The two nations are the seemingly the next chief powers of the world and bargain conflicting developmental prototypes. Additionally, the inconclusive information never the less only dwells on the macroeconomic facts. A deeper micro analysis results from contrasting information. Herein, India exhibits china-like vitality. China’s microeconomic progress exposes historical and ideological conflict. China has focused much attention on outside transformations while executing significant regulatory and legal constrictions on local, private firms. In fact, not until recently, local firms have been allowed as similar constitutional privileges as foreign firms enjoyed since 1983. Finally, as established by I F C, over 20 industries, among them some of the most productive and key sectors of the economy, were not a preserve of local private companies. Such sectors include banking, telecommunications, highways, and railroads. Summary Interestingly, the stated limitations were devised to bar local enterprises from challenging the Chinese government businesses. They were never intended to keep Chinese moguls from rivaling with foreigners (SOEs) as it was widely viewed. Similarly, the antagonistic political systems are replicated in the fact that India is progressing upwards regarding economic growth whereas China is exploiting a descending approach. As a matter of fact, India is considered a democratic state unlike China. Moreover, the legacy of the close to 30 years of unrestricted market changes lasts to haunt it. Critique The author seems to be in line with the above-outlined strategies are dependent on history. The communist party of China ascended to leadership in 1948 with its main aim of finishing private ownership, in which it succeeded. On the other hand, India reverted to a more sophisticated and “civilized” approach of Fabian Socialism in which the focus was not intended to eliminate capitalism but rather to diminish the adversities it created. Nonetheless, it was given a lot more that the open sector runs the “authoritative heights” of the economy. That, never the less, did not achieve total success as entrepreneurship still found its way where the government couldn’t cover. He goes on and proposes that growths at the macroeconomic hierarchy in China replicate both the ideological as well as historical differences. Also, China has become far braver in terms exterior reforms. However, it has levied considerable legal and governing constraints on native and private companies. Solitary, a few years have passed since the constitutional privileges, enjoyed by foreign companies since 1983, were extended to local companies. It is an idea the author can prove going by the government’s move to shield them from competition. Between 1991- 1999, various Chinese entrepreneurs attempted and failed to outwit the limitations that monitored their operations. Others even enumerated their companies as minor SOEs; wherein capital was sourced from personal accounts and the organizations were privately run. They would, however, plunge into disputes over titles whenever broke state departments decided to seize their assets. Amid the greatest legatees of such limitations placed on domestic private enterprises have been the foreign investors. A case example in the scenario of the phenomenal growth in China: As of 1993, the accumulated income to external financiers that own fairness incentives in Chinese organizations amounted to 5.2 billion dollars. Over two decades down the line, the amount has increased to almost four times the original amount. In the meantime, this money circulates within the country and is often reinvested within China. However, in the case of post-colonial India which is largely democratic, it would be unreasonable and fallacious to award foreign investors huge profits while suppressing local syndicates. Remember, for example, over ten years ago when a firm Enron Corporation signed an agreement with the state of Maharashtra that would see them construct power plant worth 3 billion dollars. The project was executed several years later due to a heated debate over foreign investment and its role in India’s development. Whereas China has fashioned hurdles for its businesspersons, India has focused on boosting local businesses. Over the last ten years, India has abandoned the economic micromanagement culture. There is no doubt that privatization is taking place at a rather slow pace, but at least the state has relinquished its domination over lengthy phone service; with most charges having been reduced; paperwork slightly reduced; and various trades now allowing private investment, including foreign investment. Consequently, business is flourishing. In a recent poll by FEER to establish topnotch Asian companies, India emerges tops among all the Asian countries including China. Interviewed were over 3000 professionals and moguls, asked to place company performance on a scale of zero to six. Chinese corporations hardly qualified to India’s top five. The Indian enterprises were all private businesses while the Chinese firms were majorly state-managed. According to a report done by the CASS in 2000, private enterprises are given lesser political consideration and are over-looked in numerous policies and regulations as a result of myths and long-time prejudices. There is a grave contradiction in policy, market mood and legal environment. This prejudice is recognized. Similarly, these cultures and bodies have confirmed a perfect platform for the development of progression of the capital markets in India. Misrepresentations are still conjoint despite stock and bond markets allowing institutions with tangible projections and standing to obtain the requisite investment for development. A little over 50% of Indian institutions polled by the World Bank recorded difficulty in obtaining investment as compared to 80 % of the Chinese firms surveyed. It means Indian companies rely less on locally generated monies. It also means that only 28 percent of their capital was acquired through operating proceeds as compared to 58 percent for the Chinese firms. Polling 25 upcoming market economies by “Credit Lyonnais Securities” Asia, India came 6th in business management while China appeared at the nineteenth position. The Indian government has enabled independence of the private sector as well as providing a regulatory mechanism. On the contrary, Chinese officials and administrators run and control the private sector, regulate allocation of revenues and strictly check their ability to obtain the listing of the stock market and get cash for growth. China uses the capital markets to keep the SOEs going. Such guidelines result in huge distortions and hinder growth and development of Chinese markets. The Chinese stock market has a surplus capitalization of over 400 billion dollars. However, if we take into consideration the government-owned non-tradable shares by state institutions, the valuation is reduced to around 150 billion dollars or a little less. Among the major causes of the accumulating problem include inexperienced corporate management and the absence of an impartial and autonomous judiciary. Whereas this study has significant and substantial merit, the methods here used to need to be evaluated and re- evaluated. Conclusion In general, some the topnotch Indian corporations are genuine start-ups, conspicuously Infosys, which came top in the survey conducted by FEER (Hunt, 2009). Some include suckers of long existing firms. One of the leading manufacturers of automotive components, Sundaram Motors, who also doubles up to be the principal supplier of G M is a shareholder in ‘T. V. Sundaram” group which is a 100-year-old business group based in the Southern part of India. Apart from general booming of entrepreneurship in India, the entrepreneurs there have become conventional heroes. Indians and now the whole world today compare Narayana Murthy, the fifty-seven-year-old fellow who founded Infosys, to Bill Gates, the American fellow who founded Microsoft. The tales of success would never be if India failed to have the infrastructure requirements to support the likes of Murthy and aspiring business tycoons. Factors that have, over the times, provided India with the reinforcements required to encourage prosperity of free initiatives include democracy, a culture of entrepreneurship and a credible legal framework. Despite Indian judicial system being significantly inefficient, they thrive in the fact that they are made up of an operational and independent system (Lanteigne, 2015). As compared to China, protection of private ownership is more guaranteed in India. However, property rights are not completely guaranteed. The rule of law holds in India. References Lanteigne, M., 2015. Chinese foreign policy: an introduction. Routledge. Malone, D., 2011. Does the elephant dance?: contemporary Indian foreign policy. Oxford University Press. Holsti, K.J., 2015. Why nations realign: Foreign policy restructuring in the postwar world (Vol. 3). Routledge. Sikri, R., 2009. Challenge and strategy: rethinking India's foreign policy. SAGE Publications India. Broadman, H.G., 2008. China and India go to Africa: New deals in the developing world. Foreign affairs, pp.95-109. Kaplan, R.D., 2010. The geography of Chinese power: how far can Beijing reach on land and at sea?. Foreign Affairs, pp.22-41. Hunt, M.H., 2009. Ideology and US foreign policy. Yale University Press. Mehta, P.B., 2009. Still under Nehru's shadow? The absence of foreign policy frameworks in India. India Review, 8(3), pp.209-233. Ganguly, S. and Pardesi, M.S., 2009. Explaining sixty years of India's foreign policy. India Review, 8(1), pp.4-19. van Eekelen, W., 2015. Indian foreign policy and the border dispute with China. Brill. Huang, Y., 2008. Capitalism with Chinese characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the state (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mukherjee, R. and Malone, D.M., 2011. Indian foreign policy and contemporary security challenges. International affairs, 87(1), pp.87-104. Bergsten, C.F., 2008. A partnership of equals: How Washington should respond to China's economic challenge. Foreign Affairs, pp.57-69. Kumar, N. and Chadha, A., 2009. India's outward foreign direct investments in steel industry in a Chinese comparative perspective. Industrial and corporate change, p.dtp004. Ganguly, S. ed., 2010. India's foreign policy: retrospect and prospect. Oxford University Press. Read More