Empirical Study. Keywords: China, Chindia, cooperation, competition, India, national competitiveness, strategy, strategic simulation.

Transcription

1 Empirical Study 1 International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness 2008, Vol. 3, No 1, pp 1-8 Comparing Competitiveness of India and China: Are They Competing or Cooperating? Hwy-Chang Moon Professor of international business and strategy Graduate School of International Studies Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea Tel: , Fax: cmoon@snu.ac.kr Jimmyn Parc Researcher Graduate School of International Studies Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea Tel: , Fax: jimmynparc@gmail.com Abstract The conventional view regarding the emergence of India and China is that the two are locked in a competitive struggle in order to gain supremacy over one another. However, some scholars and observers have voiced the desire for a new perspective that demonstrates vast potential for these new economic giants to engage in a cooperative relationship to facilitate mutual gains. Cooperation and competition between countries should be judged by comprehensively analyzing the important factors from which national competitiveness is derived. Previous studies on India and China, however, have focused only on a limited number of determinants for national competitiveness. These existing approaches have often not reflected exactly the reality of the situation. This paper critically reviews existing studies and employs a new analytical tool for national competitiveness in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the competitiveness of India and China. The empirical results show that India and China have a more cooperative rather than competitive relationship with each other. Keywords: China, Chindia, cooperation, competition, India, national competitiveness, strategy, strategic simulation Introduction Since Ramesh used the portmanteau Chindia in his book Making Sense of Chindia in 2005, many discussions regarding these two emerging giants have taken place. India and China comprise about one-third of the world s total population and are regarded, generally, as having the highest potentials for growth amongst the BRICs. Most existing studies, however, are not satisfactory in analyzing the major impacts of Chindia on the world. This is because most of the existing studies have treated only a limited number of factors in explaining national competitiveness. These studies have not conducted rigorous statistical analysis, either. This paper will firstly analyze the various problems associated with the existing studies. It will then proceed to compare India and China from a more comprehensive perspective on national competitiveness. Together with a new simulation methodology, this paper will then suggest useful implications for both India and China based on results of our study. Literature Review With the rise of Chindia, the dominant perspective is that these two goliaths are locked in a competitive race against each other. Huang and Khanna (2003) argues that regardless of the fact that India s overall economic performance is lagging behind that of China, India could eventually surpass China in the future. They emphasize that India has a much higher long-term growth potential, having knowledge-based industries rather than manufacturing-based, with a stronger infrastructure to support private enterprises. As a driving force, these factors are generally seen as more beneficial in terms of long-term economic development. This propensity, however, has started to shift recently. Ramesh (2005) states that India and China should come together and strengthen their ties, not only in terms of business but also culturally. Culturally speaking, it is essential to create an environment where personal contact opportunities are fostered, for the sake of both countries futures. This would be an incalculable opportunity for India to collaborate with China and to recreate itself as a more important player in the world. Although the above 2008, Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management

2 2 statements and notions have exposed a new way of perceiving the relationship between the two countries, they are still limited in terms of comprehensiveness of analytical model and rigor of statistical techniques. Despite these deficiencies, Ramesh s idea has spurred vigorous discussion, not only in academia but also in the business world. Following Ramesh s idea, Gupta and Wang (2007) contended that multinational companies should pursue an integrated India and China strategy rather than dissipate precious time debating which to choose. They provide three reasons to support their argument. Firstly, for many industries, India and China both present some of the highest growth rates in the world and are both emerging as megamarkets. Secondly, India and China present different but complementary strengths that companies can utilize to their advantages. India is much stronger than China in software and information-technology services, however, China is much stronger than India in mass manufacturing and logistics; in contrast. The third benefit of an integrated India and China strategy is a low intellectual-property protection level. Companies can significantly reduce the risk of intellectual property leaking out by distributing R&D and production activities across India and China, as well as to other countries. Their argument is meaningful as they suggest a new strategy for multinational corporations in dealing with India and China together, which is to view these two economies as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, rigorous analysis through a comprehensive analytical framework and empirical evidence has been lacking to support this view. The fact that they show different but complementary strengths regarding industrial sectors (India in software and information-technology services, and China in manufacturing and logistics) presents many avenues for further study. Khanna (2007), who argued that India will eventually catch up with or overtake China, has shifted from his previous position to the analysis of Gupta and Wang (2007): the potential for cooperative relations between the two countries. He argues that the tensions between India and China are real, but they will eventually prove to be aberrant for three reasons: history, economy and strategy. For the three reasons, he respectively emphasizes a sharing of ancient cultural heritages between the two countries, political reconciliation, their high tendency to trade more than other nations and the high level of complementariness that enhances the competitiveness of these two countries; what China is established in and proficient at, India is not and vice versa. Thus, he declares that it is easy to ascertain the advantages of treating India and China synergistically and utilizing the best from both countries. However, Khanna analyzes the countries using only a limited number of factors, and more importantly, without a comprehensive analytical framework. Hwy-Chang Moon and Jimmyn Parc Therefore, the previous literature has hinted a constructive way of understanding Chindia, but has failed to provide a rigorous analysis required. Thus, it is not enough just to argue whether India and China are competing or cooperating with a limited number of explanatory variables. Instead, an emphasis should be placed on how to evaluate the economic relationship between the two countries, using a comprehensive analytical framework, which considers all of the important factors influencing national competiveness. Data In order to properly evaluate national competitiveness, it is very important to use the most appropriate data set. There are several prominent In order to properly evaluate national competitiveness, it is organizations such as the very important to use the most appropriate data set. International Institute for Management Development (IMD), the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Institute for Industrial Policy Studies (IPS) which publish annual reports on national competitiveness. Although the IMD and WEF reports are well-known, they both have some problems with their methodologies. For instance, the country rankings are highly volatile and are often adjusted afterwards in the reports of IMD and the WEF. India, for example, was ranked 42nd in 2002, 20th in 2003, 34th in 2004, 39th in 2005, 27th in 2006 and 27th in 2007 in the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY). The IMD then changed India s rankings: 17th in 2002, 50th in 2003 and 27th in By contrast, the WEF ranked the same country as 48th in , 56th in , 55th in , 50th in , 42nd in and 48th in in the Global Competitiveness Reports (GCR). However, WEF ranked China and Malaysia as 54th and 26th in respectively, and later the rankings have changed in the reports: China as 35th and Malaysia as 22nd. Different rankings of each report (IMD and WEF) are shown. Stitched lines represent the rankings before modification. The differences of national competitiveness for India and China of IMD and WEF reports are easily found above. Figure 1: Ranking of India and China by IMD and WEF

3 Comparing Competitiveness of India and China: Are They Competing or Cooperating? Not only were there wide ranking changes in the IMD and WEF reports but also discrepancies exist between the rankings of the two reports. India had a 22 (measured by the result before modification) step jump from 2002 and a 14 (measured by the result before modification) step fall from 2003 in the IMD report. India s overall competitiveness increased in 2003 as compared to 2002 in the IMD report, while the opposite occurred in the WEF report in the same year. In Figure 1, the dashed circle highlights differences in rankings between the two reports. In essence, the two reports often announced quite contradictory results regarding the same country. These kinds of contradictions can also be seen in many other countries such as China, Malaysia and Singapore, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Several studies (Lall, 2001; IPS report, 2007) have pointed to the problems in both the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook and the WEF Global Competitiveness Report. Recently, the IPS report introduced a new national competitiveness study containing rankings among similar nations as well as overall rankings in terms of country size and competitiveness. A comparison amongst By considering size and competitive structure simultaneously, this paper presents a more rigorous country analysis. IMD, WEF and IPS reports is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Comparison of Factors of Competitiveness in IMD, WEF and IPS Reports Factors IMD WEF IPS Energy Resources Other Resources Strategy & Structure Global Mindset Business Culture Foreign Investment Transportation Communication X X O X O O 3 Finance Education Different rankings of each report (IMD and WEF) are shown. Stitched lines represent the rankings before modification. The differences of national competitiveness for Singapore and Malaysia of IMD and WEF reports are easily found above Figure 2. Rankings of Singapore and Malaysia by IMD and WEF For comparison, the rankings of these four countries in the IPS National Competitiveness Research Report (IPS report) are shown in Figure 3. The changes of rankings are rather stable in the IPS reports, compared with those in the IMD and WEF reports. IPS reports represent moderate changes of national competitiveness. National competitiveness should not be dramatically changed since it represents accumulation of all the factors (one specific factor change can not affect significantly the whole national competitiveness) within a short period such as one year. (National competitiveness is evaluated yearly base) Figure 3. Rankings of India, China, Singapore and Malaysia by IPS Reports Science & Technology Cluster Development Overall Living Environment Demand Size Demand Quality Quantity of Labor Force Quality of Labor Force Politicians Bureaucrats Entrepreneurs Personal Competence Social Context X X O X X O X O O X O X O O O Personal Competence X X O Professionals Social Context X X O O: fully contained, : partially contained, X: not contained The three reports: IMD, WEF and IPS, are compared with various factors. This result shows that IMD and WEF reports are lacking of some factors to analyze the whole picture of national competitiveness, compared with IPS report. The IPS report critically reviews the problems with IMD and WEF reports, and suggests solutions based on a new, rigorous theory in order to enhance the analysis of national competitiveness. The quantitative data for this paper are abstracted from various IPS reports. 2008, Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management

4 4 Methodology Country Group Both the IMD and WEF reports rank each nation according to its overall national competitiveness. However, this methodology may be problematic as it compares all the countries on only one dimension. Countries with vastly different sizes, economic capabilities, structures and growth potential are all grouped into a single category. For example, in the WEF Report , the United States ranks number one while the Ukraine is 73 among 131 countries. It is rather meaningless to compare the United States, a highly advanced nation, to Ukraine, a developing nation with significantly different economic structure. It is similar to compare apples and oranges. The fact that they are both fruits does not imply that they are similar in taste, color, texture or size. In order to derive useful implications from the rankings, Ukraine should be compared and contrasted to similar countries such as Poland or Romania, rather than the United States. Without proper categorization, the competitiveness index can lose its value. The IPS report classifies 66 countries in terms of size and competitiveness. For size, countries are grouped into large, medium and small categories, using a criterion of combining population and land size. For competitiveness, countries are classified as strong, intermediate, and weak categories, using a composite index of eight variables derived from the Double Diamond Model (DDD) model 1. Figure 4 illustrates a 3x3 matrix of country groups and indicates India and China s positions. By considering size and competitive structure simultaneously, this paper presents a more rigorous country analysis. Hwy-Chang Moon and Jimmyn Parc Simulation 2 A classical distinction between the two generic strategies (Porter 1980; 1996) at the corporate level, cost and differentiation, is applied to the national level in this study (Porter, Takeuchi, and Sakakibara, 2000). The competitive advantage of cost strategy is low cost yet high efficiency, utilizing mainly cheap factor conditions and workers. In contrast, differentiation strategy refers to high cost and high value added and focuses more on market conditions and professionals. The differences are illustrated in Figure 5. Two generic strategies of Porter (1980, 1996). To enhance competitiveness, a nation can choose one of two different strategies: a Cost Strategy or a Differentiation Strategy. Figure 5: Competitive Strategy The higher the level of national competitiveness, Differentiation Strategy is preferred over Cost Strategy. In order to pinpoint different competitive positions with different strategies, different weight is assigned to each competitiveness variable for different strategies as shown in Table 2. Table 2: Schema of Weights for Cost and Differentiation Strategies There are nine country groupings and India and China are in the same country grouping, intermediary-large Countries. Within the group, China ranks as the first; India, the second. Figure 4: Typology of Country Groups 1. Porter (1990) developed a comprehensive approach to national competitiveness, the so-called diamond model. His diamond model was extended into two directions. One was the incorporation of multinational activities through the introduction of the double diamond model (Rugman 1991; Moon, Rugman, and Verbeke 1998; Dunning 2003). The other was the addition of the role of human factors through the proposition of the nine-factor model (Cho 1994). The new model is named the Dual Double Diamond (DDD) model by integrating the concept of two models. 2. The mechanism of this strategy simulation is abstracted from the IPS reports. This paper applies this mechanism to the case of India and China. Weights have been applied differently along different strategies, since emphasized factors affect competitiveness differently along with the two strategies. For cost strategy, equal weights (50%) are assigned to physical and human factors. However, the variables and sub-

5 Comparing Competitiveness of India and China: Are They Competing or Cooperating? variables have different weights, as mentioned above, with more weights assigned to factor conditions and workers. For the differentiation strategy, equal weights (50%) are assigned to physical and human factors but the opposite weights, to the case of cost strategy, are given to the other variables and sub-variables. Changing Landscape of Competition: All Countries with the Same Strategies From the correlation analysis on the discrepancy between the No Strategy Index and Cost Strategy, and the No Strategy Index and Differentiation Strategy, demonstrated in the IPS report (2007), Differentiation is preferred over Cost Strategy. Two important implications can be derived from this analysis. Firstly, the size of a country influences the Cost Strategy, but not Differentiation Strategy. Secondly, the higher the level of national competitiveness, Differentiation Strategy is preferred over Cost Strategy. Therefore, only one of the categories, Cost Strategy or Differentiation Strategy, is viable for a country. In this light, an employment of either Cost Strategy or Differentiation Strategy is the best to enhance its competitiveness for a country. In other words, Cost Strategy and Differentiation Strategy have a complementary distribution that once the best strategy is chosen, the other must be rejected entirely. Furthermore, a controlled simulation with two strategies has been adopted from the IPS report (2007) so as to determine the general impact of these two strategies on the competitiveness of countries. This simulation focuses on the changes in the absolute index in the No Strategy Index, when Cost Strategy and Differentiation Strategy are applied. The simulation, primarily, demonstrates changes in the landscape of competition by the introduction of Cost Strategy and Differentiation Strategy. The characteristics of both Cost Strategy and Differentiation Strategy can then be verified. Realistic Applications: Two Extremes As Best Strategy differs across different countries, Optimal Strategy is the optimal combination of Cost and Differentiation Strategies for all crountries. The previous simulation provides several implications that are important in understanding the fundamental characteristics of Cost Strategy and Differentiation Strategy, at the national level. However, the possibility that all countries could have the same strategy is somewhat far from the reality. The previous simulation is designed to serve its own purpose in an ideally controlled structure. It was performed to demonstrate the fundamental characteristics of the two strategies in order to provide a basis to extend it to more practical simulations, which are more likely to reflect the reality. In competition, there are two kinds of participants: players and competitors. Each of these participants has its own choice to make amongst No Strategy, Best Strategy, Worst Strategy, and Optimal Strategy. Best Strategy is the better choice of either a Cost Strategy or a Differentiation Strategy, and Worst Strategy is the worse of the two. The Optimal Strategy represents the competitive environment in which all of the countries are able to choose a Best Strategy. As Best Strategy differs across different countries, Optimal Strategy is the optimal combination of Cost and Differentiation Strategies for all countries. No Strategy is where no strategic change is made. For a better understanding of the combination of chosen strategy, each of these cases can be further classified as illustrated in Table 3. Firstly, all of the competitors have two choices between No Strategy and Optimal Strategy. Secondly, a player can employ Best Strategy or Worst Strategy by combining Cost Strategy, Differentiation Strategy, or No Strategy. Table 3: Implementation Choices for Strategy Simulation Option Player Competitor 5 Strategy Choice 1 No No 2 Best No 3 Worst No 4 Best Optimal (Best) Worst Optimal (Best) There are five meaningful strategy choices. This has an assumption that competitors do not take worst strategy. When No Strategy has been adopted by the competitor, the player must choose between Best Strategy and Worst Strategy as a Cost Strategy, 5 Differentiation Strategy, and No Strategy. This significantly enhances the understanding of the unique changes in the competitiveness ranking, specific to each strategy. The player s choice of No Strategy represents the current competitiveness of the country. The choice of Cost Strategy or Differentiation Strategy illustrates the competitiveness of the country if it implements the strategy while the others remain unchanged. The result of this simulation for India and China will be shown in Table 4 in the following section. Under a more competitive environment where all countries pursue an Optimal Strategy, it is necessary to contemplate a country s Best and Worst Strategy. Utilizing the analysis, it is better that all countries have a Cost Strategy or Differentiation Strategy, rather than No Strategy, as their Best Strategy. Therefore, under Optimal Strategy, a country s Best Strategy is either Cost or Differentiation Strategy while the unselected strategy serves as its Worst Strategy. The result of this simulation for India and China will be shown in Table 5 in the following section. As the country s choice of No Strategy under a No Strategy basis is the situation before any application of the strategy, it can be the starting point for the most probable simulation. 2008, Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management

6 6 The top two show player with a strategy and competitors without a strategy. The bottom two show player with a strategy and a competitor with an optimal strategy. Figure 6: Ranking Changes in Strategy Simulation The resulting rankings from the choice of Cost Strategy in both No Strategy and Optimal Strategy bases are illustrated on the left side of No Strategy. The rankings of Differentiation Strategy under the two bases are listed on the right side. The shape and position of each ranking from the simulation may vary according to the groups to which countries belong. For example, as shown in Figure 7, India shows a better performance with Cost Strategy, thus producing a left-up and right-down shape. Hwy-Chang Moon and Jimmyn Parc other hand, under an Optimal Strategy basis, the results of Cost Strategy and Differentiation Strategy are worse than those of a No Strategy basis because the Optimal Strategy provides the fiercest competitive environment. Implementation: Optimal Strategic Mix From the IPS National Competitiveness Research Report 2007 and the results of the various strategy simulations discussed above, a country can now fully understand its competitive position and structure. Once the strategic implications are clarified, a series of concrete strategies suitable to each country in different stages of economic development should be followed to pursue further success in enhancing its competitive position. Results and Analyses Once the strategic implications are clarified, a series of concrete strategies suitable to each country in different stages of economic development should be followed to pursue further success in enhancing its competitive position. Table 4 shows simulated indices derived from the implementation of each strategy under a No Strategy basis. Important implications can be drawn from this analysis. Table 4: Strategy Simulation under No Strategy Basis (2007) When competitors apply no strategy, India shows 30 th with cost strategy and 41 st with differentiation strategy. When an optimal strategy is applied to competitors, India shows 37 th with cost strategy and 51 st with differentiation strategy. Figure 7: India's Ranking Changes in Strategy Simulation, 2007 The two basic strategies of No Strategy and Optimal Strategy imply the two extremes of probable simulations representing the best and worst environments under which a country competes with other countries. Cost Strategy and Differentiation Strategy under a No Strategy basis show the competitive situation where only one country implements a Cost Strategy or Differentiation Strategy while the others remain the same, thus resulting in the best rankings. On the Ranking changes when different strategies are applied. China: 21 st with CSI and 26 th with DSI, India: 30 th with CSI and 41 st with DSI. Other countries are assumed to choose no strategy. For example, India s No Strategy Index is (32nd place). However, if India pursues a Cost Strategy, its index becomes and the ranking also goes up by two steps, as shown in Table 4. In contrast, if India pursues a Differentiation Strategy, the country will have an index of thereby moving down to 41st place. On the other hand, China s No Strategy Index of (21st place) will increase to (no change in ranking) with a Cost Strategy but will go down to (26th place) with the implementation of a Differentiation Strategy. Table 5 illustrates the strategy simulation results under an Optimal Strategy basis. However, the results are not as promising as those under a No Strategy basis.

7 Comparing Competitiveness of India and China: Are They Competing or Cooperating? 7 Table 5: Strategy Simulation under Optimal Strategy Basis (2007) When competitors have no strategy, India s ranking is 38 th with a cost strategy and 59 th with a differentiation strategy. When competitors have optimal strategies, India s ranking is 48 th with a cost strategy and 63 rd with a differentiation strategy. On the other hand, China s ranking is 21 st with a cost strategy and 26 th with a differentiation strategy. When competitors have optimal strategies, china s ranking is 30 th with a cost strategy and 36 th with a differentiation strategy. Figure 8. Ranking Changes in Strategy Simulation, 2005 BSI is derived from Table 4. WSI is when the player chooses the worse strategy, but other competitors choose the optimal strategies. Under this situation, China s ranking is 36 th and India s is 51 st. India ranks 37th with Best Strategy, while falling to 51st with Worst Strategy. The difference is more severe in the case of China. It ranks 28th with Best Strategy, while it falls to 36th with Worst Strategy. These results suggest several very important implications. Firstly, India s competitiveness is lower than China s as shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Secondly, the gap between India and China is narrowing. Thirdly, the two countries optimal strategies are mostly Cost Strategy. However, the gap between China s two generic strategies is narrower than that of India s, which implies that China is changing rapidly, perhaps in a similar manner to other more developed countries. Therefore, one may conclude that in the near future, a Differentiation Strategy, rather than a Cost Strategy, is more appropriate for China. In order to discover whether India and China have a competing or cooperative relationship, the simulation results of both countries should be compared. Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10 show the simulation results for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively. As shown in Figure 8 - Figure10, there is no overlap of national competitiveness for India and China. This gives an important implication that there exists no direct competition between India and China. This is to say, the two countries are in a more cooperative, rather than competing, relationship. As a matter of fact, in most of the product markets, it is not very common to see similar products from India and China competing against each other for a market position. This result is very similar to the results of Cerra et al. (2005); India and China compete in only 25 percent of their products exported to world markets. Another interesting point raised by the simulation results is that the gap between the Cost Strategy and Differentiation Strategy of China is narrower than that of India. This strongly implies that the nature of China s competitiveness When competitors have no strategy, India s ranking is 34 th with a cost strategy and 39 th with a differentiation strategy. When competitors have optimal strategies, India s ranking is 48 th with a cost strategy and 54 th with a differentiation strategy. On the other hand, China s ranking is 22 nd with a cost strategy and 21 st with a differentiation strategy. When competitors have optimal strategies, China s ranking is 33 rd with a cost strategy and 31 st with a differentiation strategy. Figure 9. Ranking Changes in Strategy Simulation, 2006 When competitors have no strategy, India s ranking is30 th with a cost strategy and 41 st with a differentiation strategy. When competitors have optimal strategies, India s ranking is 37 th with a cost strategy and 51 st with a differentiation strategy. On the other hand, China s ranking is 21 st with a cost strategy and 26 th with a differentiation strategy. When competitors have optimal strategies, China s ranking is 28 th with a cost strategy and 36 th with a differentiation strategy. Figure 10. Ranking Changes in Strategy Simulation, , Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management

8 8 Hwy-Chang Moon and Jimmyn Parc is moving towards that of a more developed country in References which a Differentiation Strategy is more suitable for enhancing its competitiveness. The nature of competitiveness of these two countries is changing. Specifically, India is catching up with a cost strategy, but China is slowly moving to a differentiation strategy. Since this study is conducted primarily from the economic and business perspective, this result does not fully reflect socio-political factors, which do impact on real world competition and cooperation. Some additional socio-political variables may be added for a more comprehensive analysis than this study. Conclusion This paper provides a comprehensive framework in understanding the relationship between India and China. The gap between India and China is narrowing from a simple numerical perspective, consistent with the results of some of the previous studies. However, a more important finding of this paper is that the nature of competitiveness of these two countries is changing. Specifically, India is catching up with a cost strategy, but China is slowly moving to a differentiation strategy. This trend provides us with a very important implication: India and China may be more collaborators than competitors. This rather surprising result is proven by a rigorous simulation analysis of this paper. We have analyzed the competitiveness at the national level. It would be also very interesting to extend the study to the industrial level. As has been argued in this paper and also some other studies, there are not many industries or industry segments where India and China directly compete. Therefore, future researchers may want to select some industries and study more specifically how seriously these two countries are competing and see whether there is any room for cooperation between the firms from these two countries for further enhancement of their competitiveness. Business Week (2005) Not all BRICs are Created Equal, (Jan.12). Cerra V., River S.A. and Saxena S.C. (2005) Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: What Are the Consequences of China s WTO Entry for India s Trade?. IMF Working Paper 05/101, Washington D.C., U.S.A.: International Monetary Fund. Cho D.S. (1994) A Dynamic Approach to International Competitiveness: The Case of Korea. Journal of Far Eastern Business, 1(1): Cho D.S. and Moon H.C. (2000) From Adam Smith to Michael Porter: Evolution of Competitiveness Theory. Singapore: World Scientific. Dunning J.H. (2003) The Role of Foreign Direct Investment in Upgrading China s Competitiveness. Journal of International Business and Economy, 4(1): Gupta A.K. and Wang H. (2007) How to Get India and China Right. the Wall Street Journal, (Apr. 28). Huang Y. and Khanna T. (2003) Can India Overtake China?. Foreign Policy, 137, Institute for Industrial Policy Studies (IPS). Various Issues. National Competitiveness Research. Seoul, Korea: IPS and IPS-NaC. International Institute for Management Development (IMD). Various Issues. The World Competitiveness Yearbook. Lausanne, Switzerland. Khanna T. (2007) China + India: the Power of Two. Harvard Business Review, 85(12): Moon H.C., Rugman A.M. and Verbeke A. (1998) A Generalized Double Diamond Approach to the Global Competitiveness of Korea and Singapore. International Business Review, 7: Porter, M.E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press. Porter M.E. (1996) What is Strategy?. Harvard Business Review, 74(6): Porter M.E., Takeuchi H. and Sakakibara M. (2000) Can Japan Compete?. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing. Ramesh J. (2005) Making Sense of Chindia. New Delhi: India Research Press. Rugman A.M. (1991) Diamond in the Rough. Business Quarterly, 55(3): Rugman A.M. and D Cruz J.R. (1993) The Double Diamond Model of International Competiveness: The Canadian Experience. Management International Review, 33(2): World Economic Forum (WEF). Various Issues. The Global Competitiveness Report. Geneva, Switzerland. Hwy-Chang Moon is a Professor of International Business and Strategy in the Graduate School of International Studies at Seoul National University. He has published numerous journal articles and books on topics such as International Business Strategy, Foreign Direct Investment, and Cross-Cultural Management. He has consulted for many international companies, international organizations (APEC, World Bank, and UNCTAD), and governments (Korea and Malaysia). Jimmyn Parc is presently working as teaching assistant at the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University. He has conducted many research projects related to competitiveness for organizations, including Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA) and College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University.