begin operations in 2010. Manufacturing in India had been hampered by infrastructural limitations of power supply and an “awkward” incentive structure but now is moving forward.

Asked about key factors in Intel’s decision to locate a major new facility in less-developed Dalian, Jarrett said that the Chinese government had made a decision to diversify industrial growth away from its traditional areas of concentration by a policy combining the restrictions on new facilities in older areas and “world-class” incentives for locating in less developed ones.

CHINA’S EXPERIENCE WITH MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS

Jin Chen of Zhejiang University described how MNCs create links between China and international capital networks. At the end of 2004, foreign direct investment (FDI) in China stood at $562 billion. With the Chinese government positioning itself as a “learning government,” the level of FDI has risen quickly. Scale expansion and R&D growth have been rapid. From 200 R&D centers in 2001 the number more than quadrupled in five years, to 980 centers. MNC operations are still concentrated in Beijing (primarily in IT), Shanghai (chemical, auto and pharmaceuticals), and Shenzhen (telecom), with a second tier in Guangzhou and other cities.

MNC research in China is largely focused on adaptive R&D, with less devoted to basic research. MNCs, according to Chen, are perceived in China to have both positive and negative effects on indigenous technology development. They contribute to broadening and deepening the overall level of technology. But they can establish strong monopolies on certain closely held technologies that crowd out R&D in Chinese firms, and siphon off top talent that might otherwise be available to domestic firms.

Chen expressed his ambivalence about the fact that seven of his eight recent top graduate students were hired by multinationals. Overall, in Chen’s personal judgment, “MNCs have limited positive effects.” Yet movement toward a more collaborative innovation paradigm can shift the balance from a modestly positive to a substantially positive contribution to domestic technological capacity. If MNCs were to deepen their collaboration with local firms, then both the firms and China would benefit.

DISCUSSION

In the discussion session, Gail Pesyna of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation sought clarification of China’s and India’s investment incentive policies. Jarrett replied that in India they take the form of cash grants and tax incentives. Chen noted that last year China adopted a new scheme, called “Innovation-oriented Country by 2020,” which includes 60 measures for promoting R&D, including facility set-up, tax incentives and infrastructural investments. Jarrett added that these policies have a new social value emphasis and indigenous development focus. For example, VC investment incentives are geared to domestic markets rather than the global market.

Addressing the balance between proprietary and more open, collaborative work, Jarrett said that the company’s strategy varies from country to country depending on the distribution of technological capability, the host’s intellectual property regime, government requirements, and other factors. In China, Intel is actively pursuing collaborations. An example is its work with Tsinghua University to develop a compiler. In India, on the other hand, “we are doing some very proprietary work.” Jarrett observed that spillover benefits are as much a function of the movement of human capital as of the open or closed nature of corporate research projects. As in the United States, in both China and India there is considerable turnover in information technology fields, with skilled employees leaving to create startups in software and computing. Intel views this not as a loss for the company but rather a natural phenomenon that contributes to ferment in the field.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement