National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 The Legal Environment: Competition Policy, Standards, and Intellectual Property
Suggested Citation:"7 Multinationals' Experience." National Research Council. 2010. The Dragon and the Elephant: Understanding the Development of Innovation Capacity in China and India: Summary of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12873.
×

7
Multinationals’ Experience

STEP board member Mary Good of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock welcomed participants to the second day of the conference with some observations on the speed of the changes taking place in Asia. Between 1985, when she worked in India as vice president of technology at Allied Signal, and her return there in 1994 as a government official, spectacular changes had occurred which could not have been predicted. Business and governments often have different perspectives on conditions that promote innovation; but one point on which they can agree, and in Asia acted aggressively, is that competition and innovation create paths for prosperity.

Bruce Stokes of the National Journal, who served as the moderator of the first session on multinational companies (MNCs), posed a perennial question: where do MNCs’ interests and nation states’ interests converge and where do they diverge? Is foreign investment in China and India producing results or is it still a bet on the future? Many variables can affect the answers to those questions, but ultimately the perceived self-interests of global firms will play a major role in determining the success of China’s and India’s efforts to develop their economies’ innovation capacity.

INTEL’S PERSPECTIVE

James Jarrett, director of global public policy for Intel Corporation and former president of Intel China, Ltd., observed that 80 percent of the firm’s global sales are outside the United States, with 60 percent in Asia. In 2006 the Asian market represented $35.4 billion in sales. Moreover, while conducting R&D in 64 labs worldwide, Intel entered China and India relatively early, in 1985 and 1988, respectively. The scale of R&D operations, however, is vastly different. The company’s investment in China ($4 billion) dwarfs its investment in India ($700 million). In terms of market share, China will have 34 percent of Intel’s global market in 2008 while India’s share will be 11.8 percent. In short, said Jarrett, “In our business you must get China right.”

Intel’s Shanghai software laboratory, established in 1994, continues to adapt Intel designs to China’s demands. The Bangalore Intel laboratory works on advanced semiconductor prototypes such as the tera-scale prototype wafer. The company’s needs for middle managers continue to be filled by U.S. nationals for the most part, but Intel is contributing to the pipeline of local technical talent by

  • training schoolteachers in 40-hour courses and using computers with 1.6 million K-12 teachers;

  • building active relationships with more than 100 research universities; and

  • producing textbooks such as Multi-Core Programming to help build a capability capacity for leading-edge processes.

Jarrett reiterated the point made earlier that another source of talent for trans-Pacific countries is their diasporas, which are being engaged at a distance but also lured home in greater number. “I think you’ll see more and more of that in the future,” Jarrett said.

Intel’s experience in China exhibits one multinational company’s responsiveness to government investment inducements. The company’s chip manufacturing operation is its largest in Asia, and the firm recently broke ground on a large-scale wafer fabrication facility in Dalian that will use 90-mm technology and

Suggested Citation:"7 Multinationals' Experience." National Research Council. 2010. The Dragon and the Elephant: Understanding the Development of Innovation Capacity in China and India: Summary of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12873.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"7 Multinationals' Experience." National Research Council. 2010. The Dragon and the Elephant: Understanding the Development of Innovation Capacity in China and India: Summary of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12873.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"7 Multinationals' Experience." National Research Council. 2010. The Dragon and the Elephant: Understanding the Development of Innovation Capacity in China and India: Summary of a Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12873.
×
Page 32
Next: 8 Simultaneous Sessions »
The Dragon and the Elephant: Understanding the Development of Innovation Capacity in China and India: Summary of a Conference Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The return of the once-dormant economies of China and India to dynamism and growth is one of the most remarkable stories in recent history. The two countries are home to nearly 40 percent of the world's population, but until recently neither had played an influential role in the contemporary global economy.

In the past two decades, China and India have liberalized internal economic policy, treatment of foreign investment, and trade, and have experienced economic growth at sustained high rates. From the point of view of the United States, however, the most important development in the Chinese and Indian economies in the long term may be the strides they are making in developing their own domestic innovation capacities. After a long period of underinvestment, both countries have committed to growing their science and education systems to bolster research and further economic expansion.

Some observers of the recent growth have said that both countries are surging in their efforts to spur innovation; others have emphasized the potential of one country over the other; and still others have suggested that both China and India have a long way to go before achieving innovation-driven growth. With such a range of views, The National Academies set out to describe developments in both countries, in relation to each other and the rest of the world, by organizing a conference in Washington, D.C. The conference, summarized in this volume, discussed recent changes at both the macroeconomic level and also in selected industries, and explored the causes and implications of those changes.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!