Lade Inhalt...

India and China: Markets-Competitors-Partners

Bachelorarbeit 2010 103 Seiten

BWL - Handel und Distribution




Historical Overview

Comparing India and China

Chinese-Indian Bilateral Trade Relations

China and India in Third Markets


India and China: Markets-Competitors- Partners


Academics, students, the media and the public have been increasingly drawn to China and India in recent years. Both countries were considered sleeping giants and are now turning into the motors of global economic growth. China and India are both ancient civilizations with a rich history and were among the largest economic powers until European colonization in the 19th century[1]. After Indian independence in 1947 and the establishment of the Peoples Republic of China in 1949 both countries shared the view that economic development should be achieved through a self-sustaining economy led and controlled by the government[2]. In the following decades the share of Chinese and Indian global trade decreased significantly. Economic reform in China and India in 1978 and 1991 respectively resulted in an increasing integration into global markets and triggered large economic growth. However China and India differ in many ways. On the one hand China started its reforms 13 years earlier than India.

Due to early establishment of Special Economic Zones (SEZ), strong connections with oversea Chinese in Taiwan and the abundance of cheap labor China was able to position itself as the manufacturing center of the world[3]. India on the other side still lacks the degree of integration in global markets, and the structure of labor and bankruptcy laws, red-tape and poor infrastructure are just some obstacles for further Indian development[4].

In addition, India and China are built on different approaches of governance.

India is a democracy which makes it more difficult to introduce pragmatic laws, yet easier to absorb exogenous shocks. China on the other side is solely ruled by the Communist Party of China. As a result it is easier to adopt new policies, but on the other side legitimization to govern is limited and connected to economic growth. A closer analysis of China reveals the existence of several influential interest groups and lobbyists which makes governing China a balancing act in itself yet this will not be subject of this study.

China and India both face serious principal-agent problems when it comes to enforcing laws[5] and due to large heterogeneous populations, governing each country is a complex challenge.

Today, according to GDP in PPP data China and India rank 2nd and 4th respectively globally[6]. Their share is likely to improve and they are expected to become the world’s biggest energy importers and CO2 emitters. The rise of the two nations can be interpreted as a shift of power from the Western Hemisphere towards Asia resulting in major challenges for the international community but also in a regional Asian context.

It is very important to note that although China and India are both rising at the same point of time, they are rising in a different pace. China outperforms India in almost every indicator of economic development. It is the key aim of this study to point out this asymmetry between China and India. Another question is, if India is capable of catching up with China in the future and its effects to Sino-Indian relations.

In that context noting the mutual perception of India and China is important. To some extent, China dealt with India only as a regional issue, having delegates of provincial governments meet with Indian federal counterparts[7]. On the other side India and China cooperated in international forums, most recently during the Copenhagen summit in 2009, which is an indicator for equal perception. On the other side signs for future tensions can be derived from military modernization programs and competition over natural resources[8].

Analyzing the bilateral trade between China and India serves to increase the understanding of the nature of Sino-Indian relations. It is important to note that the economic structure of India and China differs significantly. Economic aspects are also just one facet of Sino-Indian relations. However heterogeneity is always a common element in every study and although abstraction leads to a loss of information it is a necessary tool to understand Sino-Indian relations.

Analyzing bilateral commodity trade provides insight in the intensity of bilateral trade, and intra-industry indices and relative comparative advantage indices provide insight in the complementary and competitive element of bilateral trade relations. Another important aspect is the role of China and India in third markets. India and China are major trade nations, yet the latter outperforms the former significantly[9]. Nevertheless third-market trade reveals possible areas of competition and cooperation. Matching trade baskets are indicators for competitive third-market trade[10]. A dynamic analysis provides insight if the possibility of competition in third markets is increasing and predictions can be derived from it. However it is important to note that commodity trade data are imperfect and the presented results must be regarded critically since they are only an approximation of real international trade. The share of informal economic activities is very high, and differences between international databases are also remarkable. It is important to note that databases receive their information from the very country[11], and regarding India and China it is particularly in question if they are able or willing to generate and provide accurate data.

In addition remittances and triangular trade is not captured by commodity trade databases which are particularly high in the case of India. Hongkong also appears as a separate unit in the trade data. Although it is legally part of China and serves as a major trade hub it will not be recognized in this study. Although China regards Taiwan as a Chinese province it will be analyzed as an independent country.

Due to poor availability of bilateral service data, it will not be recognized to the extent as desired.

The hypothesis of this study is that there exists a substantial asymmetric component in Sino-Indian relations favoring China.

In the long run more symmetric relations are possible to emerge, and India is already catching up yet policy changes could increase this process significantly. Defining India and China as competitors or partners presupposes equality to a certain extend. The last section of this study discusses this question and provides a brief outlook of possible areas of competition and partnership.

However it has to be kept in mind that Indian-Chinese relations are a complex matter and providing a simple yes or no answer is not aim of this study.

Historical Overview

Although India is separated by China through the Himalayan and Karakoram mountain range in the north and northwest and tropical rain forests in the northeast, Sino-Indian interactions date back more than 2000 years[12]. Early interactions were mostly relying on cultural exchanges[13]. On the Sutra Route which connected the two regions through Central Asia, Buddhism was introduced to China from India. Until the Tang dynasty (618-907AC), Indian scholars translated Sanskrit texts into Chinese in places like the White Horse Monastery near Luoyang, Dunhuang, Kabul, Khotan and Tukhara[14]. At that time Indian knowledge was considered superior and opened up the sinocentric view to broader horizons[15]. The dominance of the Buddhist element in Sino-Indian relations ended during the Song dynasty (960-1279) when its clergy called for a more “Chinese” Buddhism and criticized Indian culture as unsophisticated and unable to observe and record events in detail[16]. Until today the metaphysical element in Indian philosophy stands against the priority of creating a stable harmonious society in Chinese philosophy[17]. As the cultural exchange declined, commercial trade increased. Because of warfare in the Taklamakan desert region and in Burma-Yunnan, sea routes became the major route for bilateral trade[18]. From the 10th century on mostly Tamil and Muslim traders connected the coastal areas of China and India, carrying non-religious luxuries and bulk commodities[19].

Following the expeditions of the Chinese navigator Zhang He between 1405 and 1433 Chinese-Indian trade increased significantly[20]. Tribunal trade with the Chinese fleet can be described as trading, silk, perfumes, spices, jewels, rare birds and animals on most favorable terms for China[21]. Apart from the trade of goods, or the introduction of Chinese fishing techniques to Southern India and the development of manufacturing industries in the two countries, cultural ideas were not exchanged to the previous extent[22]. Even during the late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) when China followed an isolationist policy, China served Indian demand for porcelain showing Islamic motives[23]. It is important to notice that according to Angus Maddison China and India were the biggest economic powers until 1820, yet bilateral trade played only a marginal role[24].

During the 18th and 19th century bilateral trade was dominated by raw cotton trade, followed by opium trade[25]. After the opium wars (1839-1842 and 1856-1860) India started exporting cotton yarn to China, peaking in 1906. Due to Japanese competiveness, India was driven out of the market, and by the end of the 1920s India was importing cotton yarn from China[26]. Following the declaration of Indian independence in 1947 and of the Peoples Republic of China in 1949, India and China resembled significantly on an economic perspective.

The GDP of the People’s Republic of China amounted $ 239 billion, compared to India accounting $ 222 billion[27]. 80-90% of its populations were small-scale subsistence farmers. Both countries’ policy makers assumed that economic development was essential for social coherence and should be achieved through a self-sustaining economy led and controlled by the government[28].

China and India approached each other on friendly terms, leading to an agreement which is described as the Priciple of Panchsheel that was signed during Indians Prime Minister Neru’s visit to China in April 1954[29]. The five points of Panchsheel were:

- Mutual respect for each others’ territorial integrity and sovereignty
- Mutual Non-aggression
- Non interference in each others’ internal affairs
- Equality and Mutual benefit
- Peaceful coexistence, implying that both countries would respect each other’s existence in international relations[30]

In the following years Sino-Indian relations were described as “Hindi- Chini, Bhai Bhai” (Indian and Chinese area brotherhood) although economic relations remained on a very low level[31].

In the late 1950s because of the Dalai Lamas escape to India, Chinese support to Pakistan and disagreements concerning the Sino-Indian border line Sino-Indian relations deteriorated significantly[32].

In fall 1962 the situation escalated and let to a quick war, which resulted in Indian defeat[33]. Following that incident, official Sino-Indian relations broke down completely and mistrust and suspicion remained[34]. Even today the border issue remains unsolved.

Chinas support of Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistan Wars of 1961 and 1975 held mutual differences alive. Ambassadorial relationship was restored in 1976, and bilateral visits started again[35].

In 1984 a bilateral trade agreement was signed[36]. During Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in Beijing in December 1988 China and India agreed on the establishment of a Joint Group on Economic Relations and Trade, Science and Technology[37].

In June 1994 a high level Chinese trade delegation held discussion with the Indian side promoting bilateral trade[38]. The focus of bilateral relations was shifted towards economic issues yet external factors like the detonations of a nuclear bomb by India in 1998 had a negative effect[39].

Under the Bangkok agreement of 2003 China and India offered each other tariff preferences. China offered tariff preferences on 217 items, including foods, chemical products, drugs, textile products and machinery items. India offered tariff concession on 188 items, including primary chemical, paper steel, rubber, electric machinery, railway products and toys[40].

In 2005 the visit of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao let to the conclusion of a strategic partnership and a new series of arrangements on economic and border issues[41].

In recent years additional border posts were opened and new air links were established[42].

However the Chinese proposal for establishing a bilateral Free Trade Agreement has been opposed by the Indian side so far, yet a joint task force has been established to study the feasibility and benefits in detail[43]. On a political level, relations deteriorated between 2005 and 2009 largely due to the Tibet issue and resentments caused by energy security issues and threat perceptions. However Sino-Indian cooperation during the COP 15 summit in 2009 brought the two raising nations closer together, and Indian President Pratibha Devisingh Patil’s visit to Beijing in June 2010 was another sign for the willingness of both countries to deepen economic relations.

Comparing China and India

In order to provide an overview of the situation in China and India analyzing economic indicators and data is a useful tool. It is noteworthy that India and China combined accounted for almost 50% of global GDP in 1820[44]. Their share declined during the 19th and 20th century to less than 4% and GDP per capita was reduced or stagnated[45]. After economic reform in China and India in 1978 and 1991 respectively, their share of global GDP rose again.

In 2007 China and India accounted for 20% and 17% of the World’s Population respectively[46]. Their share of the World’s Gross National income in purchasing power parity exchange rates (market exchange rates) accounted 10.9%(5.9%) and 4.7%(2%) in 2007[47]. Yet it is expected that it will take until 2040 when their share will reach the level of 1820. In 2008 China’s GDP (in constant 2000 $US) accounted $2.6 trillion, which was 3.17 times larger than India’s[48].

Chinas GDP per capita reached US $1.965 in 2008, while India’s remained at US$ 718[49]. Analyzing the GDP per capital performance over time, reveals that Chinas GDP per capita is more than twice the size of India’s.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 1: GDP per capita (constant 2000 $ US)


In addition, the gap between the two countries is widening, since India’s growth rate ranged between 4.8-8.1% while Chinas ranged between 8.4-12.4%[50].

It is noteworthy that according to Maddison (in constant 1990 dollars) India’s per capita GDP (in constant 1990 international Dollars) was at the same level as China’s until 1973, but it lost ground after China introduced economic reforms.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 2: GDP per capita (constant 1990 $ international)

Source: Maddison: 2002

The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates GDP growth rates of China and India for 2010 and 2011 to account 9.9% and 8.4% in the case of China and 8.0% and 8.2% in the case of India[51] indicating a conversion of growth.

Therefore there has been a gap between China and India since reforms took place and the gap has been widening in recent years. However the pace of gap widening is declining.

It is important to note, that GDP data reflects only a very limited picture of the economic performance of a country. In addition since the amount of informal economic activities is not listed, Indian GDP is likely to be higher than the data indicates. On the other side China’s GDP data carries an upward bias, since regional governments manipulate their GDP growth data in order to increase their chances of Party internal promotion[52] and centrally gathered datasets are also limited.

However, even if the data is not entirely correct it still reveals a significant difference in Indian and Chinese performance.

Another possibility to measure the situation of an economy is achieved by comparing poverty reduction rates using the HDI index.

In respect to poverty reduction, using the World Bank poverty line of 1.25$/ day PPP, China showed faster progress compared to India.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 3: Share of population under World Bank, $1.25/day PPP poverty line

Source: Srinivasan 2009

Since the evaluation of the World Bank poverty line is not topic of this study it is only noteworthy to point out that $1.26/ day in PPP still keep individuals in poverty, yet the line has to be drawn somewhere.

On the other side it is also important to note that according to the official Chinese National Poverty line only 5.2% of the Chinese population was regarded as poor[53] in 2008.

Although both countries showed remarkable reduction of poverty the data does not reveal the urban-rural bias of poverty which is a major challenge for both countries. China is the country with the highest urban-rural income bias in global comparison with a 3.3:1 urban-rural income ratio.

The Human Development Index is derived from GDP, life expectancy and the rate of alphabetization[54]. In 2009 China was ranked 92th with an upward trend and India 134th.[55] However the index is criticized for missing important features of a country and measuring merely the degree of “Scandinavization” of a country.

With regards to global integration India lacks China regarding almost every index.

Yet a distinction between the integration in trade and capital markets is necessary. According to Srinivasan trade integration leads to positive effects for developing countries while integration in capital flows is risky due to incomplete information[56].

Considering the current financial crisis, not being well integrated in financial markets proved to be an advantage for India and China.

However in respect to trade integration the data reveals a bias between India and China as shown in Table 4.

Table 4:

illustration not visible in this excerpt


Table 4 reveals that both India and China increased their share of trade of total GDP to 51% and 65% respectively. This indicates that both countries are getting more integrated in global trade. In the case of China this can be derived from its integration into WTO in 2001 and the increase of global demand and Chinas role as a supplier of labor intensive manufactured products.

The recent decrease in the case of China (2006:72% and 2008: 65%) could be due to a stronger role of public investment and the attempts of the Chinese government to rebalance its growth model. India lacks the degree of Chinas trade integration. However trade is playing an increasingly important role in India’s economy. China has a positive trade balance with a growing tendency (since August 2010, which is of concern given its G20 commitments to help reverse global imbalances). India on the other side has a negative trade balance which is also increasing.

With regards to service trade it is noteworthy, that the share of commercial services as part of Indian total export has been increasing over time and accounted for 23% in 2003[57] and is expected to reach 50% within the next decade. This is due to outsourcing activity by Western firms but also because of India’s strong IT sector and well educated population[58].

In China service trade plays only a secondary role, yet in absolute terms China is catching up with India in the IT sector, transport and tourism[59]. During its 12th Five-Year-Plan (2011-2015), China is expected to put a lot of emphasis to increase the share of its service sector but many structural problems remain major obstacles.

With regards to a global level the role of China and India as trade nations differs significantly.

Table 5:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Unctad 2009

China’s share in global commodity exports is around 8 times larger than India’s. In terms of the global import the gap is not as large, yet Chinas share was 3.8 times larger than India’s in 2008. With regards to global service trade both countries were able to expand their global share in the past 5 years and the difference between the two countries is much smaller compared to commodity trade.

However, the change in the global share over the past 4 years shows that India’s role as a global exporter and importer of commodities and services is increasing.

This can be traced back to the fact that India’s share is at a very low level, which leads to higher growth rates although the absolute share of global trade remains marginal.

Another indicator is the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flow. It is a useful indicator to show the attractiveness of country.

A huge gap between India’s and China’s FDI inflow exists.

Table 6:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

China attracts more than 6 times more FDI inflow than India. However these numbers by Srinivasan are inconsistent with estimates of the UNCTAD who estimate an FDI inflow for China of $ 90bn and $30bn for India[60].

However China is the second largest receiver of FDI following the USA ($138bn).

In global comparison India is ranked sixth, behind France, Russia and Germany[61].

It is important to notice that FDI inflow data is spoiled to that extend, that a lot of the FDI flowing into China is transferred through Hongkong and other East Asian countries but actually originating in China[62]. The reason is tax releases if the money is transferred into Special Economic Zones (SEZ), where more than 60% of Chinese FDI inflow is directed to[63]. On the other side the number of Indian FDI inflow should be corrected upwards since informal financial channels including remittances into the Indian industry are not captured by the data[64].

Nevertheless China attracts more FDI inflow then India although the gap is likely to be smaller than the numbers are indicating. It is also noteworthy that FDI inflow is limited to certain geographical areas which are designed to attract FDI, resulting in a large regional gap within the two countries[65].

With respect to FDI originating from India and China, both countries invest a low degree of their GDP, with some exceptions in Africa, yet remaining in aone digit billion dollar level[66]. However in recent years China has made several major deals in Central Asia, Africa, and South America and is expected to increase its investments in North America and Europe if protectionist measures won’t prevent it from happening.

Another important indicator for measuring the openness of an economy is tariff rates. Following the WTO requirements China steadily reduced its import tariffs.

India on the other hand applied much higher tariffs until recently.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 7: Tariff rate most favored nations (MFN)

Source: Unctadand Srinivasan 2010

Chinas tariff rates are still lower then India’s however India made a strong effort in reducing its tariff rates in the past years.

This is an indicator that India is attempting to increase its integration in global markets which could increase its role in international trade markets.

In order to derive the potential of India in the future, labor force data and demographic tendencies are a useful tool.

As table 8 shows, China’s population is larger than India’s. However the population growth rate of India exceeds Chinas, mainly because of its one child policy. As a result India is going to overtake China as the most populous country in the middle of the 21st century. On the other side China’s degree of urbanization is larger than India’s. However since the Indian urbanization rate is growing, the number of potential labor force for the industry also expands. This can also be derived from the lower growth rate of Indian agricultural labor force compared to the total labor force. This indicates that India has a great potential of reaching equal capabilities than China, whole labor force is expected to peak in 2014.

Table 8

illustration not visible in this excerpt

The first section of the study, aimed to provide an overview of the situation of the Chinese and Indian economy its integration in global trade and indicators about future development.

As the data points out, China has shown immense growth recently. It outperforms India by 2% in average GDP per capita growth measured in US$ and PPP. However it is estimated that Chinese growth is going to slow down while Indian growth rates are approximating Chinese levels. Concerning poverty reduction, China is also significantly outperforming India.

However both countries share the problem of a concentration of economic growth in urban areas and rural poverty. The trade data reveals, China has experienced enormous growth rates in its trading activity. It became the worlds’ largest exporter in 2010 and it is still expending on a large degree. India on the other side is a net importer and not as integrated in global trade as China. Although service exports, especially concerning the IT sector is experiencing a positive growth trend[67], China’s share in global service export is larger than India’s and it is also catching up in the IT sector[68].

Yet, there are also indicators that suggest a narrowing of the gap between India and China in the future. On one side, India has just started to lower its tariffs to a more competitive level in 2008. This could result in a larger integration in world markets in the future and attract more FDI inflow: The demographic factor is also in favor of India. Because of India’s lower degree of urbanization there is a large potential for expansion especially in the manufacturing industry.

Chinas labor force is likely to decline in the next decades when India’s will be still increasing.

Apart from that several policy changes are necessary for India to catch up with China. First of all, labor and bankruptcy laws have to get reformed[69]. On the other side red-tape is another big obstacle when it comes to opening up a business or investing in India[70]. The establishment of Special Economic Zones, following the Chinese model is a step in the right direction, yet it is noteworthy that the biggest Indian SEZ is much smaller than Chinas smallest[71]. Another important factor is the Indian infrastructure which lacks Chinas significantly[72].The fiscal situation of India is another element which stands against future development[73]. China has managed to turn into the major recipient of foreign FDI, yet its economic development faces several severe challenges an inefficient public service system, an inefficient financial system[74] which favors State Owned Enterprises, a questionable fiscal and tax system which creates tensions between central and local governments and the potential of social unrest.

However to conclude the first section China is ahead of India in almost every aspect. India has a chance to catch up with China but today the data shows that asymmetry is the dominant aspect when they are being compared.

Chinese-Indian Bilateral Trade Relations

The second section of the book aims to analyzes Sino-Indian bilateral trade relations. Bilateral trade relations provide an insight of the degree of bilateral dependency. Areas of possible cooperation and competition can be derived from trade data. In 1984 China and India signed a Trade Agreement, which provided them with the status of Most Favored Nation[75]. In 1992 China and India got involved in full-fledged bilateral trade relations[76]. In 1994 China and India singed a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and in 2003 the Bangkok Agreement was signed in which China and India offered some trade preferences to each other[77].

In recent years China has offered India to sign a Free Trade Agreement, which has been opposed by the Indian side. However, according to a study by Battacharya[78] (2007) India would benefit in the long run from such an agreement.

The amount of bilateral trade has increased on a very fast pace in recent years.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 9. Bilateral trade volume in $ US

Source: Unctad 2009

In the past 10 years Sino-Indian bilateral trade increased twentyfold. Apart from the effects of the global economic crisis in 2008 bilateral trade between has been increasing between 33% and 55% during the last 5 years. It is noteworthy that the increase was higher than expected. In 2005 a trade goal for 2010 of $ 30billion was declared but was upgraded to $ 40 billion in 2006. In 2008 the trade target was set to $60billion and it is expected to be reached despite the global economic crisis.

According to a study by Bhat the major reason for the increase of Indian export is the increase of Chinas demand[79]. The other reasons are the improvement of the competitiveness of the Indian exports and the increase in the number of products, which India has started exporting to India. In the case of Chinas growth of export to India, Indian demand increase is also the major factor followed by the competitiveness of its products and product diversification[80].

A closer look to the trade data shows that India has developed a trade deficit with China since 2006 with an increasing tendency.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 10; Indian Trade Balance with China

Source: ; Authors calculations

With regard to the composition of Sino-Indian trade, the data reveals that China is exporting mostly electrical, electronic equipment, nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery, ect., and silk products (using a HS1996 Code)[81]. This composition has been stable since 2000. India’s export to China on the other side is and was dominated by primary and resource based products. More than 50% of India’s export to China falls to one single product if a 6-digit HS1996 Code definition is used[82].( 260111= Iron ore, concentrate, not iron pyrites, unagglomerated)

This indicates that Indian export to China is less diversified than Chinas export to China, meaning that India’s export to China is less sustainable.

However there are many different ways of labeling trade commodities and for simplicity in the following part of the book the SICT Rev.3 code single and double digit definition will be used. This leads to a loss of information, but the general trend and composition of Sino-India trade can still be revealed.

India’s commodity export to China is dominated by primary and resource based products. It is very concentrated with the top 5 categories accounting for 76.6% in the time period of 2004-2008.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 11:


Chinas exports to India are more diversified and dominated by mid technological labor intensive manufactured goods, but also Textile yarn, organic chemicals and iron and steel.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 12:



[1] Maddison (2005)

[2] Holsag (2010, 15)

[3] Tsai (2002,75)

[4] Srinivasan(2004)

[5] Tsai (2002, 137)


[7] Uberoi (2008)

[8] Kaplan (2009)

[9] Bhat (2008, 152)

[10] Batra (2005)


[12] Chandra (2005, 5)

[13] Chandra (2005,6)

[14] Chandra (2005, 6-10)

[15] Chandra (2005,6)

[16] Sen (2005, 39)

[17] Sen (2005,40)

[18] Sen (2005, 42)

[19] Sen (2005,41)

[20] Yinzeng (2005,25)

[21] Yinzeng (2005,26)

[22] Sen (2005, 51)

[23] Ray (2005,77)

[24] Maddison (2005)

[25] Thampi (2005, 100-104)

[26] Maddison (2005)

[27] Holslag (2010, 10-11)

[28] Holslag (2010, 15)

[29] Pokharna (2009, 16)

[30] Pokharna (2009,16)

[31] Pokharna (2009, 17ff.)

[32] Pokharna (2009, 24-31)

[33] Pokharna (2009-32)

[35] Pokharna (2009,34)

[36] Holslag (2010, 45)

[37] Pokharna (2009, 56)

[38] Pokharna (2009, 79)

[39] Pokharna (2009, 84)


[41] Holslag (2010, 57)

[42] Bhat (2009, 178)

[43] Battacharya (2007)

[44] Maddison (2005)

[45] Srinivasan (2009)

[47] Srinivasan (2009)




[51] The Economist: (October 2rd-8th 2010, Page 89)

[52] Tsai (2002, 143)

[53] Srinivasan (2010)



[56] Srinivasan (2004)

[57] World Bank (2007)

[58] Bhat (2008, 34)

[59] World Bank (2007)

[60] Unctad (2009)

[61] Unctad (2009)

[62] Abraham (2006, 148ff)

[63] Holslag (2010, 95ff.)

[64] Abraham (2006, 148ff.)

[65] Srinivasan 2010

[66] Unctad (2009)

[67] Holslag (2010, 65ff)

[68] Holslag (2010, 65ff)

[69] Sinivasan (2004)

[70] Srinivasan (2004)

[71] Holslag (2010, 78)

[72] Srinivasan (2004)

[73] Srinivasan (2004)

[74] Tsai (2002, 139)

[75] Holslag (2010, 45)



[78] Battacharya (2007)

[79] Baht (2008, 88ff)

[80] Baht (2008, 88ff)

[81] Bhat ( 2008, 83ff)

[82] Bhat (2008, 83ff.)


ISBN (eBook)
1.3 MB
Institution / Hochschule
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg – Betriebswirtschaft, Economics
sino-indian economic relation international trade competitors cooperation asymmetries



Titel: India and China: Markets-Competitors-Partners