The Road to China: Fresh Insights into the World’s Fastest-growing Economy

Harbir Singh, Wharton’s vice-dean for Global Initiatives, launched a series of trips to foreign countries last summer as a way for faculty to gain a deeper understanding of international economies and then use this knowledge in their teaching and research. Six professors recently visited the Chinese cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, and met with executives from Lenovo, Haier and Huawei, among other companies. Knowledge@Wharton asked three of the participants – Singh, management professor Saikat Chaudhuri and health care management professor Lawton R. Burns – to share insights from their trip.

Below is an edited transcript of the conversation.   

Knowledge@Wharton: Harbir, Saikat and Rob, thanks for joining us. Saikat, you mentioned in an earlier conversation that executives you met with are interested in the globalization of Chinese companies, partly through acquisitions, partly through increased outsourcing. Can you talk a little more about this?

Saikat Chaudhuri: Certainly. Chinese companies are, of course, aspiring to become global players. And we actually see a variety of approaches that they’re taking. Haier for example, has taken more of an organic route, even though it did unsuccessfully attempt to buy Maytag. Huawei has also taken an organic route. They had attempted to buy US Robotics or take a stake [in that company], and that was unsuccessful. However, Lenovo is probably the prime example — having bought IBM’s PC business — where [a company] did successfully use the acquisition strategy. And the main reason is that, beyond quick access to markets like the United States and Europe and so forth, they need high-end technologies and also established brands. Those are the elements that the Chinese firms have been missing. And so it fits very well to combine the strong and cost-efficient back end of Chinese firms with the branding, market access and technology that Western developed firms can offer them.  

Knowledge@Wharton: Harbir, you and others have noted the role of the Chinese government in creating infrastructure for their economy and its benefit to businesses at large. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

Harbir Singh: I remember in 1997, I was standing on the Bund [in Shanghai] — which was an area where all the various international communities used to be, pre-Communism — and looking across the river at a lot of construction on the other side. People were saying there will be some office towers and businesses here. I was envisioning, maybe, something the size of downtown Philadelphia. When I came back … [and went] to the Grand Hyatt in Pudong, this was a whole new city with large, modern skyscrapers. I was completely amazed at the huge contrast. I’ve been to China many times, but that’s just one illustration.

If you look at Shanghai airport, look at Beijing airport, these are truly world class airports. You have the Maglev train coming into the city. The most populous nation in the world appears to be functioning at a very high gear in these big cities. What that does is create an opportunity for businessmen and executives to develop their products and services in a world class setting. I think that’s the main benefit of infrastructure in terms of electricity, Internet communication and so on. I think that’s been remarkably impressive in China over the years.

Knowledge@Wharton: How does this compare to the situation in India?

Singh: India is a dramatic contrast. I think if you look at India, we have had much less physical infrastructure development in the same period of time. In fact, many projects are underway, but they are moving very slowly. This is something that people in India will also say — so this is, I think, an objective reality. What India has going for it is the development of soft infrastructure — the human capital, the use of the English language which allows service professionals to work with companies around the world. So you have this remarkable contrast. What’s interesting is it doesn’t have to be that one of these major developing nations chooses the hard infrastructure and one chooses soft infrastructure. But for now, that’s what the path has been.

Knowledge@Wharton: Rob, you were able to see first hand the efforts that China is making in the area of health care reform. What exactly are they doing, and are they running into the same obstacles that the U.S. is? That is, finding that you can’t do everything at once and also insure high quality at low cost?

Lawton “Rob” Burns: Yes. First, just to follow up on Harbir’s comments, China is also investing a lot in its health care infrastructure. In particular, they’re rebuilding their hospital industry, which is primarily publicly owned facilities. They’re also rebuilding their primary care system. Basically they didn’t have much of a primary care system. They relied on lower level hospitals to provide primary care, and now they’re trying to build these community health centers. So there’s a massive investment in primary, secondary and tertiary care taking place in China.

What China is discovering is that it has its own version of the “iron triangle” of health care. It’s the issue our country has dealt with for the last 70 to 80 years — trying to balance three conflicting goals of improving quality, improving access and controlling the rate of increase and cost. They’re now discovering the exact same thing. Their health care reform initiatives are designed to provide broader access to health insurance for the population. Yet at the same time, while they provide broader access to improve the level and quality of care, that expands the cost of care. They are trying to figure out ways to control the cost as they increase access to health insurance.

Knowledge@Wharton: Does their government structure make it easier to get these things done than, say, in the U.S.?

Burns: Their government structure is very similar to ours. It’s an incredibly fragmented government bureaucracy with different ministries overseeing different parts of the health care system, with different insurance plans for different segments of the population. And like us, they’re going to try to craft a universal system by basically cobbling together all these different components.

Knowledge@Wharton: By being provided with access to companies and high level executives, Saikat — you mentioned Haier, Lenovo and Huawei — you were able to get insights into things like concerns over social unrest, the pollution problem and efforts to build a knowledge-based economy. What’s the current thinking about how to deal with these issues?

Chaudhuri: Any developing country, and for that matter any developed country, will have challenges because there are inherent trade-offs that must be balanced. That is a very natural outcome of managing conflicting demands as you grow. On the point about building a knowledge-based economy, I think that’s what struck me the most: It’s very interesting because here the contrast with India also becomes apparent. China has strong infrastructure and has been able to build a very strong manufacturing-based economy, whereas India has veered towards the knowledge-based economy. Now, of course, both countries are trying to do the other [approach]. In China’s case, they’re investing a lot of money in trying to set up firms and the appropriate ecosystem to foster innovation. That means venture capital, entrepreneurship and processes which will help to further innovation, because that’s something I think China sometimes suffers from, as far as its image is concerned.

It’s not easy, because building infrastructure is a matter of capital. Building an innovative ecosystem requires several elements to come together [as well as] the exchange of ideas among the right individuals. But I’m confident that given the way China has managed its economic growth so far, this will be a step that they will successfully manage.  

Knowledge@Wharton: What about the pollution problem? I’m wondering, Rob, if you could talk about that since it is a health care issue at the same time.

Burns: Yes, it’s a huge public health issue for the Chinese. They have a number of public health challenges. One is pollution, both in the air and in the water. Then you have public health habits. There’s an enormously high smoking rate in China, with very few smoking cessation programs taking place…. What compounds the problem for China is that the public health dollars are disproportionately spent in the urban areas, whereas most of the population lives in the rural areas. So they have a problem with trying to allocate resources to where the problems are.

Singh: One thing I noticed; we were in a very high hotel, I think in Beijing, on the top floor looking out. And we were told that it was one of the clearer days. But I thought it was actually very hard to see any structures around. This is true, as Saikat was saying, for the developing world. It’s the classic problem of how do you grow rapidly and keep these greenhouse gases under control? It seems China is working very hard on it because its own population is putting pressure on the government. But at the same time, clearly there is a lot of work to be done there.

Knowledge@Wharton: Did the issue of social unrest come up in anything that you did or saw over there?

Singh: We had the party secretary of Beijing whom we met allude to that. But it was more in the spirit of one of the factors that he saw in the remote areas. So that was one place where it was specifically raised.

Burns: I think he also mentioned just how important it was to try to contain any social unrest and the importance of stability in keeping this economic engine going forward.

Chaudhuri: In one sense, you could just say it’s about managing diversity. China’s a big country with a huge population and they have many different types of people with varied interests. It’s about meeting the aspirations of those people and managing the differences, as much as it is promoting some uniformity in a standard of living.

Knowledge@Wharton: During your trip, you all indicated that Chinese officials made it very clear the U.S. is to blame for the financial crisis. They talked about providing a different model. What is that model and how successful do you think it can be?

Chaudhuri: I suppose that one way to look at the alternative model is perhaps not as unbridled capitalism, but with selective intervention and some controls. This is, of course, the debate that’s been going on around the world in countries which thought that they had perfected the model, such as the United States, but also the European countries. So it’s a wider debate. I would see it as not yet being established what is working, because we have some confounding factors here. So you could attribute the success in managing the crisis to a particular system in the emerging markets. But you could also attribute it to the inherently higher growth rates that they have been experiencing due to the rise that they’ve had over the last several years and the tremendous domestic demand and other factors driving it. I do think it’s good food for thought and should fuel the debate so that we can come up with appropriate structures globally to avoid such crises in the future. It’s not yet evident to me what exactly the model might be, though, and perhaps where the balance may lie.

Singh: Also, one of the things referred do was the impact of derivatives on the U.S. economy and the decline of many of the financial valuations and portfolios of banks and other institutions. I think because [other economies] have less exposure to derivatives and other exotic instruments, there was a sense that [not having them] … was helpful. I hear similar comments in India where people say that the central reserve bank actually had put certain limits on derivatives, so many of these mortgage-backed securities and all those exotic instruments were not allowed to be traded in India. Now does that mean that there’s a better policy? Well, that’s a whole different question. But maybe it speaks to some degree of conservatism which, in this case, was helpful.

Knowledge@Wharton: President Obama recently returned from a visit to China where he encountered efforts to restrict public access to him, and also came in for some blunt criticism over the weak U.S. dollar and low interest rates. In addition, the Chinese accused the U.S. of protectionist trade policies because of their actions against some Chinese products like steel pipes and coated paper. Do you have a response to this lecture that Obama got? And do you think it signals a worsening of relations between the two countries?

Singh: There’s a high degree of dependence between both economies. That’s absolutely clear. One of the questions that is divisive among many is the yuan and where it is pegged in the international markets. Given that China is the manufacturing hub of the world, one of the interesting questions is, if you revalue the yuan, what happens to the costs of those products in the economies where they’re being exported? This is one of the more complex issues underlying the debate, and it’s not clear what the right answer is. But the dependence is so great that this is going to be an ongoing debate.

So on one hand, perhaps, [there are] exhortations to revalue the Yuan; on the other hand, [there are] arguments that we are protecting our products. They’re both interlinked.

Burns: You know, just to add to it in the health care arena, the interesting development there is that the Chinese are undertaking health care reform at the same time we’re undertaking health care reform. I don’t think it’s any longer the case that we have lessons to offer other countries. Other countries are now saying, ‘We have lessons to offer you.’

Knowledge@Wharton: Okay, good point. Saikat, you noted that a whole generation of Chinese has seen progress now for about the last 30 years, and that a lot of overseas Chinese are, in fact, going back to China, not just senior people, but junior people, too. Do you think that will continue? And what are they going back to?

Chaudhuri: We talk about the so-called reverse brain drain — nowadays it’s known as brain gain — both in the context of China and in India. I think in China’s case it started earlier and the scale is also a bit higher. As you noted, what was particularly impressive is that it’s not only the senior people who go into senior roles, especially at multinational corporations based in China who are now taking this opportunity, but it’s also the junior people. We see this increasingly here at Wharton as well. That signals to me very, very clearly that the opportunities are there to actually build a career. Earlier I was talking about building the right ecosystem for a knowledge-based economy. The infrastructure, the people, are of course a critical element. So beyond building the hard infrastructure, to get the right mentality, mindset, it’s very, very critical for China to get back some of that talent which has gained experience abroad. Undoubtedly, they’ve become very, very attractive as a destination. So I think it’s a very, very important driver.

If I may also note, the entrepreneurs that we spoke to were, to a large extent, also of that type. They can, of course, appropriately take business models from both sides, blend them and find what is unique, both for domestic purposes but also to build new global players. So what’s happening on that front is a very, very important driver of China’s future aspirations to become an entrepreneurship and knowledge-based economy.

Singh: One thing that I noted with respect to people going back to China and to India is that the rates seem to be increasing every year; this suggests the perception of opportunity that our recent graduates see in those economies. That’s the first point, that opportunity is rising in some kind of very visceral way, because people are voting with their feet. But the second is that we met seasoned entrepreneurs who had moved 10 years ago, 15 years ago, and they saw confirmation of their projections early on. I think the idea of the ecosystem is very interesting, because they were in, some sense, the creators of the ecosystem which now these young recent graduates are getting into. Related to that, we had the Wharton Alumni Forum not too long ago in China. There were over 700 alumni, many of whom were coming from other countries.

Knowledge@Wharton: What were some of the more impressive business practices or products that you saw in the firms you visited?

Burns: I don’t know about the most impressive practices. I think the most impressive thing I’m seeing is the huge set of demand drivers that are going to accelerate the Chinese health care economy. The projections are stunning that within maybe 30 years China will be the largest pharmaceutical market in the world, eclipsing the United States. That’s stunning to everybody who studied the pharmaceutical industry. And the same thing may happen with medical devices, too.

Singh: What I found fascinating about China were two things. One was scale and the rapid rate of growth. There’s no question that it may not be a linear path, but it’s going to be a major large market in almost every industry. But the other part that I found interesting is when we went to Lenovo and the head of product development for Lenovo was talking about the role of the company’s North Carolina facility, the role of its Japan facility and the Beijing facility, and how they all work together, around the clock as it were, but with a lot of face to face interaction. So they’re trying to grapple with the issue of how to work across borders.

I was sitting in the conference room saying, “This conference room could easily be in Silicon Valley or in Raleigh, North Carolina. But it happens to be in Beijing.” And he was saying the same thing. He often doesn’t know which part of the world he is in. So Lenovo has, on the product development side, created a global organization.

Chaudhuri: To build on that a bit further, I think new forms of organization are being experimented with and being designed and promoted by these firms. Harbir mentioned Lenovo. They have interaction to allow for 24 hour development cycles, yet at the same time [allow] expertise in certain pockets to be developed and to be globally applied. I think that applies to the emerging markets.

I can’t help but be reminded of when the Korean and Japanese economies really took off and those firms rose to prominence. They also brought interesting new management practices, such as in the area of supply chain management. I believe that firms like Lenovo or Haier or Huawei will contribute at that level as well, [along with] Brazilian and Indian and other emerging market firms.

Knowledge@Wharton: Great. Thank you for joining us.


沃顿商学院负责国际合作的副院长哈伯·辛格(Harbir Singh)在去年夏天开展了系列境外旅行,让学院的教授更深刻地了解海外市场的经济状况,并将本次行程的见闻应用于教学和研究之中。六位教授拜访了中国的北京、上海和深圳,与来自联想集团(Lenovo)、海尔集团(Haier)以及华为公司(Huawei)等企业的高管进行了交流。其中的三位参与者——辛格、管理学教授赛凯特乔胡瑞(Saikat Chaudhuri)和卫生保健学教授罗顿·罗伯特·伯恩斯(Lawton R. Burns——与沃顿知识在线分享了本次旅行的见闻。以下内容是本次访谈的剪辑。


赛凯特·乔胡瑞:确实如此。中国的公司渴望成为全球性的“选手”。我们也看到了它们在实践中的不同举措。举例来说,海尔集团就更多地采用了渐进路线,尽管并没能成功收购美泰公司(Maytag)(美泰是美国第三大家用电器制造商,2004年该公司的销售收入为47亿美元。2005年6月,一个由青岛海尔为首的财团曾向其发出以每股16美元的价格收购其全部已发行股票的要约。——译者注)。华为公司也采用了一条渐进路线。华为曾试图收购美国Robotics公司(1997年,3Com公司收购了著名的高速调制解调器厂商U.S.Robotics。2007年9月28日,贝恩资本(Bain Capital)与华为宣布双方将合组公司,斥资22亿美元全面收购3Com公司;贝恩资本将持股83.5%,华为将持股16.5%。——译者注),收购最后未能取得成功。不过,联想集团的收购则是成功实施并购战略的经典案例——公司成功收购了IBM公司的个人计算机业务。它们并购的主要动机在于,除了通过并购可以迅速进入欧美等地区的市场之外,它们还需要获取高端技术,此外,也想建立自己的品牌。这些都是中国的企业一直缺失的元素。而就中国企业强大的成本效率与西方发达企业提供给的市场准入机会和技术整合起来而言,并购也是一条合适的途径。


哈伯·辛格:记得1997年,我曾站在上海的外滩,隔河看到对岸有很多建筑工地。人们说,那里将会出现办公楼和企业。我当时想,那个区域的规模可能与费城的中心区域相当。当我再次回到这里……住在浦东的君悦饭店(Grand Hyatt)时,这个地方已经成了一个拥有大量现代化摩天大楼的新城市。鲜明的对比让我惊叹不已。我曾去过中国很多次,这还只不过是奇迹之一。



辛格:与印度相比反差很大。印度的物质基础设施开发要少得多。虽然很多项目也在进行,但是进展非常缓慢。这也是在印度国内的人常常谈到的。印度一直追求的是“软基础设施”(soft infrastructure)的发展,比如,人力资源,英语的应用等,它们让印度的专业服务人员能与全世界的公司进行合作。所以,你能看到这两个国家的显著差异。虽然,在这两个主要的发展中国家中,本来不应该出现一个国家选择重点发展物质基础设施、另一个国家选择重点发展软基础设施的,可现在看来,它们的发展道路就是如此。


罗顿·罗伯特·伯恩斯:是的。首先我想接着哈伯的评述谈下去,中国在医疗保健的基础设施上也投入了很多资金。特别值得一提的是,他们正在重建以公有制为主体的医院行业。此外他们也在重建其基础医疗体系(primary care system)。目前中国主要依靠级别较低的医院来提供基础医疗服务;现在他们正在努力建设社区医疗中心。所以,他们在基础医疗、二级医疗(secondary care)以及三级医疗(tertiary care)系统上都投入了大量的资金。
























乔胡瑞:这就是所谓的“人才回流”(reverse brain drain)问题。在中国和印度两国都发生了这种情形。中国的人才回流现象出现得比印度更早,而且人才回流的规模也更大些。尤其引人注意的是,不但资深人士利用回到国内担纲重要角色,比如在跨国公司的中国分公司中担任高级管理职位,而且年轻人也纷纷回国。我们在沃顿商学院也越来越多地看到了这种情形。



辛格:谈到人才回流到中国和印度这个话题,我注意到了一个现象。那就是他们回流的比率每年都在增长,这一趋势表明,近年来的毕业生看到了这些经济体中孕育的机会。这是第一个层面。第二个层面是,我们遇到了一些富有经验的企业家,他们在10年、15年前就走了,因为他们在更早期就看到了未来。生态系统的理念很有意思,这些人是这个生态系统的创建者,最近几年毕业的年轻人则走进了这个系统。另外一个层面是,不久前我们在中国举办了“沃顿商学院校友论坛”(Wharton Alumni Forum),有700多位校友到会,其中的很多人来自中国以外的其他国家。









Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: