<i>Diasporas and Foreign Direct Investment in China and India</i>, by Min Ye. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. xvi+142 pp. US$110.00 (cloth), $88.00 (eBook).

Previous articleNext article FreeReviewsDiasporas and Foreign Direct Investment in China and India, by Min Ye. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. xvi+142 pp. US$110.00 (cloth), $88.00 (eBook).Josephine SmartJosephine SmartUniversity of Calgary Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThis book is, in the author’s own words, “comparative research of China’s and India’s reforms” (35) seeking to explain “why their paths of liberalization were so different, with one heavily reliant on external investment and the other largely promoting indigenous business” (3). This comparative and historical study of policy making draws on archives, interviews, and statistical databases sourced in China, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States over several years. Using social network theory as a key conceptual framework, Min Ye meticulously documents major milestones in policy reform in both countries chronologically since the late 1970s, focusing on key players: political figures and elite business investors of Chinese and Indian heritage in the diaspora communities. Equal attention is paid to each country. Min Ye’s analysis is structured around three pillars: first, a structural analysis of diaspora networks and domestic resistance; second, a process analysis of the interactions between policy makers and external and domestic actors; and third, a diffusion analysis of policy changes (35). This entails a top-down macro analysis and a study of elite politics. Min Ye considers the diaspora networks a central source of new ideas and incentives behind the policy reform in both countries, but only the “elites” in the diaspora communities “who make headway in [their] societies have access to more advanced ideas and more abundant resources … to facilitate policy innovations in their homelands” (25).The book’s nine chapters are organized into four book sections. Part 1 is an introduction and theory chapter, parts 2 and 3 present the core comparative analysis of the policy reforms in both countries, and part 4 presents selected case studies of foreign direct investment in each country: electronics and automobiles in China, and informatics and the auto industry in India. Min Ye offers two broad conclusions. First, “China’s and India’s political institutions may have less bearing on liberalization than previously argued. The Chinese reform was not autocratic; rather, it drew on entrepreneurial diasporas that helped the government pursue new policies and rendered liberalization successful. … Conversely, in India, democratic institutions did not prevent policy change; yet due to the presence of relatively weak external networks, indigenous industries played a more central role during reform. … Second, diaspora networks operating across national boundaries (as opposed to Western MNCs and IOs) have fueled globalization in China and in India” (205–6).The book makes a valuable contribution in its comparative focus on India and China. It offers an informative quick study for students and researchers who are new to the study of economic reform and foreign direct investment in these countries. But the book has little to offer that is new or groundbreaking in both conceptual and empirical terms, and experts on the subject matter will find it at best a confirmation of what is already known, and at worst a somewhat simplistic and even misleading analysis of the processes and outcomes of economic reforms in both countries. While Min Ye is right to highlight the roles of overseas Chinese and Indians in the policy and economic changes in both countries, this observation is not new. In her singular focus on elite politics, and her conviction that only elite players such as the super-rich Hong Kong Chinese held influence in policy reform and its success in China, she largely ignores the empirical evidence, well documented in many publications in the social sciences in both English and Chinese, that the China miracle was instead aided by small and medium-size Hong Kong investments in labor-intensive light industries for export, which contributed to economic progress in China since the 1990s.Min Ye’s use of social network theory also contributes to her tendency to ignore relevant evidence. Her own version of social network theory assumes, without substantiation, that external networks support change while internal or domestic networks resist change, and only elite external players have the resources and connections to influence policy change (4, 14–15). If she had used social network theory as originally intended, which allows the networks to show the full spectrum of individuals linked directly and indirectly, she may have had something new and original to contribute to the important question of what makes a difference to the paths of economic reform in these two countries. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The China Journal Volume 77January 2017 Published on behalf of the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/689231 For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.