India vs. China: Market Attractiveness for Australian Companies
This report, prepared from the perspective of consultants advising the Australian Trade Commission (Austrade), compares the market attractiveness of India and China for Australian companies seeking international expansion. Drawing on academic literature and economic data, the paper examines export performance, foreign direct investment (FDI) trends, labor market flexibility, GDP composition, and comparative advantage across both economies. The analysis finds that while both nations are fast-growing emerging markets with large populations and expanding middle classes, China consistently demonstrates stronger FDI inflows, more flexible labor markets, and broader comparative advantage in manufacturing and technology-intensive goods — making it the more favorable destination for Australian business investment.
- Introduction: Historical and economic context for India and China
- Overview of Markets: India and China: 2007 market outlook and growth indicators for both nations
- Comparative Analysis: FDI, labor, GDP, and export competitiveness compared
- Summary and Conclusion: China recommended for Australian market entry
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper maintains a clear consultancy framing throughout, grounding its analysis in a real-world scenario that gives the comparative review a practical purpose and audience.
- It draws on a range of academic and industry sources — Wong, Das, Sinha, Veeramani, and Balasubramanyam — to build a multi-dimensional picture of each market rather than relying on a single perspective.
- The conclusion flows logically from the evidence presented, culminating in a specific, actionable recommendation rather than an open-ended summary.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative analysis as an academic method: rather than describing India and China independently, it consistently measures them against each other using shared dimensions — FDI volume, labor market flexibility, GDP composition, and export structure. This parallel structure allows the reader to track the argument across sections and follow how each data point builds toward the final recommendation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction situating both economies historically and contextually. A market overview section then profiles each country individually using current economic indicators. The core comparative analysis evaluates FDI trends, labor reform, GDP drivers, export performance, and commodity-group comparative advantage. A brief conclusion synthesizes the findings and delivers a clear investment recommendation favoring China for Australian market entry.
Introduction
Lung-Fai Wong's work entitled "Agricultural Productivity in China and India: A Comparative Analysis" notes that these two countries are among the most populous in the world, together comprising more than one-third of the total global population (Wong, 1987). Wong further observes that despite differing greatly in economic, social, and political circumstances, both China and India "emerged as net exporters of agricultural products after more than three decades of development. Each country, however, employed different strategies and reforms and, therefore, they have been of great interest to economists for many years" (Wong, 1987).
A study by Balasubramanyam and Wei (2005) entitled "Textiles and Clothing Exports from India and China: A Comparative Analysis" compares the export performance of the textiles and clothing industries in both countries using the revealed comparative advantage and the Kreinin-Finger similarity indices. The results indicate that China holds much higher shares in world exports of both textiles and clothing, while India holds a comparative advantage in women's clothing and men's shirts. With the abolition of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement (MFA), China was expected to gain at India's expense in most categories of clothing exports, even in those where India previously held a higher market share. The authors concluded that India would need to strengthen its competitive position relative to China, particularly in high-value, design-oriented products in the EU and U.S. markets (Balasubramanyam and Wei, 2005).
Dilip K. Das (2006), in "The Chinese and Indian Economies: Comparing the Comparables," presents several key findings relevant to this analysis:
Both China and India were historically known for their prosperity, but in the modern era they experienced sharp economic decline and became marginal economies characterized by large impoverished populations and stagnation. Early in the twenty-first century, however, both nations re-emerged as significant powers in the global economy. China, in particular, delivered a remarkable economic performance in the closing decades of the twentieth century and was widely regarded as a future economic superpower — a low-cost manufacturing giant with rapidly rising merchandise exports and imports. India's post-1991 growth performance also improved, with notable success in services sector exports, though it did not match China's overall economic performance. Das concludes that the economic weight of China and its integration into the global economy will continue to grow, and that India could follow a similar trajectory (Das, 2006).
Overview of Markets: India and China
The Market Oracle, in its report "Emerging Markets Outlook for 2007 — India, China, Russia, Eastern Europe and Brazil," offers the following assessment of each country:
India: India experienced a volatile boom during 2007, with the Sensex index rising over 50% by year-end following a significant sell-off in May. Despite a solid long-term growth story, India was expected to undergo some consolidation in the near term. Crucially, economic growth had not been accompanied by sufficient investment in infrastructure — particularly in transport and power — which lagged well behind developments in China. The implications of weak infrastructure were expected to become increasingly apparent to investors. Governance of the economy was seen as less effective under India's democratic system, and rampant corruption remained a concern. Overall, India was expected to continue growing but to experience greater stock market volatility than China (The Market Oracle, 2007).
China: China continued to enjoy strong GDP growth of approximately 10% per annum, supported by an ongoing construction boom as tens of millions of people migrated to new cities each year. This economic prosperity was generating an ever-growing middle class increasingly adopting Western-style consumer preferences. Even if export demand were to weaken due to a slowing U.S. economy, rising domestic demand was expected to compensate. The gains of 2006 were projected to continue well into future years (The Market Oracle, 2007).
Export performance data comparing China and India from 1950 to 2004 illustrates a widening gap in favor of China, particularly from the 1980s onward, as China's export growth dramatically outpaced that of India across the period.
Bibliography
Balasubramanyam, V.N., and Wei, Yingqi (2005). Textiles and clothing exports from India and China: A comparative analysis. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 3(1), 23–37.
Das, Dilip K. (2006). The Chinese and Indian economies: Comparing the comparables. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 4(1), 77–89. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
India and China's Developmental Paths (2008). Urbanomics. 2 September 2008.
Sinha, Swapna S. (2007). Comparative analysis of FDI in China and India: Can laggards learn from leaders?
The Market Oracle (2007). Emerging markets outlook for 2007 — India, China, Russia, Eastern Europe and Brazil.
Veeramani, C. (2004). Specialization patterns under trade liberalization. Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research.
Wong, Lung-Fai (1987). Agricultural productivity in China and India: A comparative analysis. Presented at the Symposium on Feeding the People of China and India, American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, February 15, 1987.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.