Development of a National HRD Strategy Model

Abstract

National human resource development (NHRD) literature describes the importance of developing human resources at the national level and presents several models. These models are primarily concerned with the national contexts of developing and underdeveloped countries. In contrast, the NHRD models in the non-HRD literature focus primarily on developed countries. Both types of models describe NHRD strategies with little analytical attention to the larger societal context, which the authors argue has a deep influence on the trajectory of NHRD practices in developing countries. The authors traced the evolution of NHRD strategies through an in-depth analysis of two emerging economies—India and China. Through comparative analysis, this study identifies similarities and differences in the emergence of NHRD strategy and develops a model that provides an enriched perspective on the dynamic process of NHRD strategy development.

Keywords

India China national HRD strategy

The potential role of human resource development (HRD) in advancing economic growth and promoting societal development at the national level has captured the attention of scholars in the HRD community in recent years. HRD scholars (e.g., Cho & McLean, 2004; Lynham & Cunningham, 2006) have explored NHRD strategies, policies, and practices of different countries to reveal the role of HRD in national development. These research efforts have not only extended the boundary of HRD beyond the organizational context as traditionally defined, but also highlighted the need to consider the impact of a country’s historical, political, sociocultural, and economic environments on its human capital development, NHRD strategy formulation, and implementation (Cunningham, Lynham, & Weatherly, 2006; McLean, 2004).

The application of NHRD approaches to national skills development, acquisition, and utilization in different countries have been elaborated by HRD scholars (Cho & McLean, 2004; Lynham & Cunningham, 2006). The interdisciplinary nature of NHRD is reflected in the divergent views and contexts, presenting complex and unique challenges. Making an in-depth assessment of human resource development at the national level, NHRD scholars (a) provided historical, sociocultural and economic, (b) articulated the role of HRD in national development; and (c) offered guidelines for HRD professionals in their endeavor toward the development of human capital at the national level.

The HRD and non-HRD literature used country-specific case studies to develop NHRD models; research for this category typically addressed issues facing a particular country or a group of countries. As a result, rather than understanding the complex interactions and relationships between the NHRD components, the models derived from country case examples selectively examined some of the following components: historical, political, sociocultural, labor market, educational, and economic systems. In addition, these models do not consistently consider national responses to factors such as technology advances and globalization that have shaped NHRD strategy development over time. Therefore, addressing these gaps in the current literature is likely to generate more inclusive insights into and, viable explanations about NHRD strategies, which have been adopted or developed by a variety of countries. We demonstrate a model building process and develop an NHRD strategy model from the literature that can more accurately illuminate the economic, political, and social transformational journey undertaken by different countries. To do so, we chose to use a cross-case comparison of two emerging economies in the world—India and China. The highly complex historical, sociocultural, political, and economic systems and large-scale changes that have occurred in these two countries make them ideal contexts for research.

India and China were selected as case studies for two reasons. First, the business media have described both countries as “shining” examples of economic growth and success. As emerging powers in the world economy, increasing attention has been given to both by business and research communities as they attempt to understand the national contexts of these two countries. The potential demographic dividend, given the combined population of 2.4 billion people, offers great opportunities for more than adequately meeting the demands of the world’s consumer and producer markets (Prahalad, 2006; Rao & Varghese, 2009). Yet, despite considerable progress made by India and China, there is a significant divide in the economic potential, social development, and needs of the population. The scholar and practitioner literature suggests that both countries face serious human resource development challenges including the following: (a) unregulated global, national, and local demands for skilled and unskilled human resources (Gurtoo, 2008; Verma, Kochan, & Lansbury, 1995); (b) weak linkages connecting employment policies with formal education–based systems (e.g., higher education, vocational, and workforce development) and private-sector demands (Huang & Khanna, 2003); (c) bureaucratic barriers inhibiting alliances between public, private, and informal sectors (Gurtoo, 2009); and (d) the challenges of population growth and aging (Farrell, Laboissière, & Rosenfeld, 2005; Fernandez, 1982; Rao, 2004; Yang & Zhang, 2003). It is clear that the development in social, cultural, and political arenas have not kept pace with economic growth in these two countries (Bardhan, 2002; Martinez-Vazquez & Rider 2006; Srinivasan, 2004; Turcq, 1995). In an increasingly complex global context, these NHRD challenges will require HRD scholars to draw from other fields as diverse as economics, sociology, and public policy. Perhaps one of the most meaningful tasks HRD scholars can take is to move the NHRD literature forward through the development of NHRD models that can both describe and prescribe NHRD strategies linking social and economic development strategies.

Research Purpose and Significance

The purpose of this article is to develop an NHRD strategy model using the case examples of India and China. We made three important decisions to accomplish this goal. The first decision involved the scope of literature we would review. Over the past decade, there has been an increasing interest in NHRD and a number of publications on this topic in HRD literature. While drawing all the related literature in the HRD domain, we also considered the contributions of other disciplines in the examination of NHRD-related topics, including labor economics, public policy research, international education, and workforce development perspectives.

The second decision involved the inclusion of two case country examples for in-depth analysis. As said earlier, we purposefully selected India and China as they are representative of highly complex NHRD contexts. The complexity and changing nature of the case country contexts provide empirical evidence required for robust model building research (Lynham, 2002). Furthermore, as we previously pointed out, current social and economic events occurring in contemporary India and China do not seem to be fully explained by existing models and theories of NHRD in the HRD literature. In addition, literature on India–China comparisons outside the HRD domain revealed macrolevel similarities in these two countries with regards to their past growth and economic potential, as well as the accompanying challenges of bureaucratic barriers and governance structures (Bardhan, 2002; Huang & Khanna, 2003; Martinez-Vazquez & Rider, 2006; Turcq, 1995). Therefore, it is our attempt to develop a NHRD model to address this gap in the HRD literature.

The third decision we made concerns the NHRD model building process. We used Cho and McLean’s (2004) model as a guiding framework and extended their approach. We recognize that although their categorizations of NHRD can be more fully understood as a typology of countries based on their progress with regard to the application of NHRD, the model does not adequately illustrate the economic journey experienced by the case examples of India and China. In this article, we used Cho and McLean’s model as a reference point to demonstrate that prominent, fast-growing, market-based, developing economies may not fit easily in any one classification their model suggested. We have highlighted features from other classifications which appear in both the economies. However, we found Cho and McLean’s model useful in that it offered us a framework to derive a greater understanding of key milestones in the NHRD strategy evolution in India and China.

Research Method

To achieve the objective of this research, we conducted a thorough database search in the disciplines of economics, sociology, and HRD. The search generated nine NHRD models meeting two predetermined criteria: (a) NHRD and (b) human resource strategy. These two criteria were necessary to identify the domain of NHRD and to ensure the inclusion of literature on national approaches to human resource policy formulation that are not called NHRD. We compared and contrasted all the models and assessed their applicability to the India and China contexts. Our assessment suggests that the existing models do not adequately capture the forces that influence the NHRD strategy development in India and China over time. Consequently, our literature review and analysis reveals a gap in the NHRD model-building process.

In addition to understanding NHRD models documented in current literature, it is also important to gain an understanding of the two cases included in this article. Therefore, our literature review also included publications that provided comparative analyses of China and India to understand the impact of their political, economic, and sociocultural histories on NHRD policy formulation and implementation. On a macro level, it appears that there is a convergence on the challenges facing both countries with respect to economic development (Bardhan, 2002; Martinez-Vazquez & Rider, 2006; Srinivasan, 2004; Turcq, 1995). In the following two sections, we review nine NHRD models identified for this research. We start with the descriptions of models in the non-HRD literature and then move to models from the HRD literature. These two sections synthesize and update the full extent of research and scholarship on the topic of NHRD.

NHRD Models in Non-HRD Literature

This body of literature focuses mainly on national approaches to human resource policy formulation and implementation. The primary concerns of these studies are with using human resources toward the production of goods and services, developing job-related capabilities, skills and facilitating access to training and employment opportunities (Briggs, 1987). Although these approaches are not explicitly identified as NHRD, it is important to include them into our analysis to generate a more comprehensive understanding of the current status of NHRD. In the earliest NHRD model, researchers focused on education systems of highly industrialized countries and outlined two distinct approaches to national skills development (Calloids, 1994; Furth, 1985). The first approach focused on formal and informal educational sectors in different countries (Calloids, 1994; Furth, 1985), and the second approach compared enterprise-led work-based training and college education systems (Green, 1991).

The second NHRD model described the effect of demand and supply of occupational and labor markets on vocational education systems, skill development, and workplace training in developed countries—namely, Germany and France (Ashton, Sung, & Turbin, 2000; Koike & Inoke, 1990). This comparative model further uncovered the influence of the organization of work in enterprises on the design, structure and delivery of training in state-led educational systems and included Japan in their comparison (Marsden, 1986).

The third NHRD model compared cultural and historical influences on vocational educational systems in the United States and France; apprenticeship institutions in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and industry-led training systems in Japan (Castro & Alfthan, 1992). The fourth NHRD model, which included Asian countries (Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea) other than Japan, examined the role and extent of state involvement in vocational and career education, as well as workplace training at the regional and local levels (Ashton, Green, James, & Sung, 1999; Green, 1991). This is the first time that Asian countries (Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea) were included in comparative NHRD research.

The fifth NHRD model was developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Labor Organization (ILO). This model emphasized the interdependence and relationship between labor markets, institutional arrangements, occupational skill development, and industry demands. In this model, four classifications were proposed by OECD: (a) market-driven, high skills (Canada and the United States); (b) market-driven, low skills (Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom); (c) consensual model (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and Switzerland); and (d) the enterprise-led consensual approach (Japan) (Ashton et.al, 2000). The OECD model was later expanded to include ‘intermediate catch-up countries’ (e.g., Mexico, Italy, and Spain) where the degree of involvement between the government and companies was varied. This model reveals the dynamic interactions and relationships between two or more NHRD components. The explanatory power of the OECD and ILO model is limited as it focuses largely on the distinctive labor and market structures unique to the national contexts. Furthermore, these models also failed to consider country examples from the Asian economies other than Japan.

The sixth NHRD model compared national systems of skills formation (Ashton et al., 2000). Ashton et al. (2000) noted changes in the role and relationships of the government, labor markets, and capital. This model was a significant improvement that extended the work of previous NHRD models as it contextualized the geopolitical environment, facilitated national level comparative analyses, and provided explanations for observed similarities and differences. For example, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were categorized as market driven, as these countries emphasized the role of the private sector in coordinating the flow of capital, demand and supply of labor. The responsibility for delivery and use of training was left to the employers and the workforce, enabling a high degree of autonomy in the educational systems. On the other hand, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands focused on employers and labor union partnerships on wage- and training-related matters. Apprenticeship and vocational education provide a tighter fit as a result of coordinating demand and supply of skills. Countries in this classification also supported a higher degree of equality in income distribution and broader life opportunities. These countries were propelled to make incremental adjustments as a national response to the demands of globalization. The role of the government in leveraging market forces was revealed by the examples of Asian countries (e.g., South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore). In this classification, the demand and supply of labor and capital is regulated by the state. The institutional structures (educational, political, and market) are viewed as important for national building and hence, tightly aligned to support economic growth, reduce unemployment, and address skilled labor shortage. The Ashton model also described state-controlled economic development systems (e.g., Mexico, Brazil, and Chile) in addition to the prevalence of strong labor unions and centralized educational systems (vocational education and apprenticeship, training systems, illiteracy reduction). Countries in this classification moved from centralized systems to more free market–oriented structures, allowing the import of foreign capital over time. As a result, tightly controlled educational systems (skill formation and acquisition), state and market systems were affected by the forces of globalization. The global demand for cheap labor supply continues to support national economic growth in these countries.

Thus, the sixth NHRD model highlights the influence of global forces and the dynamic interaction between the state, markets, and labor. We found this model to have stronger explanatory power for Asian contexts, as it explained similarities and differences of diverse national contexts on the basis of underlying interdependencies of the state, capital markets, and labor. The model illuminates the importance of other sources of change that drive national HRD strategy such as geopolitical environment and national history that shape the direction of the economy, the role of state, and the impact of education and training on skills formation. However, neither India nor China was included in the above research effort; extending the analysis to include these two countries will add explanatory power to the sixth NHRD model. We contend that a comparative analysis of these two countries will enable us to explore the determinants that lead to the development of a robust NHRD strategy and policy-making model.

Making national-level HRD comparisons involving two or more countries is difficult given that each country has unique historical, social, political, economic, and cultural contexts. Despite the inherent difficulties in this stream of research, a number of comparative NHRD studies have been conducted outside the realm of HRD. The approaches adopted by these studies provide useful guidelines in the NHRD model–building process. The NHRD models derived from these studies examine the formulation of national level HR policies focusing on the content (historical, political, sociocultural, and economic systems) and linking their influence to the education and labor market systems. They also offered refined explanations on the factors affecting NHRD strategy development over time. As such, this body of literature provides a starting point for HRD researchers interested in NHRD model development. Nevertheless, these studies were primarily concerned with developed countries such as France, the United States, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Japan (Castro & Alfthan, 1992). Developing nations received little research attention in the non-HRD NHRD literature. In the following section, we present the NHRD models documented in HRD literature that addresses this gap.

NHRD Models in HRD Literature

Although it is “impossible to provide an overarching definition of NHRD” (McLean, 2004, p. 271), NHRD can be simply understood as developing human resources at the national level. First proposed by McLean (2004), NHRD has received increasing attention from HRD researchers. This is evidenced by the first collection of publications in a 2004 issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources that examined the NHRD status and policies in a wide range of countries across five continents (McLean, Osman-Gani, & Cho, 2004). Two years later, another collection of studies focusing on NHRD in transitioning societies in the developing world was published in an issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources (Lynham, Paprock, & Cunningham, 2006), further advancing our knowledge about this topic. Despite the emerging nature of NHRD, the body of relevant literature is still very small (McLean, 2004). Perhaps, also because of its “newness” to the HRD field, there remains constant debate on the domain and concept of NHRD as a research territory (e.g., McLean, Lynham, Azevedo, Lawrence, & Nafukho, 2008; G. G. Wang & Swanson, 2008; J. Wang & Wang, 2006). At the Academy of Human Resource Development 2007 International Research Conference in the Americas, an Innovative Session was organized to allow a group of HRD scholars to debate about the issues related to NHRD research (G. G. Wang, Wang, McLean, Bartlett, & Lynham, 2007). These efforts have been valuable in furthering our understanding of NHRD.

NHRD models have been developed by HRD scholars (e.g., Cho & McLean, 2004; Lynham & Cunningham, 2006) based on political, economic, and sociocultural systems prevalent in several countries. For example, Lynham and Cunningham (2006) addressed HRD’s role in the development of NHRD policy and practice for selected developing countries. Their model is significant as they moved from the “one-size-fit-all” model for developing countries to the individual needs, challenges, and issues facing each country. We identify this as the seventh NHRD model available in the literature. Comparative policy analyses between countries help in identifying similar socioeconomic and cultural characteristics (Kuruvilla, Erickson, & Hwang, 2002). Furthering this line of thinking, G. G. Wang, Korte, and Sun (2008) encouraged HRD scholars to focus on “developing commonalities to discover and develop commonly applicable approaches to HRD policies and practices” (p. 858). J. Wang and Wang (2006) recommended cross-country comparisons on NHRD related issues for meaningful understanding and identification of common patterns and trends across nations.

The eighth type of NHRD model adopted the individual country case study approach (e.g., Ke, Chermack, Lee, & Lin, 2006; Rao, 2004; Rao & Varghese, 2009; J. Wang & Wang, 2006; Yang, Zhang, & Zhang, 2004) with the exception of McLean, Bartlett, and Cho’s (2003) study, in which cross-country comparisons were conducted but no model was proposed. McLean et al. (2003) examined NHRD in South Korea and New Zealand based on their extensive professional experiences and personal involvement in national HRD initiatives in these two countries. However, the NHRD comparison study of South Korea and New Zealand is more likely to benefit developed countries than developing countries.

The ninth and final NHRD model we identified from the literature was developed by Cho and McLean (2004). They classified countries based on the role of government in national economic development. As a result, Cho and McLean proposed five emerging NHRD categories: (a) centralized NHRD, (b) transitional NHRD, (c) government-initiated NHRD, (d) decentralized/free market NHRD, and (e) small-nation NHRD. Cho and McLean’s classifications separated developed, developing, and transitional economies based on the degree to which the role of national HRD strategy was centralized or decentralized (Mankin, 2009).

Analysis of Existing NHRD Models

Table 1 summarizes the NHRD models we discussed above, the criteria used in model development, and country examples.

Table 1.

National Human Resource Development (NHRD) Models Identified From the Literature. Examples of countries provided for each model are not meant to be exhaustive.

No.	NHRD model	Country examples
1	Educational led systems (formal and informal educational sectors; enterprise-led work-based training and college education systems)	United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany
2	Effect of occupational and labor markets on vocational education systems, skill development, and workplace training	Germany, France, Japan
3	Cultural and historical influences on vocational educational systems, apprenticeship institutions, and industry-led training systems	United States, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Japan
4	Role and extent of state involvement (central/federal) in vocational, career education, and workplace training at the regional and local levels	Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea
5	Relationships between labor markets, institutional arrangements, occupational skill development, and industry demands	Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Mexico, Italy, Spain
6	National systems of skills formation linking underlying interdependencies of the state, capital markets, and labor	United Kingdom, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Mexico, Brazil, Chile
7	HRD’s role in the development of NHRD policy and practice	Brazil, China, Mexico, South Africa
8	NHRD HRD “model” review of contemporary economic, social, cultural, and political environments	Individual case studies: China, India, Mexico, Kenya, Morocco, Brazil, South Africa
9	Role of government in national economic development	Mexico, Kenya

A systematic analysis of the nine NHRD models leads us to draw four conclusions. First, current research on NHRD has taken varied foci, as shown in Table 1. Second, NHRD policies and strategies differ from country to country depending on the specific country context. Third, although most of the NHRD studies have been situated in the developed and developing countries, there has been a noticeable increase in research on NHRD practices in underdeveloped and transitioning economies. This trend is likely to continue as globalization intensifies. Finally, the effectiveness of NHRD strategies and policies are likely to be enhanced when countries adopt a holistic approach that considers the dynamic impact of social, political, cultural, and economic systems on education, labor markets, and the role of government. In the following section, we shift our focus to contemporary India and China by applying NHRD models and assessing their applicability in these two national contexts.

NHRD in India and China

Through our search for NHRD models, we found two diverse literature bases using India and China as case examples. The first stream of literature was dominated by NHRD scholars in the HRD field. This body of literature examines India and China separately, that is, as single case country examples in HRD literature on NHRD (Ke et al., 2006; Rao, 2004; Rao & Varghese, 2009; J. Wang & Wang, 2006; Yang et al., 2004). In the second stream of literature, scholars compared and analyzed India and China together to develop public policy approaches (Bardhan, 2002; Martinez-Vazquez & Rider, 2006; Saran & Guo, 2005; Srinivasan, 2004; Turcq, 1995). This body of literature drew heavily from the disciplines of economics, sociology, and public policy. We begin this section by highlighting NHRD HRD literature investigating the separate case country contexts of India and China.

Rao’s (2004) review of the NHRD context revealed education and culture as two important factors for policy development. Rao (2004) and Rao and Varghese (2009) also underlined the complex interplay of economic, political and social structures, demographics, as well as diverse and multifaceted characteristics affecting India. In a similar fashion, Ke et al. (2006) explored HRD’s contribution toward China’s economic, social, cultural, and political growth. In addition, Yang et al. (2004) identified human capacity building (Beijing Initiative) and economic revitalization as major HRD themes for China. In the backdrop of a strong collectivist cultural context, HRD in India and China tend to have strong social and moral implications (Rao, 2004; Yang & Zhang, 2003).

The second stream of literature compared India and China with regard to the formulation of NHRD policy. These contributions were particularly useful in helping us understand macrolevel similarities and differences in India and China. For example, Saran and Guo (2005) compared India and China from economic and financial aspects. Other India–China comparisons unfold similarities in the economic potential, size, population growth, bureaucratic challenges, regulatory systems, and opportunities for reform in major industrial sectors (Bardhan, 2002; Huang & Khanna, 2003; Martinez-Vazquez & Rider, 2006; Srinivasan, 2004; Turcq, 1995). However, the social development aspect was largely left unexplored. In what follows, we integrate the two streams of NHRD literature on India and China, identify macrolevel similarities and differences in their NHRD contexts, and present a comparative analysis of the two countries.

Similarities

The economic development strategy for India and China is closely tied to the unique history of each country. India gained independence from the British Commonwealth in 1947 and the Communist Party gained control of China shortly thereafter in 1949. Both countries adopted a state-controlled economic development strategy that was deliberately inwardly focused and insulated from the outside world (Srinivasan, 2004). Thus, the state coordinated the movement of capital and labor. A socialist framework was core to the economic development models adopted by India and China at the time. Public-sector undertakings were nationalized or owned by the state; a controlled economy with fewer international linkages defined both countries’ economic systems. The centralized, socialist model with a rigidly controlled economy characterized the NHRD context of both India and China during the early post-independent years. The model of a centralized economy from 1950 to 1978 led to centrally controlled agricultural and industrial production systems in China.

China began a movement toward openness by launching economic reforms and an “open door” policy in the late 1970s. India initiated economic “liberalization” after its 1991 macroeconomic crisis (Srinivasan, 2004). The economies experienced unique transformational changes as these two countries “opened” the markets to the influence of other countries, notably the United States. The United States has played a vital role in the economic development of India and China as their single largest trading partner. This may soon change for India as China overtakes the United States as India’s largest trading partner. Both countries have unique and rich cultural heritages as two of the world’s oldest civilizations.

In sum, our analysis revealed six similarities between India and China: (a) centralized and inwardly focused economy model practiced until liberalization; (b) predominance of an agricultural and gender-based economy that continues to support growth of manufacturing, information technology, and other sectors; (c) major political and economic beneficiaries from the former Soviet Union during their early historical and economic development; (d) the United States remains the largest trading partner for both countries; (e) both countries have rich cultural and historical heritage as some of the world’s oldest civilizations; and (f) the relative political stability in comparison with other developing countries enhanced national capacity for building self-sufficiency and pursuing free market policies.

Differences

Despite the above commonalities, our analysis also revealed several macrolevel differences between India and China. First, the political structures are strikingly different in both countries. A democratic, participatory system describes India’s political context. In sharp contrast, China’s one-party governance has successfully liberalized and supported its economic reforms. Over time, the nature of relationship between the state and capital markets has undergone changes in both countries.

Second, the sociocultural heritages also contributed to the differences between India and China. For example, a caste-based system is still prevalent in India and continues to challenge the espoused democratic political structure. In addition, “a multi- ethnic, multi-religious and multi-linguistic social fabric compounds the political and economic integration of the country” (Rao, 2004, p. 290). In contrast, China’s economic transformation has been exceptionally successful in delinking the political apparatus from a free market–based economic structure. However, it remains to be determined if this evolution will be emulated by other countries. To date, no other NHRD model has achieved a level of significant separation of the economic system from the socio-political structure at the national level. China’s NHRD strategy evokes criticism for not espousing a democratic and participatory political structure and perhaps, a significant barrier toward fully realizing its NHRD potential (Srinivasan, 2004).

Further, excellent private investment policies in China have attracted large foreign capital investments. Low-wage manufacturing led China’s impressive growth evidenced by an average of more than 30% gross domestic product (GDP) in the recent years (Srinivasan, 2004). Unlike China, service producing industries dominate India and led to growth at 5% in recent years (Srinivasan, 2004). Moreover, better functioning financial systems, efficient and, transparent capital markets support the private-sector economy in India. However, despite the glamour of the information technology industry, India’s economic development is not fully connected to the global economy. China also needs transparent regulatory systems in the financial, labor, as well as legal systems (Bardhan, 2002; Martinez-Vazquez & Rider, 2006; Srinivasan, 2004).

Through the literature review of the case examples of India and China, the evolution of NHRD strategies in the two countries became apparent. Our research suggests that the transformational journey experienced by India and China reflect the profound changes in the economic, political, and sociocultural systems that continue to evolve. Our comparative analysis identified the critical role of the government in leading the economic transformation in both countries. The analysis also revealed that the existing NHRD models do not account for the changes over time we found in the India and China cases.

However, as we indicated earlier, Cho and McLean’s (2004) model can be a useful starting point as it identified the role of the government in economic development as foundational to understanding NHRD in developing countries. Consequently, we adopted their model to guide our development of a new NHRD model that highlights and contextualizes HRD challenges situated in the specific India and China contexts.

NHRD Model–Building Process

As said above, our efforts in developing a new NHRD model based on the cases of India and China began with selecting an existing model to build from. Cho and McLean’s (2004) model was selected because it was derived from examining (a) the contexts of prominent developing economies and (b) the role of the state in economic development. This section starts with a brief description of Cho and McLean’s model followed by the application of this model in India and China contexts to evaluate its applicability to these two case examples.

Five NHRD classifications were proposed in the Cho and McLean (2004) model, of which, four are appropriate for understanding the NHRD strategy of India and China. The fifth classification—NHRD in small nations—is not appropriate because it is incompatible with the India and China contexts. The first classification, according to Cho and McLean is the centralization of NHRD, which explains the critical role of the government in national economic growth and driving market-based reforms. The second classification is transitional NHRD, which describes the governments’ approach to build support with important stakeholders (e.g., employers, labor unions) for implementing policy reforms. The third classification is government-initiated partnerships. This classification describes a consultative role of the government as one of the many stakeholders in strengthening their contribution toward human capital development. The fourth classification is decentralized/free market NHRD, which focuses on industry and private-sector organizations as the driving forces in developing national skills, education, and training policy. In the following paragraphs, we apply the above four classifications of the Cho and McLean (2004) model with consideration about unique attributes and characteristics of India and China to evaluate their applicability to these two case examples.

Centralized NHRD

As noted by Cho and McLean (2004), centralized NHRD activity is rooted in a strong collectivist culture, which explains the active role of the state in national economic development. Under this collectivist orientation, the government not only exercises political control to implement economic policies, but also tightly controls NHRD strategy. The centralized NHRD classification helps us understand the early NHRD strategy in India and China. The initial economic policy instituted by both governments during the late 1940s and 1950s was based on their need to gain independence and self-sufficiency primarily in the industrial and agricultural sectors. Thus, the NHRD strategy for both India and China was developed by the Planning Commission through the centralized “Five-Year Plan” approach. Interestingly, both countries are currently implementing their 11th Five-Year Plan. In India and China, the central government develops the overall national strategy for “planning, implementing, and assessing HRD policies” (Cho & McLean, 2004, p. 383); NHRD strategies are state led and mandated. However, the actual implementation is devolved to local governments and private agencies, which provide resources and expertise. The state continues developing national level policies for education, health, and economic growth.

Evidently, the national governments of India and China have played a pivotal role in stipulating national laws, legislatures, and policies in response to the critical shortage of managerial resources during the economic transitions. For example, in China, legislative support includes the passage of the Labor Law, the Vocational Education Law, and the Enterprise Law, to name a few (J. Wang & Wang, 2006). The state has also formulated a series of national training policies to provide specific guidelines for developing management talents in large- and medium-sized state-owned enterprises (J. Wang & Wang, 2006).

Both Indian and Chinese national governments also played a very active role in seeking international collaborations from the Western countries. These efforts are strong evidence of the government’s direct and strong involvement in the process of national skills and talent development. As illustrated above, the degree of centralization in NHRD strategy for the two cases is similar, and the role of centralization of NHRD is evident in the early stages of national development for both countries. In this sense, Cho and McLean’s (2004) model provides a lens to understand the role of centralization in the NHRD trajectory.

Transitional NHRD

The transitional NHRD classification emphasizes the involvement of different state departments (e.g., employers and labor unions) in NHRD strategy implementation and activity coordination (Cho & McLean, 2004). The role of the government is to ensure tripartite mechanisms in the regulatory, statutory and legal systems to facilitate participation of employers and labor unions. The actual implementation of policies is decentralized to intergovernmental systems and multiple government departments. As Lynham and Cunningham (2006) pointed out, despite a general agreement in the coordination of tripartite mechanisms, NHRD-related activities are poorly coordinated. The role of HRD practitioners is important in this classification from an organizational perspective as it draws on the interactions between employers, trade unions, and the government in planning and implementing human resource policies (Mankin, 2009).

The transitional NHRD classification is applicable to the contexts of India and China in the following ways. The economic development model adopted by the two countries was rooted in a socialist framework until the late 1970s for China and until the early 1990s for India. The socialistic framework defined the power of organized labor in the workplace. Both private and public sectors were invested in the tripartite mechanisms and the central government played a critical role in their coordination. The control and coordination of NHRD strategy was state initiated.

J. Wang and Wang (2006) argued that China’s dynamic transitioning environment is responsible for the country’s large-scale socioeconomic transformations aimed at developing skills of individuals and organizations. The transitional model for China began in the late 1970s as the government opened to the outside world. Although the Chinese central government has consistently played a critical role in national skill development, its approach has been criticized as being piecemeal and fragmented (J. Wang & Wang, 2006). The lack of emphasis on talent development in the pre-reformed China can be partially explained by historical reasons (J. Wang & Wang, 2006).

India is undergoing similar challenges and pressures as several government agencies strategize planning, development, and evaluation of HRD policies (Rao, 2004). Although Rao (2004) suggested limited applicability of transitional NHRD classification for the Indian context because of the lack of cohesive strategy implementation plan, the Indian government is committed to tripartite relationships. The transitional NHRD classification describes the tripartite relationships as the involvement of employers, labor unions, and the state in HRD policy development in private and public sectors. The role of HRD practitioners was important during the transitional NHRD phase in the country. HRD practitioners enjoyed a “seat at the executive table” as they were critical in negotiating long-term wage settlements with labor unions in private- and public-sector enterprises. Networking among multiple government agencies (e.g., education department, HRD department), however, caused delay in effective HRD implementation.

The transitional NHRD classification for the two case examples shares some surprising similarities. First, both countries adopted a similar socialistic institutional framework which allows labor unions to play a role. Furthermore, the impact of tripartite mechanisms in both countries did not necessarily improve productivity since the intergovernmental systems in both countries lacked effective implementation capabilities resulting in slow economic growth.

Thus, the Cho and McLean model provides a lens to understand the transitional NHRD classification phase for India and China. Both countries faced similar issues in terms of ineffective tripartite mechanisms that largely took place in public-sector undertakings. Their respective approaches to HRD policy formulation at the national level led to similar outcomes in that the tripartite mechanisms failed to drive and sustain economic growth. The failures in improving productivity and driving national economic growth led to the next phase of NHRD strategy development. With the ushering of economic reforms in the late 1970s, China began to move from the transitional classification toward a more decentralized free market–based economic system. India followed China’s footstep in moving away from the transitional NHRD model toward a free market system much later (in the early part of the 1990s).

Government-Initiated Partnerships

Under this classification, the government adopts a stakeholder view for implementing NHRD strategy. As Cho and McLean (2004) stated, this NHRD classification describes the consultative nature of the stakeholder relationships. The government-initiated partnerships highlight the successful participation of private, public, and nongovernmental organizations in the development of human capital. This in turn strengthens the “role, status and contribution to HRD” (Cho and McLean, 2004, p. 285).The focus of government-initiated partnerships has been oriented toward the development of national vocational qualification standards and vocational educational systems to support established formal educational systems.

Evidence of this classification can be seen in the NHRD context of India. The Indian government instituted the National Skills Development Corporation focusing on skills acquisition for rural and disadvantaged youth. The corporation is a public- and private-sector initiative with strong investment from corporate investors. The model for the National Skills Development Corporation focuses on standardization of 16 defined areas prescribed by the Planning Commission (Five-Year Plans). Despite these initiatives, India’s effort in developing strong vocational education standards and framework is affected by the challenges of acquiring resources and coordinating alliances with industry and nongovernmental stakeholders. The vocational education system in India is also perceived as inferior to the formal educational system; as a result, gaining societal buy-in has been rather difficult.

Similar institutional setup in China suggests that the next transition for the country would be toward government and private sector partnerships in skill development. In China, the national government facilitates the NHRD effort. This is evidenced by various national policies and government agencies that are devoted to education, training and development (J. Wang & Wang, 2006). In addition, various government bodies were established to support the national education and HRD efforts, such as the Ministry of Education, the Academic Degree Committee (the government authority supervising the award of academic degree), Leadership Assessment Center (to assess the competency of to-be-appointed COEs and senior managers for the 50 largest state-owned enterprises), and China International Professional Qualification Accreditation Center (Wang &Wang, 2006). These institutions involve both government and private sector, although the nature of relationship is ambiguous.

Despite diverging government interests in our case examples, the NHRD classification describing government-initiated partnerships identified key initiatives for building private, public, and nongovernmental partnerships for education, training, and skill building in both countries. Thus, Cho and McLean’s (2004) third classification highlights dimensions of the NHRD strategy that are applicable to the contemporary contexts of India and China.

Decentralized/Free Market NHRD

The private sector is the primary driver for national economic growth and development under this classification. Competitive market forces define skill and training needs of the workforce. Thus, decentralized or free market NHRD strategy is rooted in an individualistic framework where individuals are empowered to take charge of their own learning and growth (Mankin, 2009). The private- and public-sector enterprises receive indirect government support. The individual organization’s or entrepreneur’s self-impetus is matched by the market forces. This classification closely resembles the NHRD activities in capitalist countries such as the United States, Canada, and other developed countries. This classification helps us understand the current NHRD initiatives in India and China.

The rapid economic growth in both India and China prompted the need for HRD. For example, before India’s economic liberalization in the early 1990s, HRD related activities (e.g., training and management development) were prominent in private-sector and state-owned enterprises. The quality of training in the public and private sectors differed as the public sector was not directly exposed to global competition. Once the country removed many of the economic and trade barriers, training became increasingly important to a number of sectors (public, private, and joint ventures) as a means to acquire competitive HRD skills for survival. Revitalizing state-owned enterprises has since become a top priority in India as they became more open to international best practices in HRD and were forced to compete for world-class talent globally (Rao & Varghese, 2009).

In China, within the enterprise reform context, management training and development have been considered a top priority and widely adopted by Chinese organizations as a core strategy for enhancing organizational and individual effectiveness (J. Wang & Wang, 2006). In a case study of eight Chinese enterprises in Beijing and Shanghai, Benson and Zhu (2002) found that most Chinese organizations prefer training their own managers because of the overall low skill level and limited education in the management labor market. In China, management development initiatives have been delivered through a wide range of strategies (J. Wang & Wang, 2006). Frazer (1999) identified five frequently employed methods, including in-house training, the use of regional training centers, local outsourcing training, overseas work and study programs, and the local university MBA programs. Similarly, Z. M. Wang (1999) reported four means: on-the-job technical training programs, formal school-based programs (e.g., academic programs in economics and management), MBA programs, and on-the-job training programs. In many cases, enterprises support employees to participate in professional development activities by either providing financial sponsorship or allowing employees’ time from work. The competitive global market is pushing HRD efforts in both India and China. Enterprise- and state-led training (Rao & Varghese, 2009) are primary sources of support for skill acquisition and development.

The free market NHRD classification applies to the cases of India and China as it reflects the current state of NHRD strategy pursued by both countries in contemporary times. In fact, Cho and McLean’s (2004) four classifications shed light on the evolution of NHRD strategy at different points in time for both India and China.

Although Cho and McLean’s classifications are instrumental in providing us with a conceptual grounding for conducting the India–China comparative analysis, they have some limitations in that the classifications do not explain the dynamic process involved in the evolution and development of NHRD strategy and policy making over time. In other words, Cho and McLean’s classifications were developed mainly based on a static picture of NHRD strategy outcomes at one point in time. Therefore, the purpose of our model-building efforts is to offer an understanding of how NHRD processes have gradually emerged over time. The next section presents our new model, which illuminates the emergent nature of NHRD strategy applicable to the cases of India and China.

An Emerging NHRD Strategy Model for India and China

In this section, we begin to trace the transformational economic journey embarked by India and China. It is apparent both countries successfully navigated their initial transformations by adopting elements from different economic models for key NHRD activities. India and China moved from centralized governance approaches to a transitional economic model, before they adopted a decentralized, free-market system and promoted government-initiated partnerships. Thus, we propose an emerging NHRD strategy model (Figure 1), which captures the evolving and changing contexts of these two countries and the evolution of their NHRD practices over time.

Figure 1.

The national human resource development (NHRD) strategy model for India and China

Drawing from earlier descriptions of NHRD classifications, our model shows the evolution of NHRD strategy as a response to the complex interactions of historical, political, socioeconomic, and cultural systems in India and China. Our model begins by presenting early NHRD strategy adopted by these two countries. In both cases, NHRD strategy is closely tied to the nation’s history. In terms of the timeline, it is apparent that the NHRD trajectory for the two countries begins in the late 1940s. The similarity between India and China in the historical timeline is further evidenced by the adoption of a centralized NHRD strategy in spite of the apparent differences in the political systems of the two countries. The state exercised a tight control over economic development and, labor and capital markets in both cases. Such a strategy insulated both countries from foreign influence.

The transitional NHRD classification emerged for China in the late 1970s and in the early 1990s for India and formed the second component of our model. In both countries, this phase was dominated by tripartite mechanisms as the primary means to resolve labor and management issues in the workplace. Despite differences in the political systems, both countries adopted a strong socialist framework to define the role of labor unions and workers. In this phase, as Cho and McLean (2004) pointed out, the role of HRD practitioners in settling disputes and negotiating wage and labor settlements was especially critical. Training and skill development also fell under the purview of tripartite mechanisms.

The last component of the newly developed model describes the role of government initiated partnerships and free market NHRD initiatives. The government-initiated partnerships and free market NHRD initiatives witnessed a profound transformation in the nature of relationship between the state and the capital market. China began launching economic reforms in the late 1970s; India initiated market-based reforms in the early 1990s. The three components offer an opportunity to examine similarities in the NHRD strategy development in India and China. As such, the model highlights two prominent examples of fast-growing developing countries that have not been compared in the non-HRD NHRD literature. In addition, unlike previous models, our model captures the fluidity and dynamic evolution of NHRD strategies deeply rooted in the historical and contemporary national contexts of India and China.

Our newly developed model contributes to NHRD literature in many aspects. First, by focusing on two underexplored developing countries and growing economies in the world, this model provides much needed insights into HRD challenges facing these two nations and, offers significant implications for both economic and social development at the national level. Second, this new model attempts to address a few issues we identified in existing NHRD models. Although we recognize and agree to the importance of considering the uniqueness of each country, we also believe it is equally important to identify commonalities for the purpose of theory building. This model is one example where macrolevel similarities shared by countries are emphasized rather than overlooked. Third, this model is a visual presentation of the historical and economic contexts which shape NHRD focus and strategy. The complexity of such contexts has not been sufficiently highlighted or compared in existing NHRD country comparison models. Another issue we found in NHRD research is lack of strong rationale for inclusion of certain countries for analysis. We addressed this issue by presenting a solid justification for selecting India and China as case studies. Much of the literature involved static notions of NHRD models, which do not adequately account for national economic transitions. Our model addresses this issue by focusing on the evolution of national contexts, how those contexts shaped the evolution of NHRD strategy formation, and the potential implications for HRD. By treating NHRD development as a fluid and evolving process, we recognize and emphasize the dynamic interactions between historical, economic, political, and cultural contexts. Finally, although there are a number of NHRD models documented in HRD and non-HRD literature, none of them shows a process of robust model building. To address this issue, we showed, step by step and systematically, how our NHRD model was developed. This hopefully will offer NHRD researchers an example to follow in NHRD theory and model-building endeavors.

Conclusions and Implications

In this article, we reviewed and analyzed nine NHRD models in and outside HRD literature. Although these models shed light on NHRD research status and practices, they were not adequate in helping us compare NHRD strategies in our select cases—India and China. In an attempt to develop a new model that captures the evolution of NHRD in India and China, we adopted Cho and McLean’s (2004) NHRD classifications as the guiding analytical framework. We examined the recent historical, economic, and social paths undertaken by India and China, and uncovered similarities on their transformational journey. We also identified differences in the milestones achieved by each country and traced the evolution of their respective NHRD strategies shaped by each nation’s unique context. As already noted, both countries share similar macrolevel challenges and opportunities. These shared challenges offer new opportunities for conducting NHRD country level comparisons.

Based on our critical analysis, both India and China have moved from centrally planned economic systems to transitional economies in the late 1990s, before becoming fully decentralized economies in the past decade. Additionally, both countries have important lessons to offer in terms of their experiences with adoption and implementation of economic reforms. Both countries have witnessed several ups and downs in the reform process. As important as the content of the reforms and bias toward economic growth, the often neglected realm of social policy formulation and implementation such as the challenges of population growth and aging, lack of formal education–based systems, and bureaucratic barriers, require further examination (Farrell et al., 2005; Fernandez, 1982; Rao, 2004; Yang & Zhang, 2003). Identifying the collective impact of historical, political, economic, and sociocultural evolution in the NHRD context is difficult; however, our attempt in this direction, as evidenced the model-building process demonstrated in this article, can be considered a meaningful effort in understanding the combined effects of the complex systems, which are inherently difficult to ascertain.

The timing and direction in the articulation of social policy, program and tools, coordination of central, state, and private-sector institutions at the national, state, regional, and local levels are critical as these key factors sustain economic progress in India and China. The economic and social programs successful in the developed countries may not be suited to the developmental needs of India and China. Thus, the distinct NHRD contexts facing these two countries highlight an emphasis on social implications of economic transformation. HRD policy makers need to realistically and critically examine the economic development approaches, which are primarily derived from developed countries. The strengths and weaknesses of the economic and social models and approaches need to be identified and adapted before replication by other countries.

Through the NHRD model–building process as demonstrated in this article we addressed three overarching challenges and concerns. First, we offered an example regarding how to engage in a rigorous model-building process, which likely leads to a development of a robust NHRD strategy model. Our model emphasizes a process perspective instead of an outcomes-driven approach that has been frequently adopted by NHRD researchers. Through the model-building process, we also demonstrate the importance of the collective impact of unique historical, political, sociocultural, and economic aspects on NHRD model building.

To ensure the effectiveness of NHRD in specific case countries, Western or Eurocentric approaches for economic development must be critically examined. The global recessions in the past five years have severely challenged the uncritical adoption of Eurocentric economic models and theories. Rural based modern economy as recommended by the Gandhian model in India may have to be re-explored as a better fit to address the complex NHRD needs in India. Similarly, a robust Chinese NHRD model needs to be developed taking into account the social fabric of the Chinese society. The development of holistic interventions would also benefit policy makers as they continue to address challenges facing developing countries. We encourage more NHRD research to be situated in developing country contexts, such as Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. We also strongly urge NHRD researchers to continue to explore and develop NHRD process models that will advance existing literature and extend our knowledge base of NHRD research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Meera Alagaraja is an assistant professor of human resource development at the University of Louisville. Her research interests include role of HRD in strategy implementation, performance interventions, national HRD, and adult learning.

Jia Wang is an associate professor of human resource development at Texas A&M University. Her research interests include international HRD, crisis management, and learning within organizations. She serves on the editorial boards of Advances in Developing Human Resources, Journal of Research on Leadership Education, and International Human Resource Development.

References

Ashton

Green

James

Sung

(1999). Education and training for development in East Asia: The political economy of skill formation in newly industrialized economies. London, England: Routledge.

Ashton

Sung

Turbin

(2000). Towards a framework for the comparative analysis of national systems of skill formation. International Journal of Training and Development, 47, 8-25.

Bardhan

(2002). Decentralization of governance and development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 185-205.

Benson

Zhu

(2002). The emerging external labor market and the impact on enterprise’s human resource development in China. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 449-466.

Briggs

V. M.

Jr. (1987). Human resource development and the formulation of national economic policy. Journal of Economic Issues, 21, 1207-1240.

Calloids

(1994). Converging trends amidst diversity in vocational training systems. International Labor Review, 133(2), 241-60.

Castro

Alfthan

(1992). Five training models. Occasional Paper No. 9. Geneva: ILO.

Cho

McLean

G. N.

(2004). What we discovered about NHRD and what it means for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 382-393. doi:10.1177/1523422304266090

Cunningham

P. W.

Lynham

S. A.

Weatherly

(2006). National human resource development in transitioning societies in the developing world: South Africa. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8, 62-83.

10.

Farrell

Laboissière

M. A.

Rosenfeld

(2005). Sizing the emerging global labor market. McKinsey Quarterly, August, 92-103.

11.

Fernandez

(1982, January). Aging in Asia as marginalization. Paper presented at “The Elderly of Asia,” the Asian Regional Conference on Active Aging, Manila, Philippines.

12.

Frazer

A. J.

(1999). A scouting report on training options. China Business Review, 1, 44-47.

13.

Furth

(1985). Education and training after basic schooling. Paris: OECD.

14.

Gurtoo

(2008). A framework for labour policy reforms in India: Balancing economic growth and social development. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 28(11/12), 472-484.

15.

Green

(1991). The reform of post-16 education and training and the lessons from Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 6(3), 327-339.

16.

Huang

Khanna

(2003). Can India overtake China? Foreign Policy, 137, 74-81.

17.

Chermack

T. J.

Lee

Y.-H.

Lin

(2006). National human resource development in transitioning societies in the developing world: The People’s Republic of China. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8, 28-45. doi:10.1177/1523422305283056

18.

Koike

Inoki

(1990). Skill formation in Japan and South East Asia. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

19.

Kuruvilla

Erickson

C. L.

Hwang

(2002). An assessment of the Singapore skills development system: Does it constitute a viable model for other developing countries? World Development, 30, 1461-1476.

20.

Lynham

S. A.

(2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 221-241.

21.

Lynham

S. A.

Cunningham

P. W.

(2006). National human resource development in transitioning societies in the developing world: Concept and challenges. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8, 116-135. doi:10.1177/1523422305283150

22.

Lynham

S. A.

Paprock

K. E.

Cunningham

P. W.

(Eds.). (2006). HRD in transitioning societies in the developing world [Special issue]. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8(1).

23.

Mankin

(2009). Human resource development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

24.

Martinez-Vazquez

Rider

(2006). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: A comparative study of China and India. Indian Journal of Economics and Business, Special Issue China & India. Retrieved from http://www.chinacenter.net/resources/publications/pdf/Jorge%20Martinez-Vazquez.pdf

25.

McLean

G. N.

(2004). National human resource development: What in the world is it? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 269-275. doi:10.1177/1523422304266086

26.

McLean

G. N.

Bartlett

K. R.

Cho

(2003). Human resource development as national policy: Republic of Korea and New Zealand. Pacific-Asian Education, 15, 41-59.

27.

McLean

G. N.

Lynham

S. A.

Azevedo

R. E.

Lawrence

J. E. S.

Nafukho

F. M.

(2008). A response to Wang and Swanson’s article on national HRD and theory development. Human Resource Development Review, 7, 241-258. doi:10.1177/1534484308316486

28.

McLean

G. N.

Osman-Gani

A. M.

Cho

E. S.

(Eds.). (2004). National human resource development [Special issue]. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(3).

29.

Prahalad

C. K.

(2006). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education/Prentice Hall.

30.

Rao

T. V.

(2004). Human resource development as national policy in India. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 288-296. doi:10.1177/1523422304266075

31.

Rao

T. V.

&Varghese

(2009). Trends and challenges of developing human capital in India. Human Resource Development International, 12, 15-34.

32.

Saran

Guo

(2005). Competing in the global marketplace: The case of India and China. Business Horizons, 48, 135-142. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2004.10.010

33.

Srinivasan

T. N.

(2004). China and India: economic performance, competition and cooperation: an update. Journal of Asian Economics, 15, 613-36.

34.

Turcq

(1995, May). India and China: Asia’s non-identical twins. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/India_and_China_Asias_non-identical_ twins_82

35.

Verma

Kochan

T. A.

Lansbury

R. D.

(1995). Employment relations in the growing Asian economies. London, England: Routledge.

36.

Wang

G. G.

Korte

R. F.

Sun

J. Y.

(2008). Development economics: A foundation for HRD policy studies in developing countries. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 848-862. doi:10.1177/1523422308324666

37.

Wang

G. G.

Swanson

R. A.

(2008). The idea of national HRD: An analysis based on economics and theory development methodology. Human Resource Development Review, 7, 79-106. doi:10.1177/1534484307311415

38.

Wang

G. G.

Wang

McLean

G. N.

Bartlett

Lynham

(2007, February-March). National HRD research: Who are we developing? In Chermack

T. J.

Storberg-Walker

Graham

C. M.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference in the Americas. Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.

39.

Wang

G. G.

(2006). Exploring national human resource development: A case of China management development in a transitioning context. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 176-201. doi:10.1177/1534484306287273

40.

Wang

Z. M.

(1999). Current models and innovative strategies in management education in China. Education and Training, 41, 312-318.

41.

Yang

Zhang

(2003). A theoretical comparison of US and Chinese culture and implications for human resource theory and practice. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 3(4), 338-358.

42.

Yang

Zhang

(2004). National human resource development in the People’s Republic of China. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 297-306. doi:10.1177/1523422304266076