SHOBERT: Pursuing China is wise move for Indiana

Benjamin A. Shobert
November 6, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Benjamin Shobert This month provides an excellent opportunity for reflection on several aspects of Gov. Mitch Daniels’ economic development trip to Japan and China.

Many forward-thinking state leaders from around the United States, like Daniels, have been working for some time to build relationships with Chinese government and industry. Underlying these efforts is a belief that ultimately Chinese businesses will have similar realizations that their Japanese counterparts had in the early ’80s and, just as the Japanese did then, the Chinese of today will begin to look for strategic American partners for new factories, distribution centers and regional offices. Once Japanese companies came to the realization that, to be successful in their largest export market, they needed to have localized manufacturing and distribution, states such as Indiana benefited.

This aspiration is not without justification: Last year, for the first time ever, outbound investment by Chinese business into American industry exceeded outbound investment into Chinese firms by American companies. This fact has not been lost on business or political leaders who believe attracting China’s investment dollars is critical to our economic well-being. But some China-watchers are torn as to what to make of last year’s inversion in the United States-Chinese investment relationship.

Optimists believe this indicates that both countries are becoming increasingly reliant on each other, and that China’s business leaders realize they must further integrate into their export markets through manufacturing localization. Critics dissect China’s outward foreign direct investment and suggest that, once you prune back the top-line OFDI number, China’s OFDI is still predominantly driven by mergers and acquisitions. Specifically, much of China’s OFDI is the sort of investment where a Chinese firm needs access to a proprietary process, distribution channel or ownership of specific intellectual property.

Each are understandable motives, but they are a far cry from a targeted pursuit of U.S. production facilities as a means of reducing transportation costs, localizing service and support infrastructures, or avoiding potential duties and tariffs. The examples of Chinese companies opening U.S. production sites (which has happened, and of which Indiana can proudly claim several), are still nascent, and may remain so for some time. Unlike Japan, which desperately needed to stay in lock step with both the economic and political realities of its export markets, the sheer size of China’s domestic market affords its business leaders a bit of distance and self-reliance, which Japan’s industry could never contemplate.

Indiana’s existing relationship with Japanese industry, in particular within the automotive sector, has proven that our legislators and mayors, along with Indiana’s economic development team, are capable of pulling together and attracting targeted and meaningful foreign direct investment.

As the opportunity with China comes into focus, many of these same people will need to call on familiar executive and political skills if Indiana is to separate itself in the eyes of Chinese industry. For this group, part of being successful is likely to mean emphasizing sectors we already know well (automotive, heavy machinery, small appliances, etc.). It also will mean being proactive in identifying Chinese industries that are likely to be affected by duties and tariffs currently being contemplated in the World Trade Organization and in Washington, D.C., and being early through the door to propose Indiana as the solution to their need to localize production.

But, perhaps most important, regardless of political party, Indiana needs its leaders to make the investment of time and guanxi (relationship)-building in China. If, as many believe, the U.S.-China relationship will be the most important of this century, then Daniels’ trip is a small but necessary step toward Indiana’s becoming one of the handful of states that Chinese business knows and trusts.•


Shobert is managing director of Teleos Inc., a local firm specializing in taking products and technologies to market.


  • the real future
    When I hear on the news that politicins
    who want to punish China for besting us in manufacturing costs, I think about the 70's
    and Toyota cars. Toyota's were better than american cars of the same size. This forced
    Detroit to make better cars like the ones now. Working together is so much better than
    putting a high import tax on Japanise/Chines
    products. Indiana needs forward thinkers.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.