X Chapter 6
Relations with Northeast Asia (South Korea andTaiwan)―South Korean Corporations Take the Lead,
Taiwanese Corporations also Start Active
Deployment
Shigesaburo Kabe
Principal Economist, Japan Center for Economic Research

1. Political and social relations
1.1

Politics

Korea established diplomatic relations with India in 1973, and in terms of visits by leaders, Prime
Minister Rao visited South Korea in 1993, and President Kalam made an official visit in 2006.
Meanwhile, South Korean President Kim Young-sam visited India in 1996, President Roh Moo-hyun
visited in 2004, and President Lee Myung-bak visited in 2010.
On the other hand, after India recognized the government of the People’s Republic of China in
1949, relations with Taiwan continued with only scanty private-sector exchanges for over 40 years.
However, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center (in New Delhi) and the India–Taipei Association(in Taipei) were founded in 1995 as mechanisms for mutual representation by both India and Taiwan.
As a result, a real relationship began. Mutual economic- and trade-related traffic has gradually
stepped up as a result of a memorandum of understanding regarding private aviation service in 2001,
the establishment of nonstop service between the two the following year, and the signing of theInvestment Promotion & Protection Agreement in 2002.

In June 2007, Taiwanese oppositionpresidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (current president) received an invitation and visited India.
In the backdrop to closer India–Taiwan relations lies in the mass media, academia, and the like,
where there is a sense of caution over rising dependence on investment in China, and where there isa surge in reflection over the late penetration of the Indian market (the Taiwan-India Cooperation
Council website).

“Business in Southeast Asia has a sense of saturation, and Taiwanese businesses

that have expanded to China are attempting to disperse their investment risk.

On this point,

India–Taiwan relations have benefits for both sides” (the website of the Taipei Economic andChapter 6 │ Relations with Northeast Asia (South Korea and Taiwan)
67

Cultural Office in New Delhi).

1.2Society

The flow of people between South Korea and India in both directions was about 70,000 in 2009,
and with Taiwan about 20,000.

In 2001, there were fewer than 30,000 South Korean tourists who

visited India, but as the economic relationship grew closer, this expanded rapidly, exceeding 80,000
in 2007.

In 2010, the number of long-term South Korean residents in India rose to 8518.

The number of tourists is not necessarily limited only to those who went for the purpose of
tourism, but it is difficult to obtain data in both directions for the number of people entering acountry separated by purpose, and so the details are hard to get at.

Still, since tourism appears only

due to a strong interest in the other country, the fact that there are many tourists indicates that thepeople of one country have a strong interest in the other regardless of whether their purpose wastourism, to study abroad, or commerce.

Thus, the trend line for the number of tourists is used here

to represent the flow of people.
On the other hand, Taiwanese airlines (China Airlines and EVA Airways) started direct service in
2002.

In 2010, visa issuance to Indians exceeded 11,000, and visa exemptions also increased toabout 5,600.

As a result, the numbers of travelers from India to Taiwan in 2010 totaled 23,849

people. Also, the number of Indians living in Taiwan has been gradually continuing to rise from1052 people in 2001 to 1520 people in 2010.

Additionally, the number of travelers from Taiwan toIndia has been trending at about 20,000-30,000 per year, and the number of people visiting India forreasons including tourism, religion, business, and the like has been increasing as economic relations
have become more active. Furthermore, a memorandum of understanding was issued in 2010
regarding cooperation in higher education, resulting in mutual recognition of university academic
backgrounds.

2. Economics
2.1

Trade

Trade between India and each of South Korea and Taiwan is small compared to trade with China
and the US, which are at the level of $40-50 billion per year, but both are achieving growth (figure
6.1).

Indian trade with South Korea and Taiwan in 1999 merely amounted to a respective $1.7

billion and just shy of $1 billion.

However, this started to gradually increase, and the 2010

numbers are a respective 7.6-fold and 6.6-fold increase (for reference, Japanese trade with the US
grew 3-fold between 1999 and 2010, and with China rose 31-fold).

Japan Center for Economic Research “Asia Research” Report68Figure 6.1: India’s external trade(bn $)

60

South Korea
USA
Japan
China
Taiwan

50
40
30
20
10
0
1999

2001

03

05

07

09 (year)

Source: IMF multilateral trade statistics; Statistics of imports/exports, the Republic of
China

Indian trade with South Korea grew at an eye-popping pace, reaching $13.1 billion in 2010 and
exceeding trade with Japan ($12.6 billion).

In an India–South Korea joint statement in January

2010, both sides agreed to expand bilateral trade to $30 billion by 2014.
Trade with Taiwan did drop to $4.1 billion in 2009 due to the effects of the financial crisis, butrallied in 2010 to a record high of $6.4 billion, about half the level of India–Japan trade.

There isalso the goal to “raise trade to $10 billion soon” (Tianzhu Quarterly, Issue 20).

Figure 6.2: The direction of India’s trade with South Korea and Taiwan(year)
Source: IMF multilateral trade statistics; Statistics of imports/exports, the Republic of China

Chapter 6 │ Relations with Northeast Asia (South Korea and Taiwan)
69

Within Indian imports from South Korea in 2010, the electrical/electronics-related sector was thelargest, at 15%.

This was followed by general machinery at 13%, steel at 11%, and then plastics

and automobile parts.

Meanwhile, the largest share of India’s exports to South Korea was taken byoil and mineral fuel, at 34%.

The largest share of India’s imports from Taiwan in 2010 was taken

by electrical and electronic components (such as recording/playback, recording/playback of TV
video and audio, and the like) at nearly 20%, followed by organic chemicals and steel.

Meanwhile,

exports from India to Taiwan included oil meal from soybeans, etc., frozen fish, and the like.

2.2

FTA/EPAIn the backdrop to the increasing activity in trade between South Korea and India is the launch of
the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between the two countries in 2010.
South Korea has high hopes for the economic effect from this agreement.

For example, regarding

South Korea’s IT services industry, it has been pointed out that “as a result of CEPA coming into
effect, the exchange of products as well as service trade, investment, the movement of people, andeconomic cooperation between the two countries become freer, and so it is necessary to acquire
experience, knowhow, business models, and the like through partnering with the primary Indian IT
services companies” (Lee, 2009).
At this point in time, the ink has still barely dried on the agreement. Nevertheless, according to theSouth Korean Yonhap News on January 20, 2011, it was evaluated at the first meeting of the
India–Korea CEPA Joint Committee of South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade andIndia’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry that that there has been an effect, such as by bilateral
trade rising by 40% to a record high after CEPA came into effect.

In light of that, there was anagreement to proceed with improvements to CEPA.
However, even though India–Korea trade in 2010 grew by 40% year-over-year (and exports alsorose by about the same amount), greatly surpassing that of trade between South Korea and the world
as a whole (a 29.8% increase, with a 28.3% increase in exports), there is also the cautious viewpointthat “it is unlikely that Korea can enjoy any immediate benefits from the Korea-India CEPA because
it has not been long since tariffs were abolished” (Park, 2011).

Japan Center for Economic Research “Asia Research” Report70

Table 6.1: India–Korea CEPA
Indian Concessions
Example Items

Item
Basis
71.5%

Cost
Basis
74.5%

South Korean
Concessions
Item
Cost
Basis
Basis
88.6%
84.7%

Diesel engines, extruding machines

8.8%

8.5%

0.3%

0.2%

Color TVs, transmission shafts

5.0%

2.4%

4.2%

4.8%

Passenger vehicles, air conditioning, allautomatic washing machines (under 10kg), gasoline engines (at least 50 cc), 、
motor trucks

14.7%

14.5%

6.8%

10.3%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Tariff Elimination
1-5% reduction within
8 years
50% reduction within
8/10 years
Exceptions

Total

Note: There are no more than 100 new items with immediate abolishment of tariffs.

All agricultural and fisheryproducts are low tariff items, 50% tariff reduction items, or exceptions, and none are tariff abolishment items.
Source: Mizuho Research Institute (2009) Mizuho Policy InsightHere, the India–Korea CEPA and the Japan–India EPA will be compared.

Looking at the rate ofliberalization, the India–Korea CEPA is 69.6% (on a tariff item basis, HS 8-digit level), while theJapan–India EPA is around 90%.

On the basis of value of trade as well (according to Mizuho

Policy Insight 2011), the Japan–India EPA (at around 90%) is at a level that exceeds that of the
India–Korea CEPA (at around 75%).

However, even if the Japan–India EPA is at a higher level

than the India–Korea CEPA, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that at an intermediate stage,
the liberalization rate of the Japan–India EPA is less than that of the India–Korea CEPA (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2: Comparison of liberalization rate for India of theJapan–India EPA and the India–Korea CEPA
2014

2017

Japan–India EPA

18.4%

22.9%

India–Korea CEPA

7.8%

69.6%

Source: Sugawara (2011)

Meanwhile, although Taiwan did enter into an agreement with India to avoid double taxation, themost watched move is that towards an India–Taiwan FTA.1
Both the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research, a major Taiwanese research institute, andthe Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) have jointly begun
1

The statements in this section basically are attributable to the contents of a briefing from Liu Danien of theChung-Hua Institution for Economic Research under the condition of it being an explanation based on personal
opinion.
Chapter 6 │ Relations with Northeast Asia (South Korea and Taiwan)
71research regarding an India–Taiwan FTA. To Taiwan, the benefit of such an agreement would be thereduction or elimination of tariffs in the manufacturing industry.

Since IT-related tariffs havealready been eliminated through the WTO, the benefit is in other machinery and electrical equipment.
Agriculture is basically oriented towards the domestic market, so there is no advantage there, andservices will not be helped particularly greatly either. To India, the benefit of deepening economic
relations with Taiwan with its different industrial structure is that a complementary relationshipwould strengthen without redundancy of industries.
Taiwan and China signed the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA)
in 2010.

In response, Taiwan has been putting effort into entering into economic agreements, but

this has not been apparent on the surface with regards to an India–Taiwan FTA.

There have been

news reports and the like about statements by the Indian Foreign Minister and spokespeople for
Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but due to the complicated political relationship between
Taiwan and China, it is rare for news to surface about specific negotiation stages or processes in themanner during normal economic agreement negotiations such as the Japan–India EPA.2
However, even if an India–Taiwan FTA enters into effect, mutual trade and investment will notnecessarily balloon at once.

For example, unlike China, where investment by Taiwanese firms is

active and dispatches of personnel is frequent, there is a strong tendency to avoid assigning
employees—with their families—to India, where the language, food, culture, customs, and climate
are very different.

2.3

Investment (sales)

According to the foreign direct investment (FDI) statistics of India’s Ministry of Commerce andIndustry, the cumulative total of FDI to India from April 2000 to April 2011 was $780 million fromSouth Korea (ranking 15th), and $42 million from Taiwan (ranking 41st).

According to the website

of South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, cumulative FDI in India had reached $1.64
billion as of September 2009.
Looking by company, the major South Korean corporations including Posco, Samsung, and LG
have been increasing their production and sales activities in India.

Next, the specific investment

activities of South Korean and Taiwanese firms are presented.
2

At a press conference, a senior official at Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that “there is an interest in a
Taiwan–India FTA, but a feasibility study and the like should be conducted first” (February 11, 2010). According
to a report by China WTO based on Lianhe Zaobao, the head of the East Asia Division of India’s Ministry ofExternal Affairs met with the Taiwanese press corps in New Delhi, and stated that in light of the enormous trade
deficit with China, “this is not the time to start discussing an India–China FTA, and while its possibility has beenunthinkable for the past few years, an India–Taiwan FTA is more likely” (March 14, 2011). The electronic
version of the Liberty Times states that Taiwan’s inactive posture stands out against India’s External Affairs
Minister Krishna support of an India–Taiwan FTA. It notes that in the backdrop to India’s active support lies theterritory dispute between India and China, the strategic race in the Indian Ocean, India’s large trade deficit with
China, and the like (May 11, 2011). According to United Daily News, President Ma Ying-jeou stated both India
and Taiwan are studying an India–Taiwan FTA (June 9, 2011).

Japan Center for Economic Research “Asia Research” Report72South Korean Corporations
Posco
South Korean steel heavyweight Posco announced a plan in 2005 to build an integrated steelworks
in Orissa in India’s East.

Starting with a production of 3 million tons in 2010, this will ultimately

be a 12 million ton establishment.

Extraction rights at mines have also been acquired, and overall

investment is predicted to reach $12 billion.
In 2009, under the condition that environmental conservation be practiced, such as forest
transplantation, the Indian government approved the use of the resulting land for the ironworks.
However, in 2010, it revised the land use authorization having determined that there is a need toprotect the traditional forest inhabitants and waterways, and suspended the construction activity.

In

January 2011, the government approved the plan by adding conditions suppressing environmental
impact, but there has been a local lawsuit over the ore extraction rights and a resolution is still not insight.

As a result, Posco is planning to add the building of a separate ironworks in the southernstate of Karnataka, as well as to enter into a joint venture with the Steel Authority of India (SAIL)(Nihon Keizai Shimbun, April 23, 2011).
Samsung India
Samsung India began business in 1995. At their Noida factory (in the state of Uttar Pradesh),color TVs, color monitors, washing machines, refrigerators, and cellular phones are manufactured.
The production of color TVs and LCD televisions began in 2007 at the Sriperumbudur factory (inthe state of Tamil Nadu), which is furnished with cutting-edge facilities.

According to the

Hindustan Times (February 9, 2010), Samsung is showing a motivated stance towards businessexpansion, such as by planning investment of about $10 million (470 million rupees) in 2009 and$15 million (700 million rupees) in 2010, and by aiming to increase sales from $2.2 billion in 2009(2% of Samsung’s global sales) to $3.08 billion in 2010 (3% of sales). The goal for 2011 is toincrease sales by 40% to $4.9 billion, and to that end, Samsung will introduce 35 new models of
television, including those with 3D capabilities, as well as Android phones (IndianExpress.com news,
April 13, 2011).

From 2010-2011, $70 million will be invested to build a consumer electronics

factory to produce air conditioners and refrigerators (Tianzhu Quarterly, Issue 21).
LG Electronics
LG Electronics will invest $300 million in the three years from 2010, and will augment the two
factories in Greater Noida (in the state of Uttar Pradesh) and the state of Maharashtra.

In the firsthalf of 2009, TVs, refrigerators, and air conditioners had the largest share (Nihon Keizai Shimbun,
July 3, 2010).
Japanese Corporations
Looking at sales share focusing on consumer electronics, the high share of South Korean firms
stands out.

In terms of microwave ovens, Japanese corporations are finally showing their faces at

Chapter 6 │ Relations with Northeast Asia (South Korea and Taiwan)
73the front lines of the battle for market share, but still are very small, with Panasonic at 1.23% andSharp at 0.15%.

Sony is fighting hard in the LCD TV market, and according to Reuters (February

18, 2011), sales in that sector from January-September 2010 was a three-cornered battle between
Sony (with a 23.0% share), Samsung (with a 22.0% share), and LG Electronics (with a 22.3%
share).

Table 3: Consumer electronics share in the Indian market (FY 2009)(CRT CTVs and air conditioners are calendar year 2010)
CRT CTV market
Elcot
27%
LG
21%
Vid Group
17%
Samsung
13%
Onida
8%
Other
14%

Air conditioner market
LG
22%
Samsung17%
Voltas
16%
Other
45%

Refrigerator market
LG (1-12/2009)26%
Samsu g19%
Whirlpool
18%
Videocon Group
16%
Godrej
16%
Other
5%

Washing machine market
Microwave oven market
LG
28%
LG
32%
Samsung
19%
Samsung
16%
Videocon Group 16%
Whirlpool
10%
Whirlpool
16%
IFB
10%
Godrej
7%
Onida
10%
IFB
4%
Videocon Group
9%
Onida
4%
Godrej
8%
Other
6%
Kyoryo4%
Source: TV Veopar Journal （http://www.adi-media.com/tv_veopar_journal.htm）

Taiwanese Corporations
Delta Electronics, which began investing in India in 2003, has factories in the north in Rudrapur(producing telecommunications power systems), Gurgaon in the outskirts of New Delhi(projector-related products), and in the southeast in Pondicherry (electronic components).
According to Tianzhu Quarterly (Issue 21), $15 million will be invested in a new factory in Chennai,and devices for solar power generation will be produced starting in April 2012.
Mediatek, which is involved in semiconductors for cellular phones, announced a plan on July
2011 to acquire Indian cellular services company Spice Digital for around $20 million.

This aimed

to expand business in the burgeoning Indian cellular phone-related market.
In 2011, Acer aims to increase sales in the Indian market by 20% to $600 million. Acer has set
up 750 branches called “Acer galleries”—of which 240 are in the state of Andhra Pradesh (with 80
in Hyderabad)—in the major cities through local sales partners.

But the idea is to increase this to4000 locations in 10 states within the year (Hindustan Times, March 15, 2011).

Japan Center for Economic Research “Asia Research” Report743. A comparison of strategy
Here, the respective strategies employed in the Indian market by South Korean corporations,Taiwanese corporations, and Japanese corporations will be compared.

First is the strategy of theSouth Korean firms, which have been deploying in India the most actively.

Samsung suspended

sales of curved CRT televisions in 2006 and began putting effort into marketing LCD and plasmaTVs, thus starting to deploy a premium pricing strategy in the Indian market.

On the other hand,

localization was also furthered by the cumulative effects of small modifications in product design.
For example, the output of television speakers was raised to take into account the characteristics ofareas with high levels of ambient noise, adding the feature of allowing remote control operation ofprograms frequently used by users, adding voltage regulators to consumer electronics for frequent
blackouts, and adding the functions in washing machines of remembering the state before operation
was halted and of not damaging saris, the female national costume (Park, 2009).
In furthering localization of products, Samsung’s strategy has been a reverse engineering style ofdevelopment.

Instead of bringing in high-quality/high-added-value products as-is, they are

redesigning by analyzing local needs and only increasing necessary functions (Katayama, 2011).
With the recognition that managers having a global mindset are indispensable, Samsung launched
the “Local Expert Program” in order to nurture internal human resources into executives of overseas
subsidiaries in order to administer those subsidiaries efficiently (Chang, 2009).

This program,which started in 1990, dispatches personnel who are at least in their third year of employment and at
the deputy section chief class to Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Russia, and the like.

They remain

there for one year, and instead of working, they specialize in the local way of life. With the aim ofnurturing them into experts through the accumulation of this kind of experience, hundreds of people
are deployed every year, with a cumulative total of about 4000.
Meanwhile, at LG Electronics, localization is assigned to local experts in charge of sales, andmarketing duties are also nearly all entrusted to them.

Of about 3500 employees, there are only 27

South Koreans posted overseas, who are assigned only to production and finance, while those incharge of sales and human resource administration are mainly locals. Also, LG is putting energy
into building a distribution network in India; half of the branch employees are managed as after-sales
service personnel, and a female sales representative program has been implemented (Park, 2009).
By contrast, the business deployment of Japanese corporations in India has overall been timid
compared to Southeast Asia and China.

It is necessary for the importance of marketing, a personnel

strategy, early-stage investment, and top-down decision making to be more recognized.

As long as

this awareness is lacking, Indian business deployment will be difficult with a half-baked,“wait-and-see” thought process (Kondo, 2009).
Similarly, Taiwanese firms are finally at the stage of starting their offensive in India. Xiao (2008)

Chapter 6 │ Relations with Northeast Asia (South Korea and Taiwan)
75

presents the lament of a responsible party at a trade promotion organization, who said, “Taiwan isthe only place in the world that considers India to be an emerging market.

South Korea and others

already have over 10 years of experience in the Indian market.”
Chang and Delios (2006), who analyzed the strategy of the South Korean firms to compare it tothat of the Japanese corporations, note that both groups adopted contrasting overseas businessstrategies. The Japanese corporations, which expanded abroad first, emphasized the advanced
markets, and invested in a risk-averse manner in markets having low political risk. By contrast,
South Korean corporations, which forayed abroad later, chose the path of entering emerging markets
with high risk and the possibility of securing an undeveloped market, instead of a head-on clash with
their rivals from Japan.

Put succinctly, the strategy of avoiding competition from Japanese rivals

involved putting effort into emerging markets and aiming for high risk and high return. According toChang and Delios, “The most common investment destinations for South Korean firms were China,
Southeast Asia, and the Eastern European countries that were in the process of shifting from thecommunist system to market economies.”

It can be said that India is an extension of this pattern.

Especially now, China and India are in the limelight as members of the BRICS, but South Korean
corporations early on—with the mindset of moving into niche markets—had actively and boldly
opened regions having high political and economic uncertainties, and that effort is now paying off.
A future point of interest is what kind of business strategy South Korean firms will take in the
Indian market, which is ceasing to be a simple niche market.

This is because the Japanese

corporations, although late to the game, have keenly felt the need to develop products that meet local
demand, and are beginning to seriously engage in breaking into emerging markets. During a visit
to New Delhi, Panasonic’s President Fumio Ohtsubo stated, “We will seek out what functions are
truly necessary to India’s consumers in order to develop products.

We had not been able to do the

obvious task of understanding the local lifestyle and needs” (Nihon Keizai Shimbun, April 16, 2010).
Panasonic has been putting effort into developing volume zone (product adoption price band)products targeting the broader middle-class, and has unveiled a plan that is not overly obsessed withhigh functionality or an upscale image when developing products in the Indian market.
In this way, Japanese corporations are aiming to shift from conventional strategies, and separately,
Taiwanese firms are also interested in investing in India.
interest in the Indian market.

Chinese corporations are also indicating

Even as a high-growth market, vigorous competition and the clash of

powerful corporations can be predicted for the future. South Korean corporations have thus far
steadily developed new demand by cleverly aiming at the gap between Japanese corporations, which
specialize in high-cost, high-quality products, and the relatively low-cost local corporations.
Nevertheless, as Japanese firms and the like continue strengthening their products for the middle
classes, cost competition will also intensify.

Will they go for a straightforward method avoiding ahead-on collision with the dominant corporations of other companies at a relatively low price point,

Japan Center for Economic Research “Asia Research” Report76such as the volume zone, will they place a degree of importance on a product class that will not be
subject to cost competition, or will they aim at the overall demand by an assortment of products at awide range of price points?

To South Korean companies, which are accumulating successful

experiences in the Indian market, there is the question of strategy towards their next step.
If the time has come for South Korean companies to readjust their future strategy, it can be said
that the chance has arrived for Japanese and Taiwanese firms to aim at infiltrating the Indian market.
As Kondo (2009) notes, a long-term perspective is indispensable when deploying business in India
while recognizing the importance of marketing, a human resources strategy, early-stage investment,
and top-down decision making. Recently, the interest of Japanese firms in India has been shiftingfrom the stage of taking a look at the local conditions for now based on the difficulty in dispatching
employees to the site, to the stage of deciding how to implement business in India while recognizing
the difficulties in the area of benefits.
References
Chang, Sea-Jin. 2009. Sony VS SAMUSUNG (in Japanse).Tokyo: Nikkei Publishing, Inc.
Chang, Sea-Jin, and Andrew Delios. 2006. Competitive Interactions between Global Competitors:
The Entry Behavior of Korean and Japanese Multinational Firms. JCER Discussion Paper
No.97. http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/pdf/discussion97.pdf
Katayama, Osamu. 2011. Samusung no senryaku teki management (Samsung’s strategicalmanaegement) (in Japanese). PHP Business Shinsho 191.
Kondo, Masanori. 2009. Tainichi kankei- kakudai suru nichi-in keizai kankei (Relations withJapan-Expanding Bilateral Cooperation) (in Japanse). In Asia Research Report “India: Toward a
New Growth Phase,” Japan Center for Economic Research ed.
Lee Keun Oue.2009. An international comparative study on technological competitiveness of Indianand Korean IT service industries (in Korean). Science and technology policy institute (STEPI)
Park, Youngwon.2009. Indo shijyo de katsuyaku shiteiru kannkoku kigyo no genchika senryaku:
genchi tekiogata marketing kara premium shijo no kaitaku made (Strategy of localization
adopted by Korean firms in the Indian market: localization marketing and development ofpremium market)(in Japanese). Akamon Management Review 8(4), Global Business ResearchCenter. http://www.gbrc.jp/journal/amr/AMR8-4.html
Park, Bun Soon. (2011). Korea’s New Growth Engine: FTAs with Emerging Market Economies,
SERI Quarterly Vol.４ No.３､ July 2011
Sugawara, Junichi. 2011. Nichi-in EPA (Japan- India EPA) (in Japanese). Mizuho Seisaku Insight(Mizuho Policy Insight), 10 May 2011. Mizuho Research Institute.
Tianzhu jikan(Tianzhu Quortery).2011. Issue 21. (in Chinese). Taipei Economic and Cultural Centerin India.
http://www.taiwanembassy.org/IN/lp.asp?ctNode=6830&CtUnit=690&BaseDSD=7&mp=276
Xiao Fuyuan. 2008. Pinqiong chuangxin yindu gaibian shijie (Innovation from poverty: Indiachanges the world) (in Chinese). Tipei: Tianxia Zazhi.

Chapter 6 │ Relations with Northeast Asia (South Korea and Taiwan)
77