The Grass Is Indeed Greener in India and China for Returnee Entrepreneurs

8/7/2019 The Grass Is Indeed Greener in India and China for Returnee Entrepreneurs

1/24April 2011

The Grass is Indeed Greener in Indiaand China for Returnee Entrepreneurs

Authors:Vivek Wadhwa

Sonali JainAnnaLee Saxenian

Gary GerefHuiyao WangAmericas New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part VI


2/24

The Grass is Indeed Greener in India and Chinafor Returnee Entrepreneurs

Americas New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part VI

April 2011

Vivek WadhwaVisiting Scholar, School o Inormation, UC Berkeley;

Director o Research, Center or Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization,Duke University; Senior Research Associate, Harvard Law School

Sonali JainPostdoctoral Associate, Social Sciences Research Institute, Duke University;

Visiting Scholar, Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, Duke University

AnnaLee SaxenianDean, School o Inormation, and Proessor, UC Berkeley

Gary Gereffi

Proessor o Sociology and Director o the Center on Globalization,Governance & Competitiveness, Duke University

Huiyao WangVisiting Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University;

Director-General, Center or China and Globalization

Student researchers

Pravar VijayvargyaYing HanPu Chen

Chibulu Alice Luo

2011 by the Ewing Marion Kauman Foundation. All rights reserved.


3/24

T H E G R A S S IS IN D E E D G R E E N E R IN IN D IA A N D C H IN A F O R R E T U R N E E E N T R E P R E N E U R S

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................3

OUR FINDINGS ...........................................................................................................................................................................4

BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS........................................................................................................................4

CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPANIES STARTED IN INDIA/CHINA ..........................................................................4

WHY DID THEY RETURN? ......................................................................................................................................4

PERSONAL COMPARISONS: THE UNITED STATES VS. INDIA/CHINA ...................................................................5

ADVANTAGES OF DOING BUSINESS IN INDIA AND CHINA ...............................................................................5

THE AMERICAN ADVANTAGE ................................................................................................................................5

THE VALUE OF NETWORKS ....................................................................................................................................5

TIES TO THE UNITED STATES .................................................................................................................................6

CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................................................................6

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................................8

BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS........................................................................................................................8

CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPANIES STARTED .......................................................................................................9

Figure 1. Age Distribution o Businesses Started ............................................................................................9

Figure 2. Distribution o Kinds o Incorporation ............................................................................................9

Figure 3. Industry Distribution o Businesses .................................................................................................9

Figure 4. Location Distribution o Businesses ..............................................................................................10

Figure 5. Size Distribution o Businesses .....................................................................................................10

Figure 6. Distribution o Initial Funding Sources .........................................................................................11

Figure 7. Distribution o Subsequent Funding Sources ................................................................................11WHY DID THEY RETURN? ....................................................................................................................................12

Figure 8. Availability o Economic Opportunities(Distribution o Degrees o Importance) ........................................................................................12

Figure 9. Family Ties(Distribution o Degrees o Importance) ........................................................................................12

Figure 10. Access to Local Markets(Distribution o Degrees o Importance) ........................................................................................12

Figure 11. Contributing to Home Countrys Economic Development(Distribution o Degrees o Importance) ........................................................................................13

Figure 12. Lower Business Costs(Distribution o Degrees o Importance) ........................................................................................13

Figure 13. Government Incentives(Distribution o Degrees o Importance) ........................................................................................13

Figure 14. Expiration o U.S. Visa(Distribution o Degrees o Importance) ........................................................................................14

ADVANTAGES OF DOING BUSINESS IN INDIA AND CHINA .............................................................................14

Figure 15. Operating Costs(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................14

Figure 16. Employee Wages(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................14


4/24

T H E G R A S S IS IN D E E D G R E E N E R IN IN D IA A N D C H IN A F O R R E T U R N E E E N T R E P R E N E U R S2

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Figure 17. Access to Local Markets(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................15

Figure 18. Availability o Qualiied Workers(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................15

Figure 19. Mood in the Country(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................15

Figure 20. Inrastructure (Power, Water, Broadband)(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................16

Figure 21. Government Support(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................16

PERSONAL COMPARISONS: THE UNITED STATES VS. INDIA/CHINA .................................................................16

Figure 22. Opportunities to Start a Business

(Distribution o Comparisons) .......................................................................................................16Figure 23. Speed o Proessional Growth

(Distribution o Comparisons) .......................................................................................................17

Figure 24. Quality o Lie(Distribution o Comparisons) .......................................................................................................17

Figure 25. Proessional Recognition(Distribution o Comparisons) .......................................................................................................17

THE AMERICAN ADVANTAGE ..............................................................................................................................18

Figure 26. Salary Received(Distribution o Comparisons) .......................................................................................................18

IMPORTANCE OF NETWORKS IN HOME COUNTRY...........................................................................................18

Figure 27. Business Networks

(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................18Figure 28. Personal/Family Networks

(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................18

Figure 29. Alumni Networks(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................19

Figure 30. Ties to Government Oicials(Distribution o Degrees o Importance o Advantage) ..................................................................19

TIES TO THE UNITED STATES ...............................................................................................................................19

Figure 31. Indian Returnees Contacts with Colleagues, Friends,Family, and Organizations in the United States(Distribution o Frequency by Contact Type) ................................................................................20

Figure 32. Chinese Returnees Contacts with Colleagues, Friends,

Family, and Organizations in the United States(Distribution o Frequency by Contact Type) ................................................................................20

Figure 33. Indian Returnees Exchange o Proessional Inormationwith People/Organizations in the United States(Distribution o Frequency by Contact Type) ................................................................................21

Figure 34. Chinese Returnees Exchange o Proessional Inormationwith People/Organizations in the United States(Distribution o Frequency by Contact Type) ................................................................................21


5/24


Anecdotal evidence indicates that large numbers

of skilled workers have returned home from the

United States to countries such as India and China.

There are no hard data available, but most authorities

agree that the numbers returning per year are in

the tens of thousands. For example, the Chinese

Ministry of Education estimates that the number of

overseas Chinese who returned to China in 2009

having received a foreign education reached 108,000:

a sharp increase of 56.2 percent over the previous

year. In 2010, this number reached an all-time high of

134,800.1 Our earlier research2 had estimated that,

as of October 2006, waiting for a yearly allocation of

120,000 permanent-resident visas were 1,055,084

employment-based principals in the focal employment

categories and their family members residing in the

United States. We had speculated that these workers

might get frustrated at the wait and return to their

home countries, producing a reverse brain drain.

In 2008, our surveys3 of 1,203 Indian and Chinese

immigrants who had worked in or received their

education in the United States and returned to their

home countries revealed that, although restrictive

immigration policies had caused some returnees to

depart the United States, the most significant factors in

the decision to return home were career opportunities,

family ties, and quality of life. We learned that a

majority of these returnees to India and China aspired

to start businesses within five years.

We decided to research this further by surveying

a select group of Indian and Chinese immigrant

professionals who had returned from the United States

to their home countries and started businesses there.

We wanted to learn the following:

WhydidtheseentrepreneursreturnfromtheUnited

States to India and China?

Whataretheirperceptionsoftheentrepreneurial

climate in their home countries?

Accordingtothem,whataretheadvantagesand

disadvantages of working in India and China over

working in the United States?

DotheymaintaintransnationaltiestotheUnited

States upon return?

We obtained responses to a detailed online survey

from 153 such professionals in India and 111 in

China. The survey was conducted from September

2010 to March 2011. In the absence of a census on

returnees in India and China, our sample was not a

random one. We selected, recruited, and researched

the backgrounds of respondents via LinkedIn, an

online network of more than 90 million experienced

professionals and managers worldwide that provides

a valuable source of information on these types of

workers. We contacted the returnees through LinkedIn

and by e-mail. We also obtained the assistance of

several industry associations in India and China to help

us connect with returnees through their own networks.

Though our findings may not generalize to all highlyeducated returnee entrepreneurs, we believe they are

representative of the professionals who are returning to

India and China and starting high-tech ventures there.

We required that survey respondents meet the

following criteria:

thattheentrepreneurbeofIndian/Chineseorigin

andhadfoundedorco-foundedhis/hercurrent

companyinIndia/China;

1. Xinhua News Net, March 18, 2010; Xinhua News Net, March 3, 2011.

2. Wadhwa, Vivek; Jasso, Guillermina; Rissing, Ben; Gerei, Gary; and Freeman, Richard B., Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain: Americas New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part III. August 22, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008366.

3. Wadhwa, Vivek; Saxenian, AnnaLee; Freeman, Richard B.; and Gerei, Gary,Americas Loss is the Worlds Gain: Americas New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part 4. March 2, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1348616.

The Chinese Ministry of Education estimates that the number of overseas

Chinese who returned to China in 2009 having received a foreign educationreached 108,000: a sharp increase of 56.2 percent over the previous year.

Introduction

I n t r o d u c t i o n


6/24


O u r F i n d i n g s

thattheentrepreneurhadbeenmanaginghis/her

companyinIndia/Chinaforatleastayearatthe

timeoftakingthesurvey,inorderthathe/shebe

abletolookbackonhis/heradaptationprocess

with some temporal certainty and to reflect on the

challenges and advantages of managing a company

inIndiaandChina;and

that,priortomovingtoIndia/China,therespondent

had studied in the United States full time as an

undergraduateorgraduatestudentand/orhad

worked in the United States for at least one year.

Our FindingsBackground of respondents

Inoursample,themajorityofrespondentswere

in their mid-thirties. The average age of both Indianrespondents and Chinese respondents was

thirty-seven years.

Ninety-threepercentofIndianand89percentof

Chinese respondents were male.

Onaverage,Indianrespondentshadstudiedinthe

UnitedStatesfor1.8years;Chinese,for4.2years.

Indians had lived as professionals for an average of

fiveyearsintheUnitedStates;Chinese,4.9years.

Fifty-sixpercentofIndianand24percentofChinese

returnees moved to the United States with their

families and subsequently returned with them to

their home countries.

Characteristics of companies started inIndia/China Mostcompaniesstartedbythereturneeswereless

than five years old.

Fewcompanies26percentofIndianrespondents

and10percentofChineserespondentswere

family-owned.

Fifty-sixpercentofIndiancompanies,butonly33 percent of Chinese ones were in the informationtechnology (IT) sector. The rest were in a wideassortment of industries.

MoststartupswereinIndiasandChinasmajor

cities. SeventypercentoftheIndiancompaniesand

64 percent of the Chinese companies in our sample

had two to fifty employees. Sixteen percent of Indianand of Chinese companies had more than 100employees.

Eighty-sixpercentofIndiancompaniesand73 percent of Chinese ones had been funded

initially by personal savings. A far higher proportionof Chinese companies (19 percent) than of Indianones (5 percent) had obtained initial venture capitalfunding.

Why did they return? ThemostsignificantfactorsdrawingbothIndians

and Chinese home were economic opportunities,access to local markets, and family ties.

More than 60 percent of Indian and 90 percentof Chinese respondents said the availability of

economic opportunities in their countries was avery important factor.

The Chinese ranked local markets as veryimportant reasons far more commonly than theIndiansdid(Indians,53percent;Chinese,

78 percent).

And, consistent with our previous research onwhy Indian and Chinese immigrants return totheir home countries, more Indian (76 percent)than Chinese (51 percent) respondents considered

family ties as very important in motivating theirreturn.

Thereturneestookprideincontributingtotheirhomecountryseconomicdevelopment.Morethan60 percent of Indians and 51 percent of Chinese

rated this as very important.

The most significant factors drawing both Indians and Chinese home wereeconomic opportunities, access to local markets, and family ties. More than60 percent of Indian and 90 percent of Chinese respondents said the availability

of economic opportunities in their countries was a very important factor.


7/24


O u r F i n d i n g s

GovernmentincentiveswerefarmoreimportanttoChinese than to Indian returnees. Only 4 percent ofIndians ranked them as very important, but23 percent of Chinese respondents did.

Visaswereaveryimportantinfluenceonthedecision to return by only 9 percent of the Indiansand of the Chinese in this cohort.

Personal comparisons:the United States vs. India/China Surprisingly,72percentofIndianand81percentof

Chinese returnees said that the opportunities to starttheir own businesses were better or much better

in their home countries. Only 14 percent of Indiansand 5 percent of Chinese said that opportunities hadbeen better in the United States.

Speedofprofessionalgrowthwasalsobetterbackhome for the majority of Indians (54 percent) andChinese (68 percent).

Fifty-sixpercentofIndiansand59percentofChinese enjoyed a quality of life back home thatwasbetteroratleastequaltowhattheydenjoyedintheUnitedStates;43percentand40percent,respectively, found it better in the United States.

Sixty-fourpercentofIndiansand83percentof

Chinese said professional recognition was aboutthe same or better in their home countries as intheUnitedStates;34percentand15percent,respectively, said it was better in the United States.

Advantages of doing businessin India and China AmongIndians,thestrongestcommonadvantage

to entrepreneurs who had moved home was loweroperatingcosts;amongChinese,itwasaccesstolocal markets.

In India, 77 percent ranked operating costs and72 percent ranked employee wages as veryimportant advantages. In China, 64 percent and61 percent, respectively, did.

In China, 76 percent ranked access to localmarkets as very important. In India, 64 percent did.

Availabilityofqualifiedworkerswasperceivedasamore significant advantage in India than in China,with 60 percent in India and 43 percent in Chinaregarding it as very important.

IndiansandChineseboth(55percentand53 percent, respectively) saw the mood in theircountries as a very important advantage.

FarmoreChineseconsidergovernmentsupportveryimportant than do Indians (7 percent of Indian and31 percent of Chinese respondents).

AminorityofIndians(31percent)andChinese(35percent)rankedtheircountrysinfrastructureas

very important.

The American advantage Theonlyadvantagerespondentstypicallyindicated

that the United States offered lay in the salariesreceived64percentofIndianrespondentssaidthesalaries had been better in the United States thanthey were at home. Forty-three percent of Chineserespondents stated that salaries had been betterin the United States, while 20 percent stated thatthey were about the same in China and the United

States.

The value of networks Businessnetworkswereconsideredveryimportant

by 81 percent of Indians and 91 percent of Chinese.

Personal/familynetworkswereregardedasveryimportant more frequently by Chinese (74 percent)

than by Indians (60 percent).

Indianrespondentslesscommonly(28percent)regarded ties to government officials as veryimportant than did the Chinese (48 percent).

Fifty-onepercentofIndiansand45percentof

Chinese considered alumni networks to be veryimportant.

Seventy-two percent of Indian and 81 percent of Chinese returnees said thatthe opportunities to start their own businesses were better or much better in

their home countries. Only 14 percent of Indians and 5 percent of Chinesesaid that opportunities had been better in the United States.


8/24


C o n c l u s i o n s

Ties to the United States BothIndiansandChinesemaintainedstrongcontacts

with former colleagues and family and friends in the

United States.

Eighty-four percent of Indian returnees maintained

monthly or more frequent contact with family and

friends, and 66 percent maintained contact of that

frequency with their former colleagues.

Eighty-one percent of Chinese returnees

maintained at least monthly contact with family

and friends, and 55 percent maintained contact of

that frequency with their former colleagues.

Chinesereturneesmaintainedstrongercontactswith

United States ethnic and educational organizations

than Indian returnees did.

Only 7 percent of Indian respondents, but

19 percent of Chinese ones maintained at least

monthly contact with ethnic organizations.

Twenty-five percent of the Indian and half of the

Chinese respondents maintained contact every six

months or more frequently with these groups.

Seventeen percent of Indian and 34 percent of

Chinese respondents maintained at least monthly

contact with educational institutions.

Thirty-sevenpercentofIndiansmademonthly

or more frequent contact with professional

organizations, as did 45 percent of the Chinese.

Thediscussionsthatreturneesengagedinmonthly

or more frequently with their contacts in the United

Stateswereaboutcustomers(Indians,61percent;

Chinese,74percent),markets(Indians,62percent;Chinese, 71 percent), technical information (Indians,

58percent;Chinese,68percent),jobopportunities

(Indians, 35 percent;Chinese,55percent),and

businessfunding(Indians,31percent;Chinese,

54 percent).

Overtheprevioustwoyears,Indianreturneeshad

travelled to the United States or abroad for work

purposesonaverage2.5times;Chinesereturnees,

4.3 times.

ConclusionsAs recently as the 1990s, we talked about a

brain drain. The great majority of U.S.-educated

professionals from places such as India and China

remained in this country to work at research labs,

universities, and private companies. Most stayed inthe United States for the remainder of their careers

because the economic and professional opportunities

here were more attractive than in their home countries.

SomeparticularlythoseintechnologyregionssuchasSiliconValley,Boston,andSeattlepioneeredawave

of new immigrant entrepreneurship. Few returned

home permanently.

This pattern changed abruptly in the 2000s, with

U.S.-educated immigrants returning to their home

countries in growing numbers. Many were attracted

by jobs in established firms, but a significant cohort istrying its hand at entrepreneurship. This survey offers

an invaluable glimpse into the motivations of these

professionals who are starting businesses in China and

India after studying and working in the United States.And, though it reveals interesting differences between

Indian and Chinese returnees and the contexts of

entrepreneurship in their home countries, the most

significant themes that emerge from the survey results

are the commonalities between these two groups.

The entrepreneurs in this survey are strikingly

similar to their U.S.-based counterparts: They areoverwhelmingly male, and most are bootstrapping

businesses with personal savings and funds from family

and friends. Their businesses are small, relatively new,

and focused on fast-growing, low-barrier-to-entrymarkets in IT and the service sectors. Finally, most are

incorporating their businesses as limited-liability orprofessionalcorporationsratherthanadoptingthe

model of the family-owned firm that was dominant

historically in both China and India.

These returnees identify economic opportunities,

the opportunity to start a business, and the speed ofprofessional growth as the leading motivations for

returning home. They rank these factors well above

others such as lower business costs or government

incentives, the expiration of U.S. visas, and the

The entrepreneurs in this survey are strikingly similar to their U.S.-basedcounterparts: They are overwhelmingly male, and most are bootstrappingbusinesses with personal savings and funds from family and friends.


9/24


C o n c l u s i o n s

opportunity to contribute to domestic economic

development. For Indians, family ties also are a major

motivation to return, and, for Chinese, access to the

large domestic market looms large. Clearly, the rapid

growth of the Chinese and Indian economies has

created professional and entrepreneurial opportunities

thatdidntexistinpriordecades.

The calculations in this report parallel those of

prior generations of U.S.-educated professionals who

returned to Taiwan and Israel in the late 1980s and

1990s. In both eras, the pull of economic growth

at home, and the professional opportunities that

growth generates, loom significantly larger than policy

measures in either the United States or abroad. It is

worth noting, in addition, that in both cases, the timing

of these reversals also corresponds to periods of

economic downturn in the United States that diminish

the professional opportunities for immigrants.

Moreover, the factors that led to the original brain

drainrelativepovertyandunderdevelopmentare

now sources of competitive advantage for India and

China. Return entrepreneurs in both countries identify

lower operating costs, lower salaries, and access to the

domestic market as the most important advantages

of doing business at home rather than in the United

States. The availability of qualified workers and the

mood in the country also are advantages to both.

And, though scholars and the media often highlight

the role of government policy in attracting or repelling

talent, the survey respondents rank infrastructure

and government support as the least-important

considerations for doing business in India or China

relative to the U.S. market.

These return entrepreneurs are uniquely positioned

to exploit the economic differences between their

home countries and the United States because of

their linguistic and cultural knowhow and connections

withdomesticinstitutionsandbusinesses.BothIndian

and Chinese entrepreneurs identify business networks

as being very important for entrepreneurial success

in their home countries, followed by family and

personal networks, and alumni networks. To both,

ties to government officials rank lower than their

other networks, although they are more important to

Chinese than to Indians.

This might be seen as a zero-sum story:

entrepreneurs are leaving the United States for the

greenerpasturesbettereconomicandprofessional

opportunitiesathome.Whatwasonceabrain

drain that advantaged the U.S. economy now is

reversed, to the long-term benefit of India and China.

The data from the final section of the survey suggest,

however,amorecomplexprocessonecharacterized

by a two-way brain circulation with potential

benefit to both the United States and these emerging

economies.

The survey confirms that, when entrepreneurs return

home, they maintain close and continuing contact with

friends and family, colleagues, customers, partners,

and sources of business information in the United

States. Indian returnees report visiting the United

States between two and three times over the previous

two years, and Chinese report visiting more than

fourtimesinthatperiod.Amajorityofthesurveys

respondents report monthly or more frequent contact

withformercolleaguesintheUnitedStates;morethan

a quarter have contact with U.S.-based colleagues

at least roughly weekly. A majority also exchange

information about customers and collaborators,

markets and technology, or organizations with people

intheUnitedStatesatleastmonthly;approximately

one-third exchange information about customers and

collaborators with colleagues in the United States

weekly or more frequently.

Returning entrepreneurs in India and China are

exploiting their privileged position in the world

economy: building businesses that take advantage

of their access to the lower costs, growing markets,

and business networks in their home countries

but maintaining close ties also with customers,

collaborators, and sources of information in the

United States. The accumulation of linkages between

What was once a brain drain that advantaged the U.S. economy now isreversed, to the long-term benefit of India and China. The data from the

final section of the survey suggest, however, a more complex processonecharacterized by a two-way brain circulation with potential benefit to both

the United States and these emerging economies.


10/24


M e t h o d o l o g y

entrepreneursinregionssuchasBangaloreand

BeijingandentrepreneursintheUnitedStates

offers opportunities for mutually beneficial growth.

We have seen this positive dynamic at work in the

relationships between entrepreneurs and institutions

inTaiwanandIsraelandSiliconValley:Eachbenefits

from participation in the decentralized, cross-regional

collaborationsthatsupportinnovationintodays

global economy. Albeit that the entrepreneurs in this

survey do not rank government policy as an important

advantage, the timing of their return underscores

the importance of the recent economic and political

reforms in India and China.

This is a lesson the United States can learn from

China and India: Regions that support entrepreneurial

experimentationwillremainimportantnodesintodays

global economy. Since individual entrepreneurs lack

the incentive or the ability to preserve the wider

economic environment, when competitive conditions

change they can either move to where the grass is

greener or work with the public sector to ensure that it

encourages future generations of entrepreneurs.

MethodologyWe surveyed Indian and Chinese professionals

who had returned to India or China to start their

companies. The survey was conducted by Masters of

EngineeringManagementstudentsatthePrattSchool

ofEngineeringatDukeUniversityfromlateSeptember

2010 to March 2011. All survey respondents fulfilled

the following criteria: At the time of taking the survey,

theywereentrepreneursofIndian/Chineseoriginand

had founded or co-founded their current companies

inIndia/China.Furthermore,whenrespondingtothe

survey, they had been managing their companies inIndia/Chinaforatleastayear.Finally,priortomoving

toIndia/China,respondentshadstudiedintheUnited

States full time for at least a year as undergraduate

orgraduatestudentsand/orhadworkedinthe

United States.

The primary means used to recruit entrepreneurs

who met our search criteria were online social

media. For example, we selected, recruited, and

researched the backgrounds of respondents via

LinkedIn, an online network of more than 90 million

experienced professionals and managers worldwide

that provides a valuable source of information on these

types of workers. We contacted the returnees through

LinkedIn, by e-mailing them directly, and by phone.

We also obtained the assistance of several industry

associations in India and China to help us connect

with returnees.

Respondents were told that their identities wouldbe kept strictly anonymous. The survey was conducted

using Qualtrics, a web-based survey tool.

Of the people we were able to reach, approximately

30 percent started the survey. Two hundred and

forty-nine people started our India survey, and

153 completed it. Two hundred and one Chinese

respondents started our China survey, and 111

completed it. Most who left the survey incomplete did

so because they did not qualify.

Though our findings may not generalize to all highly

educated returnee entrepreneurs, we believe they are

representative of the professionals who returned to

India and China and started high-tech ventures there.

Background of respondentsIn our sample, the majority of respondents were

in their mid-thirties. The average age of Indian and

of Chinese respondents was thirty-seven years. The

majority of Indian (93 percent) and Chinese

(89 percent) respondents were male.

We asked how many years the respondents had

studied in the United States and how many years they

had worked in the United States before returning. On

average, Indian respondents had studied in the United

States for 1.8 years and the Chinese for 4.2 years. Onaverage, Indians had worked in the United States as

professionalsforfiveyears;Chinese,4.9years.

Fifty-six percent of Indians and 24 percent of Chinese

had family members who had moved to the United

States to live with them and subsequently had returned

withthemtotheirhomecountries.Thespouseand/or

children of 2 percent of Indian and 21 percent of

Chinese respondents had remained in the United States

aftertherespondenthadreturnedtoIndia/China.

Regions that support entrepreneurial experimentation will remainimportant nodes in todays global economy.


11/24


C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c o m p a n i e s s t a r t e d

Percentage

Number of Years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 1

Age Distribution of Businesses Started

1 to 2 3 to 5 5+

51

45

29

2020

35

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 2

Distribution of Kinds of Incorporation

Limited-Liability

Corporation

ProfessionalCorporation

GeneralPartnership

SoleProprietorship

Other Partial or FullGovernment

29

58

37

23

14

18

1414

11

1 23

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

Characteristics ofcompanies started

Most of the entrepreneurs inour sample had businesses thathad been started less than five

years before they completed oursurvey.

Veryfewcompanies(26 percent of Indianrespondentsand10percentofChineserespondents)werefamily-owned. Most werelimited-liability companies orprofessional corporations.

Fifty-six percent ofIndian respondents and33 percent of Chinese onesoperated companies in the

ITsector;5percentand11 percent, respectively,companiesinconsulting;and 4 percent and10 percent, respectively,companies in education.

Percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 3

Industry Distribution of Businesses

IT/T

echn

olog

y

Oth

ers

Cons

ultin

g

Educ

atio

n

Fina

nce

Reta

il

Phar

mac

y

Com

mun

icat

ion

Busin

essP

roce

ss

Out

sour

cing

Sem

icond

ucto

r

Aero

spac

e

Auto

mot

ive

56

33

1916

5

11

4

10

1

8

5 6 3 4 2 2 2 1 12

1 00

6

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation


12/24



Notsurprisingly,manyofourrespondentscompanyheadquarters were located inmetropolitan areas. Thirty-onepercent of Indian respondentshad their headquarters inBangalore;17percenteachinChennaiandGurgaon; 12percentinNewDelhi; 9percentinMumbai;and 6percentinPune.Sixtypercent

ofChineserespondentscompany headquarters werelocatedinBeijingand

17 percent in Shanghai.

Thirty-six percent of Indiancompanies had between two

and ten employees and34 percent between elevenand fifty. In the Chinese case,34 percent had between twoand ten employees and30 percent between eleven andfifty employees. Sixteen percentof Indian and of Chinesecompanies had more than100 employees.

India

China

Figure 4

Location Distribution of Businesses

Bejing 60%

Others 16%Shenzen 4%

Hong Kong 3%

Shanghai 17%

Bangalore 31%

Pune 6%

Mumbai 9%

New Delhi 12%

Chennai 17% Gurgaon 17%

Others 8%

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

Number of Employees

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 5

Size Distribution of Businesses

5

1 2 to 10 11 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 200 200+

6

1

9 9

7 78

19

34

30

3634

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

Thirty-six percent of Indiancompanies had between two and

ten employees and 34 percentbetween eleven and fifty.


13/24

T H E G R A S S IS IN D E E D G R E E N E R IN IN D IA A N D C H IN A F O R R E T U R N E E E N T R E P R E N E U R S 1


We asked respondents tolist the initial and (if applicable)subsequent sources of capital.A majority of Indians (86 percent)and of Chinese (73 percent) listedpersonal savings as instrumentalin having initially launched theircompanies. Loans from friendsand family members in India(23 percent) and China(26 percent) were the second-most-cited factors. Two percent ofIndians and 5 percent of Chinese

had obtained venture capital

funding from firms based in theUnited States. Three percent ofIndians and 14 percent of Chinesehad obtained funding fromoutside the United States. Friendsand family members in the UnitedStates also had helped 7 percentof Indian and 8 percent of Chineserespondents with startup funds.One percent of the respondentsin India and 6 percent of those inChina had procured governmentfunds to jumpstart their firms.(These percentages exceed 100

in total for each country, becauserespondents were asked to nameall fields that applied.)

Sources of subsequent fundingincluded the personal savings of41 percent of both Indians andChinese.Venturecapitalfundingcontributed to the subsequentfunding of 16 percent ofIndians and 44 percent Chineserespondents.Nearly8percentofIndians and 4 percent of Chinesealso reported that angel investorshad contributed to subsequentroundsoffunding.Bankloansalsohad been a source of subsequentfunding for 16 percent of Indiansand 9 percent of Chinese. Only

2 percent of Indian and 9 percentof Chinese respondents hadreceived government funding afterthe first round.

Percentage

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 6Distribution of Initial Funding Sources

10

1

6

2

5 78

48

4

13

3

14 1314

2623

73

86Indian

Chinese

Gov

ernm

entf

unds

Vent

ure

capi

talf

irm

base

din

theU.

S.

Loan

sfro

mfrie

nds/

family

mem

bers

intheU.

S.

Bank

loan

s

Join

edexis

ting

family

bus

ines

s

Vent

ure

capi

talf

irmbas

ed

outsi

detheU.

S.

Oth

er(ple

ase

spec

ify)

Loan

sfro

mfrie

nds/

family

mem

bers

Pers

onal

savi

ngs

Kauffman Foundation

Perce

ntage

0

20

30

40

50

10

15

25

35

45

51

8

2

98

4 68

7

13

20

129

16

31

9

2222

4141Indian

Chinese

Join

edexis

ting

family

busin

ess

Gov

ernm

entf

unds

Angeli

nves

tors

Loan

sfro

mfrie

nds/fa

mily

mem

bers

intheU.

S.

Vent

ureca

pitalf

irmbas

ed

intheU.

S.

Vent

ureca

pitalf

irmbas

ed

outsi

detheU.

S.

Oth

er(ple

asesp

ecify

)

Bank

loan

s

Loan

sfro

mfrie

nds/

family

mem

bers

Person

alsa

vings

Figure 7

Distribution of Subsequent Funding Sources

Kauffman Foundation

A majority of Indians (86 percent) and ofChinese (73 percent) listed personal savingsas instrumental in having initially launchedtheir companies. Loans from friends and family

members in India (23 percent) and China (26percent) were the second-most-cited factors.


14/24


W h y d i d t h e y r e t u r n ?

Why did they return?The most significant factors

drawing both Indian andChinese respondents home hadbeen economic opportunities,access to local markets, andfamily ties. More than60 percent of Indian and90 percent of Chineserespondents said that theavailability of economic

opportunities in their countrieshad been very important. TheChinese ranked local markets asvery important reasons far morecommonly than the Indians did(Indians,53percent;Chinese,78 percent). And, consistentwith our previous research

on why Indian and Chineseimmigrants return to their homecountries, more Indian(76 percent) than Chinese(51 percent) respondentsconsidered family ties as very

important in motivating theirreturn.

Percentage

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 8

Availability of Economic Opportunities(Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

10

ExtremelyImportant VeryImportant ModeratelyImportant NotImportant Not at AllImportant

25.7

73.2

36.4

18.625

6.94.3

0

8.6

1.2

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 9

Family Ties (Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

49.2

19.8

26.4

19.3

27.9

1.5

12.8

3.6

8.1

31.3

Indian

Chinese

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 10

Access to Local Markets(Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

19.3

48.8

33.6

19.3

10.5 12.8 9.3

15.0

2.3

29.0

Indian

Chinese

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

Kauffman Foundation

More than 60 percent ofIndian and 90 percent ofChinese respondents saidthat the availability ofeconomic opportunitiesin their countries hadbeen very important.


15/24


W h y d i d t h e y r e t u r n ?

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 11

Contributing to Home Countrys Economic Development(Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

5

ExtremelyImportant VeryImportant ModeratelyImportant NotImportant Not at AllImportant

26.7

20.9

5.73.5

8.6

14.0

25.2

30.2

33.831.4 Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 12

Lower Business Costs (Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

5

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

20.0

14.2 14.2

7.1

12.9

20.2

32.2

34.5

20.7

23.8

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 13

Government Incentives (Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

10

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

2.2 3.9

69.6

23.721.7

28.7

5.0

25.0

1.5

18.7

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

The returnees took pridein contributing to theirhomecountrieseconomicdevelopment, with more than60 percent of Indians and51 percent of Chinese ratingthis as very important.

Lower business costs wereless important, as they wereranked as very important by just41 percent of Indians and38 percent of Chinese.

Incentives had been far moreimportant to Chinese than to

Indian returnees. Only 4 percentof Indians ranked them as veryimportant, but 23 percent ofChinese respondents did.


16/24


A d v a n t a g e s o f d o i n g b u s i n e s s i n I n d i a a n d C h i n a

Percentage

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 14

Expiration of U.S. Visa (Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

10

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

3.6 3.4

73.4

61.6

11.6

18.6

5.7

10.6

5.7 5.8

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation Visashadnotbeenveryimportant to this cohort overall.They had been driven more byeconomic opportunities. Onlyabout 9 percent of the Indiansand of the Chinese rankedvisa issues as very important inmotivating return.

Advantages of doingbusiness in Indiaand China

We asked respondents to ratein importance various potentialadvantages of the choicebetween doing business in

India or China and doing it inthe United States.

The strongest advantage forentrepreneurs who had returnedto India was lower operatingcosts;inChina,itwasaccess

to local markets. Seventy-sevenpercent of Indian respondentsand 64 percent of Chineseones ranked operating costsasveryimportantadvantages;72 percent and 61 percent,respectively, ranked employee

wagesasveryimportant;and64 percent and 76 percent,respectively, ranked access tolocal markets as very important.

Percentage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 15

Operating Costs(Distribution of Degrees of Importance of Advantage)

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

31.9

16.7

44.947.6

16.7

25.0

2.2

8.3

4.3 2.3

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 16

Employee Wages(Distribution of Degrees of Importance of Advantage)

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

26.822.9

44.9

38.5

20.0

25.0

3.6

9.6

4.3 3.6

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation


17/24


A d v a n t a g e s o f d o i n g b u s i n e s s i n I n d i a a n d C h i n a

Percentage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 17

Access to Local Markets(Distribution of Degrees of Importance of Advantage)

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

21.9

35.7

4 1. 6 4 0. 5

19.716.7

9.5

4.87.3

2.4

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

Regarding the supply ofengineers in India and China,we noted in our research that,despiteChinashighgraduationrates compared with those ofIndia and the United States,4corporate executives had told

us consistently that there wasadequate supply in India but notin China.5 This cohort reportedsimilar results: Sixty percentin India ranked availability ofqualified workers as a veryimportant advantage, but only

43 percent in China did so.

Indians and Chinese also sawthe mood in their countries asan important advantage.Fifty-five percent of Indiansand 53 percent of Chinese,respectively, said it was very

important.

Pe

rcentage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 18

Availability of Qualified Workers(Distribution of Degrees of Importance of Advantage)

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

24.0

3.6

35.5

39.3

28.2

39.3

7.3

12.0

5.06.0

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

4. Gerei, Gary; Wadhwa, Vivek; Rissing, Ben;and Ong, Ryan, Getting the Numbers Right:International Engineering Education in the UnitedStates, China, and India,Journal of EngineeringEducation 2008; 97(1):1325. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1081923.

5. Wadhwa, Vivek; Rissing, Ben; and Gerei,Gary, Industry Trends in Engineering Offshoring.October 24, 2006. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1015839.

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 19

Mood in the Country(Distribution of Degrees of Importance of Advantage)

5

19.7

15.4

9.5

3.5

9.5

13.0

25.6

29.8

35.738.0

IndianChinese

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

Kauffman Foundation


18/24


P e r s o n a l c o m p a r i s o n s : t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s v s . I n d i a / C h i n a

Percentage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 20Infrastructure (Power, Water, Broadband)(Distribution of Degrees of Importance of Advantage)

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

10.9

4.8

19.7

30.133.7

39.6

18.2

13.2

17.5

12.0

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 21

Government Support(Distribution of Degrees of Importance of Advantage)

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

2.2

8.4

4.5

22.6

27.0

37.0

24.0

16.7

42.3

15.5

Indian

Chinese

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 22

Opportunities to Start a Business (Distribution of Comparisons)

54.2648.15

17.83

13.95 13.58

4.651.23

9.30

3.70

33.33

Indian

Chinese

Much better inmy homecountry

Somewhatbetter in my

home country

Somewhatbetter inthe U.S.

Much betterin the U.S.

About thesame in my

home countryand the U.S.

Kauffman Foundation

Only a minority of Indians(31 percent) and Chinese(35 percent) ranked their

countrysinfrastructureasavery important advantage.

Chinese said far morecommonly than Indians (Indians,7percent;Chinese,31percent)that government support is veryimportant.

Personal comparisons:the United Statesvs. India/China

We asked a seriesof questions about therespondentscomparisonsoftheir current situations withtheir previous situations in theUnited States.

Surprisingly, 72 percentof Indians and 81 percent ofChinese said the opportunitiesto start their own businesseswere better in their homecountries. Only 5 percent ofChinese and 14 percent ofIndian respondents said theopportunities were better inthe United States.


19/24


P e r s o n a l c o m p a r i s o n s : t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s v s . I n d i a / C h i n a

Percentage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 23

Speed of Professional Growth (Distribution of Comparisons)

31.78

39.51

22.48

28.40

20.93

14.81

9 .3 0 8 .6 4

13.18

6.17

Indian

Chinese



home country



About thesame in my


Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 24

Quality of Life (Distribution of Comparisons)

5

20.16

8.64

31.01

27.16

12.4013.58

16.28

33.33

19.3817.28

Indian

Chinese



home country

About thesame in my




Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 25

Professional Recognition (Distribution of Comparisons)

5

25.58

33.33

17.83

7.41

16.28

7.41

17.0514.81

20.93

34.57

Indian

Chinese



home country



About thesame in my


Kauffman Foundation

Speed of professionalgrowth also was better backhome for the majority of Indians(54 percent) and of Chinese(68 percent).

Fifty-six percent of Indiansand 59 percent of Chineseenjoyed a quality of life backhome that was better than oratleastequaltowhattheydenjoyedintheUnitedStates;43 percent and 41 percent,

respectively, found it better inthe United States.

Theydidnthavetosacrificeprofessional recognition,either. Sixty-four percent ofIndians and 83 percent ofChinese said professionalrecognition was about thesame or better in their homecountries as in the UnitedStates;34percentofIndiansand 15 percent of Chinese saidprofessional recognition was

better in the United States.


20/24


T h e A m e r i c a n a d v a n t a g e

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 26Salary Received (Distribution of Comparisons)

5

13.9514.81

37.98

18.52

25.58 24.69

13.95

19.75

6.20

17.28

Indian

Chinese

Much better in

my homecountry

Somewhat

better in myhome country

Somewhat

better inthe U.S.

Much better

in the U.S.

About the

same in myhome countryand the U.S.

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 27

Business Networks (Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

42.3 40.2 38.6

16.1

4.8

1.52.4

1.5 1.2

51.2

Indian

Chinese

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 28

Personal/Family Networks(Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

5

30.5

37.8

8.4

4.8

11.47.3

20.7

14.6

29.0

35.7

Indian

Chinese

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

Kauffman Foundation

The American advantageThe only advantage

respondents indicated that theUnited States offered lay in thesalariesreceived64percentof Indian respondents said thesalaries had been better in theUnited States than they wereat home. Forty-three percent ofChinese respondents stated thatsalaries had been better in theUnited States, while 20 percentstated that they were about thesame in China and the UnitedStates.

Importance ofnetworks in homecountry

To gauge the relativeimportance of networks andgovernment contacts, weasked the respondents to ranktheir importance relative to

each other.

Businessnetworkswereconsidered very important by81 percent of Indian and

91 percent of Chineserespondents.

Personal/familynetworkswere regarded as very

important more commonlyby Chinese than by Indianrespondents (Indians,60percent;Chinese, 74 percent).


21/24


T i e s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 29

Alumni Networks (Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

5

23.6

12.210.7

6.0

11.6

17.0

26.7

31.733.0

27.4Indian

Chinese

Extremely

Important

Very

Important

Moderately

Important

Not

Important

Not at All

Important

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 30

Ties to Government Officials(Distribution of Degrees of Importance)

5

14.6

22.0

27.7

9.7

21.518.3

23.224.425.6

13.0

Indian

Chinese

ExtremelyImportant

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

Not at AllImportant

Kauffman Foundation

Alumni networks also werevalued. Fifty-one percent ofIndians and 45 percent ofChinese considered them to bevery important.

Indian respondents lesscommonly (28 percent)regarded ties to governmentofficials as very important thanChinese ones did (48 percent).

Ties to the United StatesClose economic ties between Indian and Chinese

entrepreneursinCaliforniasSiliconValleyandtheir

respective home countries have enabled the transfer

of organizational and technical expertise between

theseregions(Saxenian2002;2006). 6, 7Saxenians

study of U.S.-based Chinese and Indian immigrants,for example, found that they have a wide range

of professional ties to their native countries. Many

returned to their native countries regularly for business

purposes and to exchange technology and labor-market

information with colleagues and friends. Some also

advised companies, invested in startups and venture

funds, and met with government officials in their native

countries.

To better understand the transnational behavior of

our respondents, we asked them to tell us how often,

in a typical year since returning to their home countries,

they maintained contact with their former colleagues,

family/friends,educationalorganizations,professional

organizations, and ethnic organizations in the United

States. And we asked how often they exchange

informationwithpeople/organizationsintheUnited

States about job opportunities and business funding

opportunities, technical information, and information

6. Saxenian, AnnaLee, Local and Global Networks of Immigrant Professionals in Silicon Valley. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute o Caliornia, 2002.

7. Saxenian, AnnaLee, The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002.


22/24



onmarketsandcustomers/collaborators. The results arepresented below.

Over the previous two years,Indian returnees had travelled to

the United States or abroad forwork purposes on average 2.5times;Chinesereturnees,4.3times.

We found that both Indiansand Chinese maintained strongcontacts with former colleagues,family, and friends.

Eighty-four percent of Indiansmaintained at least monthlycontact with family and friends,and 66 percent maintainedcontact of this frequency withtheir former colleagues. Onlyseven percent maintained monthlyor more frequent contact withethnicorganizations;17percent,witheducationalinstitutions;and37 percent, with professionalorganizations. The vast majority,75 percent, maintained no contactat all with United States ethnic

organizations.

Eighty-one percent of Chinesemaintained at least monthlycontact with family and friends,and 55 percent maintainedcontact of this frequency withtheirformercolleagues.Nineteenpercent maintained monthlyor more frequent contact withethnicorganizations;34percent,witheducationalinstitutions;and45 percent, with professionalorganizations.

Chinese connections to ethnicorganizations were far strongerthan Indian ones. Half madecontact every six months or morefrequently with these groups(compared with 25 percent ofIndians).

Percentage

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Figure 31Indian Returnees Contacts with Colleagues,Friends, Family, and Organizations in the United States(Distribution of Contact Frequency by Contact Type)

10

Formercolleagues

Family/friends

Educationalorganizations

Professionalorganizations

Ethnicorganizations

Seve ral times a week About once a week

About every six months Never

About once a month

Kauffman Foundation

11

18

37

29

5

18

30

36

12

41

4

12

36

47

512

20

3034

205

19

75

Percen

tage

0

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 32

Chinese Returnees Contacts with Colleagues,Friends, Family, and Organizations in the United States(Distribution of Contact Frequency by Contact Type)

10

Formercolleagues

Family/friends

Educationalorganizations

Professionalorganizations

Ethnicorganizations

Seve ral times a week About once a week


About once a month

1511

29

35

10

21

27

33

17

25

9

20

43

24

5

13

27

41

13

6

0

13

30

50

Kauffman Foundation


23/24



The percentage of Indianrespondents who discussedat least monthly with theircontacts in the United Statesthe following topics was:markets,62percent; customers,61percent; technical information,58percent;jobopportunities,35percent;andbusiness

funding, 31 percent.

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 33

Indian Returnees Exchange of Professional Informationwith People/Organizations in the United States

(Distribution of Contact Frequency by Contact Type)

5

Jobopportunities

Businessfunding

opportunities

Technicalinformation

Informationon markets

Informationon customers/collaborators

Seve ral times a wee k About once a week


About once a month

5

8

22

32 32

2

10

19

3534

9

17

32

26

16

8

19

34

28

10 11

18

32

22

16

Kauffman Foundation

Percentage

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

45

40

Figure 34

Chinese Returnees Exchange of Professional Informationwith People/Organizations in the United States

(Distribution of Contact Frequency by Contact Type)

5

Jobopportunities

Businessfunding

opportunities

Technicalinformation

Informationon markets

Informationon customers/collaborators

Seve ral times a wee k About once a week


About once a month

Kauffman Foundation

7

10

38

22 23

912

3330

16

10

24

34

20

12 12

24

35

17

11 10

26

38

1215

The percentage of Chineserespondents who discussedat least monthly with theircontacts in the United Statesthe following topics was:

customers,74percent;markets,71percent;technicalinformation,68percent;jobopportunities,55percent;andbusiness funding, 54 percent.


24/24

4801 ROCKHILL ROADKANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110

The Grass Is Indeed Greener in India and China for Returnee Entrepreneurs

Documents

Transcript of The Grass Is Indeed Greener in India and China for Returnee Entrepreneurs