Foreign Companies Investing In India

    foreign companies
  • (Foreign company) A body commercial incorporated in an outside Territory, which is not a corporation sole or a excused public authority. The Corporations Law extends the period to certain unincorporated bodies.
  • (Foreign company) 5 a § The foreign company means a foreign legal entity which is taxed in the State where it belongs, if taxation is similar to that of Swedish companies.
  • Companies which are not resident in the UK.
  • Devote (one's time, effort, or energy) to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result
  • Buy (something) whose usefulness will repay the cost
  • (invest) make an investment; "Put money into bonds"
  • Expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture
  • the act of investing; laying out money or capital in an enterprise with the expectation of profit
  • (invest) endow: give qualities or abilities to
    in india
  • burgers are served on the flat traditional local Naan bread.
foreign companies investing in india
foreign companies investing in india - Billions of
Billions of Entrepreneurs: How China and India Are Reshaping Their Futures--and Yours
Billions of Entrepreneurs: How China and India Are Reshaping Their Futures--and Yours
Called well worth reading by The Economist and earnest and entertaining by the Financial Times, Tarun Khanna s Billions of Entrepreneurs is an elegantly written book that mixes on-the-ground stories with thorough research to show how Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs are creating change through new business models and bringing hope to countless people across the globe. Khanna juxtaposes, on a variety of levels, China and India; explores how the future depends on understanding the yin and yang of these two nations; and emphasizes the increasingly important links between China, India, and the West. Khanna embraces what he calls a big tent view of entrepreneurship going beyond typical stories of high profile, young executives taking companies public and focusing on social and political entrepreneurs who are redefining the norms of daily activity.

In the book, Khanna sets out to demystify many of the questions that confound foreigners (BusinessWeek), exploring subjects that include each nation s treatment of multinationals, Chinese and Indian managerial talent, and state vs. grassroots approaches to business and entrepreneurship. Khanna s insightful analysis draws on history, economics, and political science, and is humanized by vivid portraits of the lives of individual entrepreneurs, politicians, and activists whom the author has met during his regular visits to each country. He argues that hope for prosperity in both countries lies in the hands of the billions of entrepreneurs who are alleviating social problems and historic tensions, benefiting both countries and the world at large.

According to the Financial Times: What Khanna does do, and does well, is cover vast sociopolitical and economic ground, and provide meaty information derived from conversations with people who have done business in India and China.

By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices. If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet's flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time. Since the Net's inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a "multi-stakeholder" governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net's phenomenal success. In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere. Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards. Enlarge Image CloseCorbis .Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny. The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control. Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling: • Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control; • Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries; • Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering." • Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world; • Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work; • Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices. Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control. And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly. Merely saying "no" to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns.
Gardens - Cape Town
Gardens - Cape Town
The garden was formally established in 1652 by Dutch settlers who sought to establish a victualling station to service and re-provision spice-trading sailing ships on the long sea route to the east. It was superimposed on a landscape that was occupied occasionally by indigenous hunter gatherers and modified by pastoralists who used the area in the standard migratory agricultural pattern of the time. This halfway-house was the foundation stone of the Western colonisation of southern Africa. Cape Town's earliest records show that the Garden was originally divided into rectangular fields protected by high trimmed myrtle windbreaks, and watered via a system of open irrigation furrows fed by the area's numerous mountain streams. The design was typical Dutch agricultural practice of the time, apart from the furrows, which had been adapted to suit the region's topography and weather. Cape Town Graden, the Rose gradenDuring the 17th century Cape Town grew significantly, fuelled in no small part by its role in supplying ships engaged in foreign wars. The Garden expanded accordingly, and became famous for its plants, which were increasingly exported. In 1795, a new gateway and guardhouse, designed by Louis Thibault, was built. However, at the turn of the 18th century the Dutch East India Company, until then responsible for the Garden's upkeep, became bankrupt and by 1795, the Garden was in ruin. The British occuped the Cape the same year to forestall any French interest in the strategic sea route to India and elsewhere. The new owners invested little money or interest in the garden and it deteriorated further. Instead, they sourced fresh vegetables from outlying areas, shut the Garden's horticultural function down and closed it to the public, leaving only the public walkway, the Avenue, open. During the brief Dutch Batavian Republic administration (1803-1806), the garden was revived, and the central Government Avenue was extended and connected through to Orange Street. The walk thus became the public thoroughfare as we know it, greatly enhancing the pedestrian link between town and the market garden of Oranjezicht. When the British returned, portions of the Garden were used to build important institutional buildings, and the Gardens themselves were again given to the Governor for his use. In 1848 a portion of the Gardens was released as a public open space, under the control of a panel of citizens, funded by subscription monies, the sale of plants and public entry fees. The Tuynhuis side remained for the Governor’s use. In 1892, the Municipality took over the Public Garden, and in 1898, incorporated the Avenue and the Paddocks into it. For the first time the garden was open to all as a right and not a courtesy.
foreign companies investing in india
foreign companies investing in india
The Selling of the American Economy: How Foreign Companies Are Remaking the American Dream
Today, many Americans regard globalization as a significant threat to our work force, and to our very way of life. As unemployment soars, the American automotive and manufacturing industries crumble, countless jobs continue to ship overseas, and the retail sector faces the worst slump in decades, cries of “Buy American” have grown louder and louder - in our communities, in the headlines, and in the halls of Washington. But at a time when an Italian company has bailed out one of our oldest and most iconic automakers; a French-German consortium is closing in on a multibillion dollar military contract to build our tanker planes and helicopters; companies based everywhere from Switzerland to India to Belgium are stocking our grocery aisles; and the assets of some of our most venerable financial institutions have been stripped down and bought up by banks from Hong Kong and London, what does “Buy American” mean any more?

That said, there is a great deal of discomfort about the influence that foreign companies are exerting on our economy. Are they making us more competitive in the global marketplace, or less? Are they creating jobs for Americans, or importing their own workforces? Are they a threat to our national security, or are they bringing us technology that actually makes us safer? When they open plants and factories on our shores, are they siphoning money from our economy, or bolstering it? In welcoming their investments, are we, as some critics contend, selling our economy to the highest bidder?

In THE SELLING OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, New York Times senior business correspondent Micheline Maynard argues that despite the lingering xenophobia that colors American perception of foreign-owned companies, foreign investments are actually an overwhelmingly positive force. Not only do they create thousands of jobs and pump billions of dollars into national and local economies, she says, they reinvigorate and strengthen communities, foster innovation and diversity in the marketplace, and teach Americans new ways to live and work.

At a time when our most cherished home-grown institutions, still reeling from the financial crisis, are downsizing, shuttering plants and factories, and filing for bankruptcy, the need for foreign investment has never been greater. In this compelling narrative, Maynard shows that if we are in fact selling our economy to the highest bidder, this may be very good news for America.

Through moving stories of workers whose lives have been transformed by the arrival of companies like Toyota, Airbus, and Tata, probing interviews with a host of government officials and local leaders who have fought to lure foreign companies to their communities and states, and revealing conversations with both American and foreign executives (including a rare and hard-won visit with Toyota’s elusive young new president) Maynard paints a fascinating portrait of the paradigm shift that is transforming the American economy - and remaking the American dream.

David Plotz Reviews The Selling of the American Economy

David Plotz is the editor of Slate and the author of Good Book: The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring Things I Learned When I Read Every Single Word of the Bible. Read his guest review of The Selling of the American Economy:

When Americans refer to the "globalized economy," what they generally mean is either: us enriching the benighted, Coca-Cola-deficient, Apple-deprived, Hollywood-less masses of the world with our cool stuff; or us picking up incredible bargains on Chinese toys at Wal-Mart and French cheese at Whole Foods. But what we don’t talk about--what we’re perhaps embarrassed to talk about--is what happens when Americans, right here in small Southern towns and Midwestern suburbs, find themselves working for foreign-owned companies. This other kind of globalism is the subject of Micheline Maynard’s fascinating new book, The Selling of the American Economy: How Foreign Companies Are Remaking the American Dream. Maynard, senior business correspondent for the New York Times, begins by recognizing the fear and shame traditionally associated with foreign companies employing Americans. There has been a suspicion that these foreign competitors are undermining American companies, and that their American workers are a kind of fifth column, betraying the national interest. Maynard brilliantly shows how these ideas are not merely outdated, but utterly wrong. Painting a portrait of four foreign companies--Tata, Haier, Airbus, and Toyota--and, more vividly, some of the Americans who work for them, Maynard shows how overseas firms have been a godsend for the U.S. They bring consumers better products--who thinks Pontiac makes better cars than Toyota? As importantly, they’ve enriched the lives of their American workers and host communities. Maynard doesn’t ignore the challenges of foreign ownership--implacable union opposition, most notably--but she catalogs the opportunities, such as steadier employment, more job skills training and opportunities for promotion, diffusion of best practices to other, American companies. At a time when Americans are skeptical of foreign entanglements and foreign ideas about health care, Maynard’s book is a lively reminder of how much we can learn, and how much we can benefit, when the world comes here. --David Plotz