Well, How Did We Get Here?
At the dawn of the new millennium, the American legal profession was divided, as it had seemingly always been, into two parts: in-house and outside counsel who largely specialized in international transactions or cross-border litigation, and everyone else. Many lawyers in this second group were so focused on the day-to-day business of running their practices that the seismic shifts in the way their clients’ business was being conducted was largely lost on them. Sure, they understood that manufactured goods were being imported from China in record numbers, or that if they called an information technology (IT) help desk or a customer service line, they were just as likely to be talking to someone in India as someone in Indiana. They just did not see how their clients’ national, regional, or local footprint—and hence their own practice—was affected by any of that.
These lawyers would perhaps have told you that their clients were companies that never had any overseas presence. They might have been doing all of the legal work of a third-generation family business, a small or medium-sized manufacturing concern, or a closely held company providing services to a discrete set of communities. Their clients might have sought state or federal tax advice, management of their litigation, or help with much dreaded Sarbanes-Oxley compliance issues. The one thing these attorneys were confident of, though, was that their clients would never be global and simply would not want or need legal advice touching on international issues. So, they concluded, adapting a legal practice like theirs to the needs of the global economy was wholly unnecessary.
As it happened, however, even a decade ago, the businesspeople and in-house legal staff with whom these attorneys interacted were already becoming aware of the coalescence of a global marketplace that was reaching into virtually every industry. This market was engaging not just Fortune 1000 leviathans with long-established cross-border presences, but small and medium-sized product and service suppliers as well. Globalization had already moved far beyond the production of electronics, steel, and source code, and even beyond the provision of back office services. In fact, it had already spread to sophisticated research and development functions, financial analysis, processing of insurance claims, and preparation of architectural drawings, among other things. This sea change could be explained in starkly simple terms: millions of people in the developing world were learning the skills necessary to compete with Western businesses, head to head.
Howard Mills, a tax director with Deloitte, observed that it was the expansion of information technology that made outsourcing possible within the service industry: “Before we had net meetings and instant access through e-mail, outsourcing wouldn’t have worked in the service industry—or at least not as effectively.” As a white paper released by former Senator Joseph Lieberman’s office put it,
global availability of cost effective, high speed digital internet connections, combined with net based and other communications tools such as email, instant messaging, faxes, videoconferences, and cellular phones have empowered foreign workers to provide services that do not necessarily require direct physical contact.1
In an op-ed piece I penned for the Chicago Tribune in September 2003, I argued that given the generally positive reception that IT and business process outsourcing (BPO) had garnered, it was only a matter of time before outsourcing would move into higher-value services, including professional services.2 In fact, as communications and information technology continued to grow in sophistication, outsourcing vendors were able to do precisely that. Ramesh K. V., at the time a partner with the Indian law firm of Kochhar and Co. in Mumbai, witnessed vendors with only simple BPO work such as basic accounting evolve into providers of more complex services to the pharmaceutical industry. Western clients recognized that Indian vendors often had PhDs working for them, allowing for greater risk tolerance, if not blind leaps of faith. “The thought of western companies,” Ramesh observed, “[was] that if I can outsource the lower end of the work successfully, why not outsource more complicated work as well?” Vendors who once advertised only cost savings could offer added value by building economies of scale.
In a 2005 interview, Vikas Bhalla, now Executive Vice President and Head of Outsourcing for EXL Services, a United States–based outsourcing and transformation company with operations in India, was looking beyond price-sensitive call center and collections work that was already becoming commoditized. Actual handling of business processes, such as accounts payable work, insurance claims, and end-to-end customer operations—all of which require vendors to gain an understanding of what has gone wrong in the consumer’s experience and how to fix it—became the new goal.
Indeed, both a 2005 Financial Services Roundtable study of the Information Policy Institute and a Deloitte research study’s findings on financial services offshoring confirmed Bhalla and Ramesh’s experiences on the ground. The results of the Roundtable’s analysis found that the types of services offered included more sophisticated business functions such as equity research and credit risk analysis.3 A contemporaneous roundtable survey involving Indian BPOs with U.S. financial services clients found insurance claims processing and underwriting then being done by more than 75 percent of respondents; accounting by roughly 70 percent of Indian BPOs surveyed; and billing and transaction payment processing by nearly 60 percent of surveyed BPOs.4 More complex processes, such as human resources management and tax processing, were already reported by 18 percent of Indian BPOs surveyed.5 Indeed, within a few years of my September 2003 prediction, knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) was already being discussed in connection with a host of sectors, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, technology, legal services, intellectual property, research and design, and development of automotive and aerospace industries.6
As a result of these developments, during the 2007–2008 period, KPO was growing at approximately a 40 percent annual clip worldwide.7 While the Great Recession, among other factors, caused growth in the sector to drop to just 5 percent in 2008–2009, the following year saw a return to double-digit expansion.8 NASSCOM reported that as of 2010, India’s Global Knowledge Services Outsourcing industry had grown to a value of $2.9 billion, more than double the assessment assigned to it in 2006.9 Looking forward, the worldwide Knowledge Services Industry market is expected to grow to $7.9 billion by fiscal 2015, with small and medium enterprises (SME’s)10 participating in the leveraging of the sector.11
This is not at all surprising. When one considers that two of the primary forces driving globalization involve increasing competition from—and a shift in world gross domestic product (GDP) growth to—the developing world, it logically follows that neither the West’s continued sluggish growth nor its sovereign debt and political challenges are likely to turn the tide. If anything, the current challenges facing businesses based in the United States and elsewhere in the developed world only heighten competitive pressures across a wide spectrum and further encourage movement toward deeper integration with global markets.
At this point, the evidence for continuing integration is hiding in plain sight. According to an April 2012 article in the Wall Street Journal, an analysis of 35 large multinational companies indicated that between 2009 and 2011, nearly 75 percent of the jobs they added were overseas positions.12 The Journal notes that during this same period, 60 percent of the subject companies’ revenue growth came from outside U.S. borders, and the increase in foreign-based positions was attributed to the pursuit of sales there.13 Additionally, the International Trade Association reported that in 2013, a record $2.3 trillion in exports supported approximately 11.3 million U.S. jobs.14
To the extent these companies and many others not surveyed follow this strategy, they are only acknowledging economic reality. The International Monetary Fund’s January 2014 World Economic Outlook Update projects that the economic output of developed countries including the United States will grow by 2.2 percent in 2014 and by 2.3 percent in 2015, compared to projections of 5.1 percent growth in 2014 and 5.4 percent growth in 2015 in emerging and developing countries.15 It is reasonable for companies to seek to expand where economic circumstances permit growth. Many businesses that are not yet themselves expanding operations across borders are beginning to incorporate greater amounts of outsourced functions based overseas, such as cloud computing. As they do, the next steps of global integration begin to come within reach for them as well—and a larger business world will be opening to them.
The Global Economy of Tomorrow Means More Than Just China and India
Much of the business world’s attention to the competitive tsunami that continues to wash in is still largely focused on the twin giants of China and India. It is easy to understand why—both have exhibited phenomenal rates of economic growth for a decade or more. China has become the world’s factory and India the developing world’s most sophisticated services provider. Together, the two nations comprise a still largely untapped market of staggering proportions, representing over one-third of the world’s total population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.16 While both nations are likely to remain key components in the global economy in the decades to come however, a myopic focus on China and India ignores the opportunities that abound elsewhere. New York University economics and business professor Michael Spencer, for example, observes the following:
The World Bank estimates that over the next 5 to 10 years, China will export something like 85–100 million jobs to earlier-stage developing countries, and that they will be replaced by higher-value-added activities. This is the opportunity of the century for the earlier stage developing countries, because for a long time they’ve been saying, rightly or wrongly, that they can’t compete with China. Well, China is moving on just like Korea did before, and now is their chance.17
As the more established economies of China and India see demand for skilled workers translate into increased hourly wages, lower margin industries that require cheaper labor inputs will naturally migrate to those nations that can provide them. Surprisingly to some, this may focus global attention on heretofore marginalized regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.
The business pages have begun to provide some surprising headlines supporting the reality of changes in these parts of the world. A former Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce has been quoted in The Chinese Daily as opining that Africa would eventually surpass both the United States and the European Union as China’s largest trading partner.18 Moreover, economic growth is being driven less and less by commodities, and while huge challenges remain in many African nations, The Economist has noted that in recent years governance “has made huge strides.”19
Meanwhile unemployment in Latin America, at 6.5 percent, is down by almost half from a decade ago, despite youthful demographics in which just 10 percent of the population is aged 60 or above.20 Moreover, this region, which was scurrilous for its public finance woes from the 1970s through the 1990s, has in the past several years achieved an average public sector debt below 35 percent of GDP. Compare that to Italy, Belgium, and Greece, which recorded public sector debt of over 100 percent.21 Although Argentina, Venezuela, and Jamaica still exhibit a variety of political and economic issues, as a whole, a growing middle class, improved labor markets, and pro-growth fiscal policies are attributed to the region by experts such as Asieh Mansour, head of Latin American research for global real estate services company CBRE.22
While there are no guarantees in projecting future economic performance, the point of citing recent past developments is to demonstrate that trends as this book goes to press point to a broadening of the global economy and new opportunities that will likely only further attract Western-based companies into establishing a greater international presence.
Globalization Is Not Just for Multinationals Anymore
Another casualty of further global marketplace integration is the conventional wisdom that that only mega-corporate leviathans can truly profit from it. The reality is that even “SMEs” are discovering that going global is a necessary step in their competitive strategy.23 The Commerce Department reports that of nearly 6,000 American companies that were able to export for the first time or increase their exports to new markets in 2011, roughly half were SME’s.24 This is a strong indication that SME’s are continuing to follow larger business concerns to overseas markets.
Kumkum Dalal, president of Global Reach Consulting, Inc. of Naperville, Illinois, pointed out several years ago that twenty-first century manufacturers have their choice of suppliers from around the world. Many Tier I companies that provide finished components to original equipment manufacturers (for automobiles—think GM, Ford, and Toyota) and Tier II companies (the Tier I companies’ part suppliers) frequently have truly global operations, and so competition can now come from many more places. As a result, there is a sort of domino effect where smaller and smaller players are being affected by globally competitive forces. Howard Mills of Deloitte has seen the same thing: “Western automakers are telling their suppliers, ‘Hey we’ve got a facility here in China and we want you there. If you want to do business with us, you’re going to open a facility in Beijing.’”
For the increasingly fewer number of companies and industries where this phenomenon has not yet taken hold, many are outsourcing just to get a competitive edge, or to get assistance in areas where they lack expertise. In Asia, mid-tier financial institutions have been “using outsourcing as a strategy to level the playing field against their technically richer first-tier competitors.”25
Numerous brokers can easily be located online to assist in offshoring techniques.26 A 2006 Chicago Tribune article gives an example that illustrates that small business has accepted these developments for some time. It gives the real-world example of Lori Booker, who handled her company’s human resources (HR) issues herself for a decade, but then decided about ten years ago to sign up with a professional employer organization (PEO) that is now her HR operation.27 Besides saving her time and energy, Booker said of the PEO, “they keep me from making mistakes that could hurt the agency” by keeping track of changes in employment-related laws and regulations.28 The article points out that there are a growing number of companies available to do virtually any kind of work for another business and that “outsourcing continues to expand as a necessary part of doing business for a growing number of small businesses.”29
Multinationals Have Shown Smaller Firms the Way
Loring Knoblauch, retired chief executive officer (CEO) of Underwriters’ Laboratories, was one of the pioneers of outsourcing. In 1982, he was part of team for Honeywell that was involved in the first wave of setting up maliquadoros (factories located immediately across the border in Mexico). Knoblauch was chosen by Honeywell’s CEO to take part in the project as part of a team of five or six professionals because he was a generalist. He will forthrightly say that he and many others were a little dubious about the project because they had the impression then that the Mexican people were “nice, but sleepy, not too hard working, and not at all reliable.” Still, Knoblauch believed the project could be successful because of the huge wage differential between Mexico and the United States.
After the first plant was set up in Chihuahua, Knoblauch was stunned. The plant hired 150 employees. There was not a single turnover in the first 18 months. Moreover, he found the Mexican employees did their jobs better than their American counterparts because of their work ethic—they were very careful in everything they did because their jobs were of critical importance to them. To top it off, Knoblauch quickly found that the Mexican workers could do the most complicated jobs that Honeywell had, and do them with excellent quality.
From 1986 to 1992, while Knoblauch was running Honeywell’s $2 billion Asia Pacific business, he set up a manufacturing joint venture in Pune, India. Even in 1986, the Tata Group had high-tech process control, and the Pune plant, while a joint venture, produced some of the best quality products in the world. Knoblauch has since heard a litany of reasons why you cannot manufacture in India or China—and believes that none of them hold water. To the contrary, he is of the opinion that everyone must do it.
As CEO of Underwriters Laboratories from 2001 to 2005, Knoblauch had the opportunity to meet a number of CEOs of lighting manufacturing companies. The lighting industry has relatively low profit margins and so is particularly predisposed to outsourcing. Still, Knoblauch was surprised when he met a lighting company CEO who had shut down every single one of the eight factories he had in the United States and switched all of his production over to China. (Knoblauch doesn’t recommend moving 100 percent of a company’s manufacturing to a single country; generally he recommends maintaining multiple sites. Transportation and logistics are often a factor.) The man did not want to move the production and the jobs that went with it, but he said he was forced to do it. He cited several other manufacturers who said they would stay in the United States no matter what. They did and were forced to close.
Many people who think they do not need to be global will say that they are much more capital intensive than labor intensive, and that wages and benefits are just not that big a piece of their operations, perhaps 10 percent. But Knoblauch says that a time will come when the difference between success and failure for virtually every business is the labor component, even if it is only 10 percent of costs. Service companies may continue to be local or regional, but they will still be increasingly vulnerable to outside competition. Successful companies will adopt a proactive, not a defensive, strategy. Because of all these factors, the number of companies that now need to be global, whether they know it or not, is much higher than it used to be.
Knoblauch’s experience is not unique. Many of the world’s best-known and most successful companies, such as Bank of America, Dell, AMEX, Citibank, IBM, Accenture, EDS, Oracle, PG, Delta Air Lines, Prudential, and DaimlerChrysler, have literally thousands of employees in nations as varied as India, the Philippines, China, Russia, Ireland, Israel, Canada, Poland, and Malaysia.30 Having grown familiar with their offshore partners, corporations have for some time now been handing over more complex work such as integrated circuit design, engineering, prototyping, testing, consulting, statistical analysis, aerospace design, and nanotechnology research.31 As of 2004, IT multinationals had already established some 223 research and development (R&D) centers in China.32
Years ago, Knoblauch pointed out that General Electric (GE) had constructed a 500,000-square-foot R&D facility in Bangalore, which handled a full 25 percent of GE’s global product development. (GE had facilities in China, India, Europe, and Connecticut that shared the work.) Knoblauch was quick to highlight that GE did not come to India to do R&D work for low cost—it came because it wanted access to talented, educated people. GE had noticed that in its Connecticut facility, 35 percent of the PhDs on staff were of Indian descent. Someone got the idea to “just go to the source.” The rising numbers of international mergers and acquisitions—as well as collaborations such as the International Space Station, Antarctic Field Research, and the Human Genome Project—have facilitated collaborative R&D efforts.33 Indeed, as the number of U.S.–born science and engineering graduates continues to decline, American companies will have a difficult time meeting their skill needs short of tapping developing world talent.34
As Professor Daniel Trefler of the University of Toronto suggests, the more multinationals utilize service providers from China, the more likely it will be that other companies that follow them can find a good match for their needs.35 Taking advantage of the vendors’ broader experience, the later-comers will require relatively little customization and, logically, less start-up costs.36 Moreover, Trefler argues that as multinationals necessarily delegate control over knowledge to their Chinese service providers, it will give the Chinese incentive to do more “incremental innovation,” which in turn will make them even more experienced, requiring even less customization, and so forth.37 Trefler’s argument easily translates to providers located outside of China.
Small Firms May Actually Have an Edge
Some studies have shown that SMEs actually have advantages over multinationals in ways that allow them to be even more competitive in the global environment. First, “as niche producers with a smaller range of technologies to offer,” SMEs may provide firms in developing countries with simpler ways to learn.38 Second, “the competitive advantage of smaller U.S. firms, derived mostly from their technological leadership, allowed them to adapt and evolve with changes in the international economy, particularly in the industrializing parts of the world.”39
Small and medium-sized firms may distinguish themselves by highly specialized technological and human assets, or “tacit knowledge.”40 Only a fraction of knowledge and skills acquired by employees through practical experience is captured in written instructions and documents.41 However, tacit knowledge may present opportunities:
Foreign partners located in developing countries are often looking for this type of complementary knowledge in order to understand and use effectively blueprints and related documents. In fact, one of the major complaints from Chinese partners involved in technology transfer agreements was that not enough tacit knowledge was provided by firms from industrialized countries.42
Additionally, the flexibility and capacity to react quickly to change inherent in SMEs give them an edge in managing foreign operations over the often more bureaucratic management structures of large companies.43
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) argues that in a more fundamental way than bigger, global competitors, SMEs need to network with and seek out outside sources of “information, knowledge, know-how, and technologies in order to build their own innovative capability and to reach their markets.”44 To survive in an increasingly dynamic global marketplace, SMEs must focus on innovation as the “core of their business strategy.”45
Networks and collaboration have many potential benefits. As the OECD points out, collaboration agreements allow for companies to share the increasingly higher costs associated with innovation.46 Moreover, many technological developments today require a complex combination of scientific and commercial knowledge over different fields of expertise.47 Also, collaboration assists in the continuous learning that companies today must pursue in order to adjust to rapid market and technological changes. Collaboration enhances such learning about new and prospective technologies.48
This is not just the stuff of ivory towers and white papers. Ask experienced practitioners on the ground. Richard Wageman, a Canadian-born lawyer who is now a partner and Intellectual Property and Technology Group Head–Asia in the Beijing office of DLA Piper, has observed that medium-sized companies are starting to come to China not only for sourcing but also to establish a business entity in the country. This used to be a prohibitively expensive investment for smaller companies—generally at least $200,000, not including “soft costs” such as international travel, legal fees, and housing. In the past few years, changes in Chinese law have allowed foreign businesses to avoid the cost and uncertainty of joint ventures with local businesses by use of wholly foreign-owned entities (WFOE’s).49 The WFOE gives foreigners the ability to directly engage in profit-making activities, while maintaining complete operational control of their businesses and paying taxes on profits only and not expenses.50 (The Chinese government does impose minimum capital requirements on WFOE’s and still requires a local partner for some sectors such as education, telecoms, nuclear, automobiles, and insurance, among others.51)
Likewise, Ramesh K. V. used to see big companies outsourcing to India. Accenture, Dell, and Convergis would run BPO operations of 3,000 to 5,000 people. In recent years, however, many small enterprises are involved. Some vendors servicing smaller Wall Street brokerages might dedicate as few as 20 people. The vendors are setting up very transparent processes. As Ramesh puts it, “there is now a definite way of going about it.”
Millions of graduates are coming out of Indian universities with the requisite training to perform outsourced tasks. Training companies in India are offering English language and cultural courses to help call center and BPO employees acclimate themselves to Western consumer expectations, with the government providing tax incentives. As noted above, this phenomenon is happening not just in these two well-publicized locations. Mills has been involved in deals in Mexico, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Thailand, and Canada. He says small or medium-sized companies that ten years ago would not have thought of going international are finding that they have to globalize in some way because of the competitive pressure. And they are struggling with fundamental questions: Do I go over myself? Do I form a joint venture? Do I come up with some other entity? How should I do this? How can I do this? What makes sense?
Opportunity Drives Globalization, Too
Businesses today do not even have to actively plan to venture into the globalized world to find themselves a part of it. Harvey Cohen, a partner with the Cincinnati, Ohio, office of Dinsmore & Shohl, has observed that in the past, the U.S. Midwest market did not feature endless numbers of companies going abroad. Now, however, even smaller companies find themselves going international, oftentimes because someone from abroad comes to them.
Indeed, sometimes companies do not so much decide to go global as stumble into a new world of opportunities. In the early 1980s, Michel Feldman, who is now a partner at Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, was the CEO of a company that manufactured radio antennas. One day, out of personal curiosity, he started reviewing the comment cards returned by new customers to see who was buying the company’s product and to see if he could identify any trends.
Feldman did identify a trend, and one that stunned him: a significant number of the company’s customers lived in Europe. This was surprising, since the company had no official distribution network in Europe. So how, Feldman wondered, were so many of his company’s products ending up there? After some investigation, he discovered that a New York distributor was loading up containers with his antennas and shipping them to Europe. They had identified a market opportunity that his company had missed. Feldman eventually set up a distribution network in Europe and became a market share leader there.
Feldman’s experience preceded the advent of globalization by about a decade and the explosive growth of the Internet by nearly two. Today, faced with flat demand in their home markets and ever more aggressive calls for cost cutting from management and markets, many businesses are actively cultivating overseas sales and instituting sourcing arrangements across borders for strategic reasons. For Feldman, who now serves as a director of a New York Stock Exchange-listed pharmaceutical company, this trend manifested in the form of a joint venture negotiated with an Indian pharmaceutical manufacturer in 2003. The Indian company manufactures various generic drugs, and the American venture partner obtains Food and Drug Administration approval and maintains sole U.S. marketing rights. The pharmaceutical company now has several of its own facilities in India, as well as one in China.
1. Office of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Offshore Outsourcing and America’s Competitive Edge: Losing Out in the High Technology R&D and Services Sectors 15 (May 11, 2004) [hereinafter Lieberman, Offshore Outsourcing].
2. David A. Steiger, Your Job Next? The Bottom Line Doesn’t Recognize National Boundaries, Chi. Trib. (Sept. 30, 2003), http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-09-28/news/0309280091_1_developing-country-services-supply-chains-attorneys-and-health-professionals.
3. Information Policy Institute, How Safe and Secure Is It? An Assessment of Data Privacy and Security in Business Process Outsourcing Firms in India, Financial Services Roundtable 11 (2005).
6. Kusum Makhija, The Knowledge Processors, Fin. Express (Aug. 2, 2005), http://www.financialexpress.com/news/the-knowledge-processors/138916/0.
7. KPO Industry Growth Impacted by the Great Recession, Evalueserve 4 (Aug. 2010).
9. Indian Knowledge Services Outsourcing Industry: Creating Global Business Impact, NASSCOM 4 (Aug. 2011).
10. There are many ways to define an SME by size. For the purposes of this text, I employ the definition of 250 employees or less, put forward by Claude Marcotte and Jorge Liosi in their article Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Involved in Technology Transfer to China: What Do Their Partners Learn, 23 Int’l Small Bus. J. (Feb. 2005).
11. NASSCOM, supra note 9, at 7.
12. Scott Thurm, U.S. Firms Add Jobs, but Mostly Overseas, Wall St. J. (April 27, 2012), http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303990604577367881972648906.
14. Internatonal Trade Update, Record Year of Exports and Jobs Supported by Global Business (March 2014), http://trade.gov/publications/ita-newsletter/.
15. World Economic Outlook Update, January 2014: Is the Tide Rising?, Int’l Monetary Fund (January 21, 2014), http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/update/01/pdf/0114.pdf.
16. Rich Exner, 36 Percent of World’’s Population Lives in China and India: Sunday’s Numbers, Cleve. Plain Dealer (July 3, 2011), http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/07/36_percent_of_worlds_population_.html.
17. World Economic Forum, The Continued Quest for Economic Growth, in Global Agenda Outlook 2013 11 (2013).
20. Joel Kotkin, U.S. Late to the Party on Latin America, Africa, Newgeography.com (Feb. 18, 2013), http://www.newgeography.com/content/003500-us-late-party-latin-america-africa.
21. Gideon Long, Latin America Is Enjoying the Good Times—At Last, BBC News (Jan. 22, 2013), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21146858.
22. Mimi Whitefield, Bright Spots in Latin America Despite Global Economic Uncertainty,
Miami Herald, 4 (Feb. 3, 2013), available at http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/03/3215384/bright-spots-in-latin-america.html.
23. Lieberman, Offshore Outsourcing, supra note 1, at 20.
24. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, supra note 14.
25. Mark Hollands, Deal or No Deal, 3 The Outsourcing Institute (Winter 2005), http://www.outsourcing.com/content.asp?page=01b/other/oe/q405/dornod.html&nonav=false.
26. Lieberman, Offshore Outsourcing, supra note 1, at 20.
27. Joyce Rosenberg, Outsourcing of Some Tasks Can Help Bring in More Profit, Chi. Trib. (Feb. 6, 2006).
30. Lieberman, Offshore Outsourcing, supra note 1, at 19.
34. Id. at 17.
35. Daniel Trefler, Offshoring: Threats and Opportunities 25 (July 22, 2005) (prepared for the Brookings Trade Forum 2005, The Offshoring of Services: Issues and Implications, May 12–13, 2005, Washington, D.C.).
38. Marcotte & Jorge Liosi, supra note 10, at 28.
40. Id. at 40.
41. Id. at 31.
42. Id. at 32.
44. OECD, Networks, Partnerships, Clusters, and Intellectual Property Rights: Opportunities and Challenges for Innovative SMEs in a Global Economy, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 4 (2004), http://www.oecd.org/cfe/smes/31919244.pdf.
45. Id. at 8.
46. Id. at 13.
49. Small Business Handbook for China Businesses, AmCham China, http://www.amchamchina.org/smallbusinesshandbook#anchor4 (last visited May 5, 2013).