Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States

Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States:
Knowledge And Technology Transfer

May 2–4, 1996

Roundtable Discussion introduced by
	Mohammad Kamel Marketing Manager, At&Amp;T, New York

Moderator
	Mohammad Kamel

Presentations
	Rustam Lalkaka ₁ Senior Advisor And Founder, Transfer of Knowledge Through Expatriate Nationals, UNDP, New York
	Nampet Panichpant-M ₂ President/Founder, International United Thai Leadership Council, and Associate Director of Information Dissemination, UCLA-RAND MEDTEP
	Ki Suh Park ₃ Managing Partner, Gruen Associates, Los Angeles
	P. S. Reddy ₄ Professor of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, and Secretary General, MediCiti Hospitals, Hyderabad, India

Guided by moderator Mohammad Kamel, panelists discussed four topics relating to technology transfer: reverse brain drain, transfer of information other than technical expertise, effects of technology transfer, and barriers to working in their home countries. All panelists agreed that Asian Americans need to impart information on management techniques. P. S. Reddy and Rustam Lalkaka initially debated the effectiveness of strategies that attempt to utilize reverse brain drain immigrants. While Lalkaka argued that reverse migration to a homeland need not be a long-term commitment in order to effectively assist one’s country of origin, P. S. Reddy advocated a contrary view. Ki Suh Park changed the focus by relegating the notion of brain drain to obsolescence. Brain drain, he suggested, was a relic of the past in the face of the mobile nature of capital and capitalists. Reddy added that Asian Americans also need to transfer research infrastructure and sustainable development strategies. Panelists then discussed effects of technology transfer on their homeland. Park and Panichpant lamented that technology has compromised cultural institutions and values for the sake of modernization. Reddy and Lalkaka observed that technology has created a borderless society and the focus in their homelands must shift from advocating the domestic development of existing technologies to acquiring more foreign technology. Finally, panelists identified the greatest barriers they faced while attempting to do business in their homelands: Asian discrimination against Asian Americans, overwhelming bureaucratic “red tape,” and the inadequacy of the current infrastructure to sustain development.

Moderator Mohammad Kamel started by asking the question, “How can we improve infrastructure, technology, and health in many of our countries of origin?” Panelists responded by focusing on four themes relating to information and technology transfer between the United States and Asian nations: 1) reverse brain drain, 2) the transfer of nontechnical knowledge, 3) the effects of technology transfer, and 4) barriers to working in one’s “home country.”

Reverse brain drain, as moderator Mohammad Kamel defined it, is the return of technical experts to their countries of origin. He claimed that this phenomenon is on the increase between the United States and Asia, especially with the rise of Asia’s economic powers. Rustam Lalkaka wholly corroborated this definition but carefully categorized the phenomenon into two spheres. One he reserved for those he called the permanent returnees, and the other he attributed to the short-term returnees. The permanent returnees are few and far between. Many expatriates want to return but cannot do so because of basic infrastructure inadequacies in their homelands. These people would not have the necessary resources to carry on their work at the same level that they could in the United States.

Lalkaka’s other classification, short-term returnees, make a much larger impact on his homeland, India, because they return in much greater numbers, although for a much shorter period. He used as an example his own program, Transfer of Knowledge Through Expatriate Nationals (TOKTEN), which centers around the voluntary return of expatriates as consultants in their countries of origin. These expatriates are not only well-versed in their technical fields but also in the culture that they enter. Sponsored by the United Nations, these volunteers services cost only one third of those of the average consultant from an international firm, and they waive any fees usually connected with such a service. They can also acclimate much quicker than their counterparts who are unfamiliar with local culture and have knowledge of “appropriate” technology. Lalkaka claims that over 7,000 expatriates have volunteered over the last ten years, and a $30 million investment has generated $100 million worth of information transfer.

While P. S. Reddy agreed that in certain instances short-term returnees could make a major impact, he argued that for the most part they could not effectively contribute to developing countries. And while many expatriates claim that they would like to return home, few end up doing so. In fact, when asked, most expatriates will agree to go home, but usually only five years after they were first asked. He reasoned that most expatriates do not wish to return because conditions in America are far superior to those in India. Unless one has much privilege in India, life in America is much more comfortable.

Reddy argued that there are only two reasons to return permanently-entrepreneurship and a missionary zeal to improve the country. Both require an unusual dedication in order to succeed.

Ki Suh Park redirected the discussion around brain drain. He argued that

brain drain is now an obsolete concept. Because capital has been globalized and is thus mobile, so are the brains that follow it. He used Korean immigrants to the United States as an example. While early immigrants like Park came to the United States for education, opportunity, and permanent residency, immigrants now come to get an education but also, more importantly, to make college connections. And while forty years ago these immigrants would want to stay in the United States upon the completion of their education, they now want to return to Asia. The decline of the U.S.’s economic dominance and the new vitality of the Asian economies have caused this reversal. Now, more economic opportunities can be found in Asia.

Though people are mobile, the cultural barriers that they face once they reach their countries of origin prevent many from succeeding. They primarily involve language and cultural acclimatization. In Korea, it is expected that anyone who is ethnically Korean will speak the language even if it is not an individual’s first language. Park has encountered this difficulty. While he is 100% percent with technical terms in English, he is only 85 percent effective in Korean. This limits his effectiveness to the point that he is more comfortable working in a place like Indonesia where colleagues expect him to speak English. Being Asian does not confer some sort of racial advantage on Asian Americans working in Asia. Asians might prefer working with a Caucasian to working with an Asian American who has not mastered his or her own home language. Park stated that it is vital for returnees to make a wholehearted commitment to staying in their country of origin. A “one foot in and one foot out” approach will not work.

Nampet Panichpant-M also addressed cultural barriers encountered in the reverse brain drain, by discussing gender issues. She maintained that sexism as an institutional barrier has not been confronted. When Asian American women try to enter Asian markets, often they are barred by this sexism that they don’t have to deal with in the United States. Failing to deal with sexism and has led to a skewed discussion of reverse brain drain. This kind of marginalization directed her to form her own organization, the International United Thai Leadership Council which works toward equalizing gender in relation to technology and knowledge transfer.

The discussion on reverse brain drain focused mainly on the transfer of technical knowledge which led to a discussion of the types of nontechnical knowledge that Asian Americans need to transfer to Asia. P. S. Reddy, stated that the needs of his homeland centered around three areas: management and strategy skills, research infrastructure, and sustainable development.

Reddy stressed that India has enough information but lacks a system to manage it efficiently. He used the health care system as an example. The hierarchical structure of the medical system in India forces either junior or senior personnel relationships. In other words, there is no collegiality. Instead there are only juniors or seniors. As a result, juniors always wait for seniors to die off so they can enjoy exacting revenge on their juniors. There is strong competition amongst peers. Reddy realized that trying to change this system would result in the system changing him. He thus started his own medical foundation, MediCiti, which is situated on two hundred acres of land just outside the city of Hyderabad. Although none of the physicians working there are returnees from the United States, it uses American principles of organizing health care. To create what he called the physician/researcher, he added a new wing to train people in methods of research.

As an example of how to integrate MediCiti with sustainable relevant development, Reddy drew from an experiment run by the foundation attempting to provide medical care to rural populations via door-to-door visits. Using a test sample of 50,000 residents from villages and towns outside of Hyderabad, Reddy found that it was possible to provide this kind of health care. The cost, moreover, amounted to only $3 a person, much lower than the cost of comparable care in the United States or elsewhere in India. He also was able to recuperate half the costs, which the residents were willing to pay as fees. This project was a perfect example of an effective, low-cost, and sustainable program. It was effective because it was locally sustainable and self-sufficient, a countermeasure to the charity hospitals that disappear without outside investment.

Nampet Panichpant-M elaborated on this theme by making clear that Asian countries need a holistic strategy to manage development and entry into the open market system. Such a strategy could deal with the boons and banes of technological influx, what she called the trade for life vs. trade for death strategy. Trade for death embodies a philosophy that values short-term gains at the expense of cultural and social structures. Trade for life incorporates culturally benevolent development strategies that might yield results in the long term.

Panichpant-M suggested that returning to Asian spiritual traditions may be an effective means of managing development and enforcing the trade for life philosophy. For instance, the Thai used spiritual training to treat drug abuse and deal with HIV infection. But she admitted, ironically, that even these methods had to be approved by the white world before the Thai accepted them.

The social effects of globalization and borderless societies on technology transfer was also discussed. In describing the effects of globalization and technology transfer on Korean culture, Ki Suh Park stated that globalization has created havoc.

While Asian countries have always desired the prosperity of the West, they have not always had the means to achieve it. But the recent rise in the economic vitality of countries such as Korea reversed that trend. In their zeal to catch up to the West, these nations never considered the cultural and social ramifications that modernization might bring. As a result, many Asian nations have imitated Western models of development instead of seeking models consistent with their own cultural and social values.

In Seoul, traffic has become so bad, that even CEO’s are now using the public transportation instead of private cars to travel during business hours.

Nampet Panichpant-M reiterated many of Park’s points. She claimed that globalization and technology transfer had also wreaked havoc on Thai culture and social structures. And like executives in Korea, royalty in Bangkok could no longer use roads but had to travel by boats via the canals.

Rustam Lalkaka redirected the discussion by pointing out that globalization and borderless societies have facilitated the acquisition of modern technologies from other countries. While he agreed that developing a solid research base was necessary, he also stressed that this research base was not enough to enable Asian nations catch up with the rest of the developed world. Instead, they must imitate Japan’s actions following World War II. When they acquired as much modern technology as they could and used it to develop their own economy. They are now at the top of the global economic elite. Because patent rights and other such barriers are making this technology increasingly difficult to access, Asian countries must acquire this technology as quickly as possible in order to develop their own infrastructure.

Reddy also advocated technology acquisition over the internal development of certain products, especially with regard to technology that has already matured in other regions of the world. He used pacemakers in India as an example. While the defense minister attempted to adapt existing defense technology in the production of pacemakers, Reddy considered such a move wasteful. He contended that it was useless to develop the technology to manufacture pacemakers (at a cost of $20 apiece) when one could purchase them from existing manufacturers in the United States at a significantly lower cost ($9 each). While not averse to developing research and development within India, Reddy pointed out that India must also acquire mature technologies in order to sustain development.

Finally, the panelists turned to the challenges they encountered working in their homelands, where, contrary to expectations, the process of finding a position had not been simple. Park found that his greatest barrier was ethnic. Because the Korean corporate sector values Caucasians over Korean Americans and sometimes ethnic Koreans, Park pointed out that publicizing the bicultural expertise of Asian Americans is crucial toward convincing Asians that white is not necessarily better. He advocated the elimination of race-based decisions in favor of those based on merit. He charged organizations such as the Asia Society with the responsibility of dismantling the Asian corporate sector’s bias against Asian Americans.

Reddy emphasized that one of the great barriers to working in the Asian homeland involved finding vehicles to disseminate technology in a form relevant to and sustainable by the local populace. Far more challenging, though, are the obstacles to foreign development put forth by governments such as India’s which will put up every possible obstruction to new investors in order to test their commitment to the development of the indigenous infrastructure. The government will cooperate with business ventures that prove to be beneficial to Indian society as well as profitable. Only about 10 percent of such ventures, however, survive this scrutiny.

Lalkaka agreed that government cooperation is crucial to technology transfer. While government must be intricately involved in the early stages of infrastructure development, the later stages must be left to the private sector so that it can do what it does best—create jobs.

But while hindrances to repatriate success can be great, Lalkaka stressed that repatriates have much to offer and should not give up. They can facilitate the flow of technology between nations and provide access to capital that would otherwise be unavailable. Two thirds of China’s investments, for example, are funded by Chinese overseas.

Panichpant-M added a holistic perspective not touched upon by the others.

While returnees must contend with difficulties, developing countries are unable to sustain development because of infrastrucural inadequacies. In order to build an adequate infrastructure, a fundamental shift in technology management must take place. Corporations must learn to integrate everything from innovative concepts to human rights considerations, which would provide the basis for change in everything from international law to education.

Despite the conflicting points of view in this discussion, each panelist brought forth a unique perspective based upon personal experience.

Endnotes

Note 1: Rustam Lalkaka is Research Professor in International Business Development at Northwestern University, specializing in technology sourcing, small enterprise development and international business promotion. He also serves as Special Advisor on Small Enterprise Development, Division for Private Sector, UNDP, New York. While serving as director of the UN Fund for Science and Technology for Development and the United Nations Development Program Energy Office, he was also Executive Coordinator for the Transfer of Knowledge through Expatriate Nationals (TOKTEN) program. Through TOKTEN, he organized the return from the US, on voluntary consulting assignments, of 3,000 professionals to 30 developing countries. Back.

Note 2: Nampet Panichpant-M, a consultant and panel presenter on international health, information dissemination, training/education, trade, communications and media management areas, is active in international community leadership work and serves on the boards of directors of numerous local, state, national and international committees and organizations. In recent years her professional memberships have included the board of directors, National Asian Health Forum; board of directors, National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse and board of directors, Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, Inc. (LEAP). In 1990, Nampet was the first Thai to be honored by LEAP for her contribution towards Asian leadership development. Back.

Note 3: Ki Suh Park, Managing Partner of Gruen Associates, is an architect and city planner based in Los Angeles. His projects span the Pacific Rim, including the Daehan Kyoyuk Insurance Company Ltd. Headquarters in Seoul, the Los Angeles Convention Center Expansion and the Bapindo Center, Jakarta. Mr. Park has been Chairman of the Korean American Coalition (1993-94) and Chairman of the Festival of Korea for Southern California (1993-94), sponsored by the Asia Society. He is presently serving as an advisory committee member of the Asia Society’s Southern California Center. Back.

Note 4: P.S. Reddy is Professor of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, where he has been on the faculty of medicine since 1971. Dr. Reddy is an accomplished researcher, teacher and practitioner of clinical medicine as well as invasive cardiology. He has published over 100 original articles, several book chapters and one book on pericardial diseases. Dr. Reddy founded various tax-exempt organizations, including SHARE (Science, Health, Allied Research and Education) Medical Care to establish MediCiti, which is a forum for the exchange of technologies between developed and developing nations. His REACH (Rural, Effective, Affordable Comprehensive Healthcare) project is developing a working model of effective health and medical care for rural populations. To help MediCiti fulfill its mission, Dr. Reddy spends 50% of his time in India. Back.