Just one example?that of trade policy?suffices to show how very different are the Bric economies even amongst themselves. The single aspect in which they all vary is the foreign exchange dividend that each economy reaps from her investment in a foreign trade policy (FTP). Even the more efficiently administered economies offer export sops and tax derogations, although they themselves would much rather that the developed economies did not.

Take, for instance, the cases of India and China. Both are Bric economies, and their growth rates (ranging from 9% to 11%) are amongst the world?s highest. But a closer look will show that China?s most prolific exports are also the ones that have the highest amount of value-addition?while altogether too many of India?s are reminiscent of the initial stages of development for industrialisation.

According to WTO norms, market access would entail developing economies opening up ?substantially?, while they also bring export subsidies to heel. Also, it would have to be done in tandem with the phase-out of domestic support to effect ?substantial? trade-barrier reductions.

Much, meanwhile, will also depend on the structure and depth of the subsidies that are on offer. But that, alas, is just where most calculations have been going awry: observers apparently seem quite unable to distinguish between returns and outlays.

Some examples will not be amiss, and the thing to notice from the WTO?s records is the continence with which China treats economies that baulk at importing from it. But there are not too many such products, nor even that many economies.

One example of the above, currently available in the WTO?s Internet portal, relates to the imposition, by the US, of punitive?tariff-based??safeguards? against certain steel items (such as flat products, hot-rolled and cold-finished bars, rebars, welded tubular products, carbon and alloy fittings, stainless steel bars, wires, rods and tin-mill products plus stainless steel wire).

By so doing, however, the US has been violating the rules of General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) as well as of the Agreement on Safeguards. But China is not the sole exporter which has been thwarted. Keeping it company are the EU, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil.

A second case, but one that is being fought by China alone, relates to the imposition by the US of countervailing and anti-dumping duties on Chinese exports of coated sheet-free paper.

Meanwhile, there are a myriad instances that involve China’s attempts to queer the pitch for exports from the US, Canada, EU, Mexico, or elsewhere. Typically involved products include those pertaining to entertainment or audio-visual data-storage, auto-parts, or a service like the provision of ?foreign financial information?. In all such cases, taxes and exemptions in China are such that they are all skewed in favour of the sourcing of domestic supplies (instead of imports).

Service exports are about the only ones in which India can claim to have stolen a march over China; but even there it looks as though the latter will forge ahead of us in the not-too-far-distant future.

Thus, the PRC ministry of commerce?s ?Foreign Market Access Report: 2007? reported that Chinese firms had been able to complete $30 billion worth of engineering contracts in 2006?a level that was 37.9% greater than the previous year?s numbers. Even better were the freshly signed engineering contracts; they amounted to $66 billion?a rise of 123%.

Even contracts that related to labour service co-operation realised $5.37 billion?or a 12.3% rise. Even the number of 3,51,000 Chinese workers and professionals expatriated, at 3,51,000, was an increase of 77,000 people. And, design and consulting services abroad notched up a turnover of $330 million?up 45.4%. Indeed, even non-financial foreign investment reached $16.13 billion, up 31.6%. In sum, the Chinese philosophy is that such rapid growth of its economy and foreign trade had attracted the jealousy and ire of some trading partners (or industry groups)?and that they were increasingly using trade and investment barriers against Beijing?s exports of goods or services in self-protection. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce even has a number?25 countries and regions?that initiated 86 anti-dumping, countervailing, safeguard and product-specific investigations against Chinese products in 2006. That represented a 37% increase, its total value coming to $2.05 billion.

The US also initiated thirteen Section 337 investigations against Chinese products, in addition to other barriers to trade such as those based on TBT measures and the abuse of IPR protection. The impact of these barriers on China’s economy and foreign trade is noteworthy. Chinese companies will have to face an increasingly challenging environment in international trade and investment.

Meanwhile, even if India does have suspicions about China?s true intents, it takes good care to see that, when it comes to matters of trade, its suspicions are kept well out of sight.

Thus, since September 1, 2006, China reduced tariffs on products that figuring under more than 1,700 tariff headings, and originated in India and four other countries. That was to implement the third round of tariff concessions under the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement.

Likewise, certain items of Chinese origin enjoy preferential tariff rates when exported to these economies. They include chemicals, wooden articles, plastic products, leather, textiles, and machinery and electronic items.

In fact, the evident difference in the nature of products that get to figure in the dumping allegations by, and against, India?the second most prolific complainant, after Brazil?is all too often thwarted in its attempts to export items like ready-made garments, crustaceans, pharma, hot-rolled, and cold-rolled coils, jute bags and rice?while alleged IPR violations by it drive its trading partners to request ?consultations?. But the main aspect to note, by comparing export structures, is that India still lags China rather. Its manufactured exports (not services) are still in the ?first stage of industrialisation? stage, whereas China exports stuff that is much more contemporary.

Finally, what about all the allegations that are levelled against China of hidden subsidies, renminbi undervaluation, tax derogations and duty exemptions? One practical response to that would be based on what this author was told recently by one of the senior-most officers of the Ministry of commerce: as long as the Doha Agreement stays in abeyance there are no rules binding India (nor, for that matter, anyone else) in the matter of such derogations. That means developing economies can keep on doing just as they please, as long as the OECD play the game by eliminating agricultural subsidies and eschewing safeguards.

Another imponderable relates to Indian businessmen. Just how will they react to the sops that might be on offer? One possibility, of course, is that they will rise to the occasion; but, given the absence of monitoring and sanction, that is rather unlikely.

Finally, it is China?s current account surplus?and the FDI that it attracts?which become the proof of the pudding. Looked at that way, China?s is, far and away, the more competitive economy. Its balance of payments surplus exceeds $1.3 trillion, and it annually gets $80 billion?or thereabouts?in FDI. India, should it want to follow suit, should emulate China?s (hidden) stratagems while it can.