The utilization of human capital remains a moot question because of the pressing need and pressures establishment of several other considerations like political will and restrictions imposed; Social set up; Cultural mores; Past economic consideration; Record of trade; Trade specifications; Situational exigencies; Unrest by anti-social elements; Relations with other bordering countries; Global economic presence; Global upheavals like the great depression as also Natural calamities and catastrophes.
The organization mechanisms tend to link up human capital with the outcomes at several levels of the production cycle as specified in the HR scorecard. The management practices as well as the strategic value of the human capital. Several unwanted practices have crept into the strife riddled country, while china has made a good or bad name for itself because of the utility of its goods. The low priced ones are built to last a very short time. In fact high value products are coveted the market workmanship and materials used are much more expensive used as compared to the low value products. Besides they have greater life on the shelf as well as general longevity.
Both the countries being compared have emerged from similar stages of poverty riddled development cycles that have had a tremendous impact upon their presence in the global market. The similarities of their current economic status, however, are a result of varying policies and government restrictive measures to control the several problems that bear upon their socio-economically determined fiscal presence. The divergent cultural mores have had differing impact on the rate of progress attained by both the countries. Thus, the human capital which is the largest resource of both the countries being compared has been utilized varyingly and to variant degrees of functionality. The approach overall needs to be looked into in depth to help these countries utilize this vast resource to the optimum.