Human Resource Development International Vol. 12, No.

1, February 2009, 93 103

PERSPECTIVES ON THEORY Clarifying the boundaries of human resource development Greg G. Wang* and Judy Y. Sun The University of Texas at Tyler, Texas, USA This article clarifies the boundaries of human resource development (HRD) with

respect to other concepts frequently used and misused in HRD literature. Through a proposition, a set of criteria for human resources is presented. A crossculture literature comparison of the criteria demonstrates the consistency of the connotation in two contrasting cultures. This study has important implications for HRD research, practice and continued theory development effort. It relates to the identity

and distinctiveness of HRD discipline, as well as the domain of HRD research and practice. Keywords: human resources; human capital; human development; HRD policy studies; NHRD A few recent human resource development (HRD) scholarly discussions have presented the idea of altering the established boundaries of HRD (e.g. McLean 2004; Paprock 2006). The problems and challenges resulting

in HRD boundary stretching can be clarified through a more rigorous analysis of the key terms of the discipline and their theoretical implications for HRD theory and practice. For example, a number of recent studies questioned and analysed the legitimacy of the idea of national HRD and supported the concept of HRD policy studies (e.g. Wang 2008; Wang and Swanson

2008a, b). Definition of HRD has long been discussed. Weinberger (1998) listed 18 different HRD definitions that have influenced the field. More definitions have emerged since then. Historically, HRD scholars tended to focus on the development aspect of the definition, and debated on what activities constituted the meaning of development (e.g. Lee 2001; Swanson 2001). The

discussions apparently assumed that the first two words, human and resources , were agreed upon. Current HRD literature challenges existing connotations of human resources the subject and target population of HRD. Any discussion of the discipline will necessarily be framed by the terms human, resource and development, unless there is an agreement to changing the name, scope and the boundary

of the discipline and establishing an alternative field. Given the conformity of the three concepts, human , resource and development , *Corresponding author. Email: wanggreg@aol.com ISSN 1367-8868 print/ISSN 1469-8374 online . 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13678860802638875 http://www.informaworld.com

94 G.G. Wang and J.Y. Sun representing the discipline, discussion of their separate and combined subject domains and definitions should start necessarily and logically with the understanding on what the three concepts convey. Human resource development, as the term suggests, includes the critical components of human resource and development. The first component is about who , or the

subject and target population of the field of HRD; the second component is about what , the means and function of the field. Research question and significance To clarify the unique and distinctive domain of the discipline of HRD, this study explores and analyses the core subject areas that are or are not to be embraced by

HRD. It is to address the following critical question, Who do we develop through the discipline of HRD? Given the research question, we do not seek to debate on the existing definitions of HRD. Neither will we propose another definition. Instead, we address how HRD professionals should understand and interpret the term of HRD, and raise some critical

issues for the HRD communities. Furthermore, we hope to stimulate more rigorous definitional theory building research in HRD through this study. It is almost impossible to accurately define, interpret and understand a multiword concept, such as human resource development, without considering the individual words comprising it. Logically, the conceptual definition and the interpretation of the individual words

representing a discipline should be consistent across cultures and be able to cross national borders. This is true not only for all natural sciences, but also for all social sciences, although these are socially constructed. If psychology, political science, linguistics, economics and management science, as well as many other social science disciplines, have their universally defined research domains across borders

(e.g. Dogan 1996; Harbinson and Myers 1959), HRD as a discipline should have the same effect. With a clear understanding of the three iconic concepts, human, resource and development , that symbolize the discipline, it is likely to reach clarity and consensus of the definition in the discipline. In pursuit of the research question, this study is focused on human resource .

The analysis is extended logically to other related concepts that are often used interchangeably with it, such as human capital and other related concepts and domains of research. Human resources: the subject of HRD In the three-word concept, we assume human has no controversial interpretations. It refers to any human being who is of any age

and gender, including infants or adults, with any characteristics in health conditions, social status, education levels, national origins and cultural backgrounds. A field combining human and development , human development , has been established prior to the existence of HRD. It is a broadly based field incorporating psychology, physiology and sociology among others, and covering such matters as human growth,

quality and standard of human life, anti HIV/AIDS, homeless issues, domestic violence, drunk-driving behaviour, clean drinking water and many other human life-related areas (Thomas 2001). However, human development is not how and what we say we are engaged in, at least from the agreeable framework of the field, human resource development. The key concept differentiating human and

Human Resource Development International human resources, therefore, is the resource(s) aspect. It is vital to understand and interpret the connotation of resource(s). Only one definition of resource has been found in the management literature through our literature search. Greenhaus and Powell defines that a resource is an asset that may be drawn on when needed

to solve a problem or cope with a challenging situation (2006, 80). Clearly, this definition stresses the following features of a resource: (1) availability and readiness; (2) problem-solving or challenge coping; and the end result leads to (3) value-adding. Although no other definition of resource was found in related scholarly literature, our search of dictionary definitions revealed that

all definitions of resource in dictionaries are consistent with Greenhaus and Powell s definition (2006). For example, Random House Webster s Unabridged Dictionary (2001, 1640) defines resource as a source of supply, support, or aid, especially one that can be readily drawn upon when needed. In plural form, resources refer to a country s means of producing wealth. Often, it refers

to an available means afforded by the mind or one s personal capabilities. (Emphasis added) Its last entry refers resources to capability in dealing with a situation or in meeting difficulties. Seven other authoritative dictionaries, including two Chinese ones, all carry identical meanings of resource(s). In fact, the Chinese dictionaries further classify resources into renewables and non-renewables.

Combining scholarly and dictionary definitions, resource has the following characteristics. First, it is realistic, not potential. It has to be ready and available when needed, not potentially available. Second, it has the capability of being productive and adding value to a productive process or it can be used as a means of creating wealth and revenue to satisfy a human

or societal need. Third, the connotation of resources already embedded the capacities or skills in problem solving. Therefore, human resources should have an unambiguous connotation: they refer to those human beings who are not potentially, but with an initial productive capacity and capability, realistically ready and available for participating in socially productive activities that can add value to

well-beings of a society in a given socially constructed domain. The concept of human resources defined here excludes those that are not available to be productive, cannot add value or be placed in socially productive roles. Criteria of human resources: a proposition Based on the above analysis, incorporating labour force participation theory in economics (Ehrenberg and

Smith 1994) and adult learning participation theory (Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner 2006), we present the following proposition: Proposition: to be considered as part of human resources, a person is to be ready and available, has desire and willingness, with physical and/or mental capacity and capability, and initial minimum skill and ability, and not bounded by institutional and legal

restriction, to participate in socially productive activities. The proposition defines several critical criteria that are important to frame the domain of human resources.

96 G.G. Wang and J.Y. Sun Readiness and availability Human resources are to include those who are ready and available to participate in, paid or unpaid, socially productive and value-added activities. This criterion not only excludes those enrolled in full time traditional education institutions, but also rules out those who are not up to (or

beyond) a socially productive age, although they may have great potential to be, or in the process of being developed into, socially productive roles. At the same time, the unready and unavailable ones may be in the process of human capital investment or part of the lifelong learning process, preparing for future productivity, such as high school or traditional full

time college students. For simplicity, we omit the cases of part-time college students for unnecessary lengthy discussion. However, gauged by this and the remaining criteria, it is not difficult to determine whether a particular part-timer belongs to human resources. Willingness and desire for productive activities A person may be available as part of human resources, but

he/she may not be willing to, or may not have the desire for, participating in socially productive and valueadded activities. This person should not be considered a human resource. For instance, after controlling for age and past earnings, a study finds that individuals who receive inheritances averaging US$346,200 have much less desire and willingness to participate in, and often

drop out of, workforce activities, when compared to the group who receive bequests averaging US$7700 (Holtz-Eakin, Joulfaian, and Rosen 1994). Clearly, those who voluntarily drop out of the workforce for this and other reasons are no long part of human resources even if they meet all other criteria. This criterion is to be differentiated from willingness to, and

desire for, performing specific tasks within an organization. It is a performance issue if an employee does not have willingness and desire to perform certain tasks because that person is already part of the human resources of the organization. HRD scholars and practitioners have had a clear boundary to deal with such workplace performance issues (see Swanson 2007).

Physical and mental capacity A 14-year-old cannot be considered physically and mentally mature to be socially productive, except for limited neighbourhood babysitting services. Ageing related retirement and other physical and mental conditions can also limit a person s participation in socially productive activities. Therefore, those who live in nursing homes after retirement should not be considered a part of

human resources. Although the person may still have the desire and willingness to work, his/her physical conditions prevent the person from doing so. Such physical and mental restrictions can also be caused by illness and other related health reasons regardless of ageing conditions. This criterion should not be confused with those protected under American Disability Act (ADA) or

any other nations equivalent laws. An individual may be disabled in a particular way that prevents the person to perform certain productive tasks in some areas. However, he/she may still have skills and capacities in a different area. Thus, his/her physical and mental condition may still be socially productive and add value to a society for tasks corresponding to the

conditions. These individuals, if meet other criteria, are still part of human resources in their own contexts.

Human Resource Development International Minimum initial skills and ability Individuals must have an initial minimum skills and ability corresponding to the level of tasks to be performed in the productive process to be qualified as part of human resources at that level. A high school fresh graduate cannot be considered a part of human resources

in a senior management team, whereas he/she may be qualified for being a part of human resources at a local Starbucks shop or other workplaces with equivalent skill requirements. However, the person can indeed be engaged in human capital investment processes by attending college and graduate school, or on-the-job training, and acquiring additional management skills and experience to become part

of human resources for the senior management team in the future. These criteria and domains of human resource are relative with respect to historical, technological, and socioeconomic contexts. A high school graduate may be considered a human resource at a higher level half a century ago, but only at a lower level contemporarily. Similarly, the same education background

may be considered a high-level human resource in some countries, but may not be the case in others. However, in organizational reality, it is often unnecessary to specify which group of employees belongs to what categories of human resources. Yet, it does not imply that this criterion is not in effect. For instance, a senior executive and a mailroom clerk

are both considered human resources in an organization, but their roles and responsibilities, as well as related competencies required to perform the jobs, clearly define and separate them into different human resources categories in the organization. Institutional or legal restrictions Human societies are complex political and legal systems. The boundaries of institutions confine human systems in

varying ways. Thus, institutional restrictions should also be considered a criterion in defining human resources. Consider a familiar case, an illegal immigrant may meet all other criteria discussed above, but the person is not considered part of human resources until he/she returns to his/her own legally residing country or until he/she receives legal status in the migrating region or country.

This reality demonstrates that institutional or legal restriction constitutes an important system boundary and a criterion for defining human resources. In summary, the connotation of human resources should be gauged simultaneously by all the criteria in the proposition. Ignoring any one in HRD theory building and research may mislead the domain and boundary of HRD discipline.

Cross-culture verification To consider the proposition in a cross-culture setting, we conducted a verification study of the proposition between two nations with well-documented and sharply contrasting cultures (Hofstede 1993): China and the United States. First, the proposition is an outcome of cross-culture research. Both authors have completed college and graduate education in China and trained or are being

trained in the USA for PhDs in HRD. Particularly, the second author is undertaking first year studies in a US programme with minimum influence from the Western context. It is confirmed that the concepts included within and the meaning of the proposition can be translated word-by-word between English and Chinese without ambiguity.

98 G.G. Wang and J.Y. Sun Second, our review of Chinese scholarly literature is highly consistent with the proposition presented. Chinese scholars established a field called human talentology (Ren Cai Xue) in late 1987 (Liu 1987) with a definition of human talent similar to the proposition presented. More recently, Xia and Zhou (2003) and Yin (2005) also

defined human resources along the same lines. Human resources, human talents and workforce are used frequently and interchangeably in the Chinese literature. We summarize the translated Chinese definitions of human resources below: Human resources are physical and talent resources embedded in individuals, and are able to accomplish required work tasks independently and contribute to social economic development. They

are composed of a combination of individuals cognition, personality, interests, motivation, attitude, ability, as well as knowledge and skills. The formation of such capacities is determined by the overall characteristics and effects of innate ability, education process, and teams and institutions, which is the base for accomplishing particular tasks and activities, thus determining the quantity, quality and speed of the

accomplishments (Liu 1987; Xia and Zhou 2003; Yin 2005). Some also extends the definitions to specific age groups according to Chinese legal requirements, confirming the institutional restriction a criterion for human resources in the Chinese context. Further, this study has been completed for over a year. During this period, we have distributed the manuscript to a group of

selected HRD scholars and practitioners both in and outside of the US for critiques and feedback. Moreover, the study was used as a debate topic in HRD graduate teaching where multiple international students from China, Russia and Bulgaria were enrolled. We also presented the earlier versions of the study at two different international HRD conferences. All relevant feedback, critiques and

socio-cultural context related issues are incorporated in its current presentation. Human resources and related concepts: a lifespan view To explore the research question further, it is necessary to combine some HRDrelated concepts and foundational theories frequently found in HRD literature in a simplified lifespan view. Figure 1 presents a typical lifespan with sectional life stages

for a representative human being. This view covers most HRD-related concepts often interchangeably used and misused in the literature, such as human development, human capital investment, psychology and lifelong learning. It also embraces other finite and specific stages of human life, such as early childhood

Figure 1. A lifespan view: who should HRD develop?

Human Resource Development International education, general education (including college education for simplicity), human resource development or workforce development, adult learning and gerontology. The long span: human capital investment, human development, psychology and lifelong learning Line AI in Figure 1 represents the entire lifespan of our representative that all four concepts cover. It shows

human development, human capital investment and psychology overlapping and covering the entire lifespan. The same time period also covers lifelong learning. Human capital investment is the most frequently misused concept in HRD literature. From the beginning, economic research on human capital is comprehensive, encompassing all aspects of investment activities across the entire lifespan of human beings. It includes

not only formal schooling, from early childhood (Becker and Lewis 1973) to college (Becker 1960) and job-related training (Mincer 1962), but also migration (Greenwood 1975), health care (Klarman 1963) and social welfarerelated realms (Gordon 1963). Studies on human capital also expanded to fertility (Barro and Becker 1989), longevity (Ehrlich and Lui 1991; Kalemli-Ozcan 2003) and mortality (Kalemli-Ozcan 2002, 2003).

Indeed, human capital theory, as manifested by the name, studies the investment over the entire human life (Cervellati and Sunde 2005). As demonstrated in Figure 1, HRD only covers one major sectional lifespan of the lifelong human capital investment activities. Therefore, HRD is not equivalent to human capital investment in general term, and neither does HRD cover the same span

as lifelong learning. Instead, HRD is a special form of human capital investment and part of a life long learning, within a human being s productive life. The research and application of human capital theory in HRD must identify the applicable range and appropriate lifespan for human capital studies. At organizational level, it is accurate and appropriate to equate

human resource to human capital because adding value to the organization is the first reason for an organization to invest in employees in the forms of compensation/benefit, training and other activities. This is consistent with the proposition that any new hire in organizations has an initial productivity. On the other hand, the purpose of further investment in the employees, the

human capital of the organizations, is to enhance their current and future productivity for the organizations. It is almost certain that not many organizations would be interested in human capital investment in such a way that they recruit a high school fresh graduate and invest in the person until he/ she becomes a senior executive. At national level,

the picture may appear to be vague and confusing to some. The collective concept of human beings at a national level is often referred to as population. However, according to the proposition, population should not equate to human resources. Yet, the concept of human and population in a national context may be considered human capital of the nation, because the

younger population may have the potential to be socially productive given sufficient time and other investments. In other words, not all those in a nation s population can be productive or add value to the national economy at a given time. Only those actively involved in the workforce can do so. Similar to human capital research in economics, human

development also covers the entire lifespan of human beings. As pointed out by Paprock, it includes all aspects of life expectancy, attainment of education, and adjusted real income (2006,

100 G.G. Wang and J.Y. Sun 12 13). However, whether HRD must be expanded to involve all three components (2006, 13) of human development is questionable in terms of field identity and theory building requirements as defined in the proposition. It is also up to the acceptance of the scholars and practitioners in the two different disciplines.

Lifelong learning is an ambiguous term used frequently in HRD and adult learning literatures (Jarvis 2004). It refers to a learning process throughout one s lifespan and overlaps with the same span as human capital investment and human development. It may be considered a conscious effort in self-human capital investment (Jarvis, 2004). However, when referring to the concept of lifelong

learning in organizational settings, it indeed refers to organizational lifelong learning. Most organizations would not be interested in an individual s learning beyond the employment duration. At the individual level, lifelong learning is consistent with the other two concepts in the lifespan, human development (HD) and human capital investment. To avoid confusion, it is more appropriate to refer to organization based

individual learning as workplace learning, instead of lifelong learning. The short lifespans: a sectional analysis If we accept the above analysis, the rest of the concepts in the sectional lifespans in Figure 1 will be easier to understand. Earlier childhood education covers the age span between 0 and 6 as represented by section AB in Figure

1. It is a sectional lifespan under all four concepts, i.e. HCI, HD, psychology and lifelong learning. It is not in the domain of HRD defined by the proposition. Similarly, general education includes primary and secondary education and traditional college students. It is a finite lifespan under the concepts of HCI, HD and lifelong learning as represented by section BF.

Individuals within this particular lifespan generally do not meet all the human resources criteria. Therefore, they are not in the domain and subject of HRD. However, it may be controversial as to whether include college students as human resources. For analytical simplicity, it is assumed that they do not meet the readiness and availability criterion. Indeed, an average college student

is investing the time and financial resources to be ready and available for an upcoming socially productive life. Only those in the lifespan represented by section DG are in the domain of HRD research and practice. In other words, HRD is to develop those human beings who have completed certain levels of human capital investment (ready and available)

and are actively involved in the workforce activities (willing and have desire) with minimum initial skills and capability, and without institutional restrictions for socially productive activities. Apparently, the sectional lifespan for the domain of HRD is significantly long over an individuals lifespan. This sometimes disguises the fact that HRD is not to cover the entire human lifespan. Additionally, the lifespan

covered by HRD is overlapping with the concept of workplace learning. However, the content, activities, and consequences of the two may be different because workplace learning, if not performance focused, may be informational and for the purpose of enrichment. It may not always result in improved performance as discussed by Swanson (2001). After retirement and before the end

of the life, our representative is the subject of gerontology, a discipline exploring ageing and related human behaviours and activities under the umbrella of human development. Since most human beings in this life stage are no longer active in socially productive activities, they should not be

Human Resource Development International 101 in the domain of HRD research and practice. Adult education, on the other hand, covers the combined lifespans of HRD and gerontology and concerns about the entire adult lifelong learning as represented by section EI (Mackeracher 2006; Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner 2006). This lifespan view effectively clarifies the target population and domain

of research for adult education and HRD. In Figure 1, there may be some short overlapping period between any two adjacent sectional lifespans as represented by DF and HG. This is to indicate some variations in individuals lifespans. For example, DF represents a case that an individual may already be engaged in full-time socially productive activities before graduating

from an education programme. HG suggests that a person is retired at an older age than average individuals at the same time he or she enters into the domain of gerontology research and practice. However, these variations should not affect our general analysis of the lifespans covered by the different fields and disciplines. Conclusion and implications for HRD

theory building research Our study on the criteria of human resources and their relationships with other related concepts found in the HRD literature leads to the answer to the research question: HRD is not to develop all human beings, but to develop those who meet all the criteria simultaneously. This conclusion challenges some current HRD literature and offers

the following implications for future HRD research and theory building. First, the purpose of a definition, especially definitions for a discipline, is to establish the identity and the boundary of the field, distinguish it from other related fields and confine the research areas within a finite domain. From a research perspective, this helps scholars focus the research target

on a manageable realm and build relevant theory. From a practice perspective, this help policy makers and practitioners to develop targeted policies and activities. Thus, definitions serve the purpose of unifying scholars and practitioners under one umbrella for exploring, investigating and exchanging emerging issues, as well as creating new knowledge for the subject areas with common interest and understanding.

Second, the clarification of human resource appears to be more critical than development at present time in HRD research because of the confusion in the literature. If scholars and practitioners can agree on the proposition and the criteria, the debate and development of HRD definition will at least be focused within the domain of human resources. In fact, the

term of development carries different connotations in different disciplines. For instance, in the field of human development , development is defined as a process of competency attainment and of self-differentiation in the sense of progressively distinguishing oneself from the environment and from other people in order to create a unique self identity. (Thomas 2001, 184) Without reaching

an agreement on the boundaries of human resources, we may never be able to reach an agreeable definition on the development component. Third, the analysis has particular implications to HRD national policy studies. Existing studies on HRD national policies mostly equated education with HRD (e.g. Morris and Sweeting 1997). Although the two types of policies are related, they

have different foci. The lifespan analysis demonstrated that HRD covers a larger portion of individual lives than general education does, suggesting that national education

102 G.G. Wang and J.Y. Sun policies only affect those currently, and potentially to be, enrolled in the formal educational system. HRD policy, on the other hand, addresses the overall workforce quality and performance. The differences between national HRD policy and educational policy is that the former focuses on the quality of skill level for existing national

workforce for immediate, short-term and long-term economic growth, while the latter deals with a long-term effect. The role of HRD national policies is to provide support, motivation and opportunities for organization to energize and develop their talents by mobilizing resources and providing needed socio-political environment for such activities (Wang and Swanson 2008a, b). Clarifying the boundaries of HRD allows HRD

scholars to conduct analysis on HRD-focused national policies and propose right policy recommendations to policy-makers at national level. Lastly, but not the least, the analysis, through the proposition and the lifespan analysis, supports the currently accepted proposition that economics, psychology and system theory constitute foundations of HRD. The findings lead to questioning the proposition that adult learning theory

should also be considered a foundation of HRD (Yang 2004). As an application of psychological theories, adult learning theory should be logically considered part of the psychological foundation (Weinberger 1998). According to the lifespan view, it appears redundant to separate adult learning theory from psychology as a different theoretical foundation of HRD. References Barro, R., and

G.S. Becker. 1989. Fertility choice in a model of economic growth. Econometrica 57, no. 3: 481 501. Becker, G.S. 1960. Underinvestment in college education. American Economic Review 50, no. 3: 346 54. ., and H.G. Lewis. 1973. On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. Journal of Political Economy 81, no. 2 (Part 2): S279 88. Cervellati, M., and U. Sunde.

2005. Human capital, life expectancy, and the process of development. American Economic Review 95, no. 5: 1653 72. Dogan, M. 1996. Political science and other social sciences. In A new handbook of political science, ed. R.E. Coodin and H. Klingemann, 99 130. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ehrenberg, R.G., and R.S. Smith. 1994. Modern labor economics: Theory and public policy. 5th ed. New

York: HarperCollins. Ehrlich, I., and F. Lui. 1991. Intergenerational trade, longevity, and economic growth. Journal of Political Economy 99, no. 5: 1029 59. Gordon, M.S. 1963. The economics of welfare policies. New York: Columbia University Press. Greenhaus, J.H., and G.N. Powell. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of workfamily enrichment. Academy of Management Review

31, no. 1: 72 92. Greenwood, M. 1975. Research on internal migration in the United States: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 13, no. 2: 397 433. Harbinson, F., and C. Myers. 1959. Management in the industrial world. New York: McGrawHill. Hofstede, G. 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive 7, no. 1: 81 94. Holtz-Eakin, D., D. Joulfaian,

and H.S. Rosen. 1994. The Carnegie conjecture: Some empirical evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, no. 4: 975 1009. Jarvis, P. 2004. Adult education and life long learning: Theory and practice. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Kalemli-Ozcan, S. 2002. Does mortality decline promote economic growth? Journal of Economic Growth 7, no. 4: 411 39. .2003. A stochastic model of mortality, fertility and human

capital investment. Journal of Development Economics 62, no. 1: 103 18. Klarman, H. 1963. The economics of health. New York: Columbia University Press.

Human Resource Development International 103 Lee, M. 2001. A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International 4, no. 3: 327 41. Liu, S.E. 1987. Introduction to human talentology [Ren Cai Xue Xian Ming Jiao Cheng]. Beijing: China University of Politics and Laws Press. Mackeracher, D. 2006. Making sense of adult learning. 2nd ed.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press. McLean, G. 2004. National human resource development: What in the world is it? Advances in Developing Human Resources 6, no. 3: 269 75. Merriam, S.B., R.S. Caffarella, and L.M. Baumgartner. 2006. Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mincer, J. 1962. On-the-job training: Costs, returns, and some implications.

In Investment in Human Beings, Supplement to the Journal of Political Economy, ed. T.W. Shultz, 70: 50 79. Morris, P., and A. Sweeting. 1997. Human resource development in East Asia: A comparative analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 17, no. 1: 7 26. Paprock, K.E. 2006. National human resource development in transitioning societies in the developing world: Introductory

overview. Advances in Developing Human Resources 8, no. 1: 12 27. Random House Webster s Unabridged Dictionary. 2001. 2nd ed. New York: Random House. Swanson, R.A. 2001. Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International 4, no. 3: 299 313. . 2007. Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing organizations and documenting workplace expertise.

2nd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Thomas, R.M. 2001. Recent theories of human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wang, G.G. 2008. National HRD: A new paradigm or the reinvention of the wheel? Journal of European Industrial Training 32, no. 4: 303 16. ., and R.A. Swanson. 2008a. The idea of NHRD: An analysis based on economic

foundation and theory development methodology. Human Resource Development Review 7, no. 1: 79 106. ., and R.A. Swanson. 2008b. Economics and human resource development: A rejoinder. Human Resource Development Review 7, no. 3: 358 62. Weinberger, L. 1998. Commonly held theories of human resource development. Human Resource Development International 1, no. 1: 75 93. Xia, J.G., and

H.Y. Zhou. 2003. Exploring the concept of human talents [Ren Cai Gai Nian Nei Han Tan Xi]. Human Talents 4, no. 2: 22 4. Yang, B. 2004. Can adult learning theory provide a foundation for human resource development? Advances in Developing Human Resources 6, no. 2: 129 45. Yin, T. 2005. The definition of human resources. China HRD.net.

Available at http://www. chinahrd.net/zhi_sk/jt_page.asp?articleid83932/ (accessed on June 26, 2008).