Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T12:29:29.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science, Technology and Development: China as a “Case Study”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Genevieve C. Dean
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

China shares with the developing countries of the third world the broad objective of economic growth, starting from a condition the Chinese themselves describe as “poor and blank” relative to the material resources of the developed countries. Yet “self-reliance” has been the keynote of Chinese policies for ten years, and the Chinese now urge the rest of the third world countries to adopt the same principle for their own development. In broad terms, “development” refers to the improvement of a society's material welfare, resulting from economic growth and from appropriate measures of income distribution. In Chinese and, increasingly, in general usage, such economic growth is identified with the use of production processes and the production of goods new to the developing economy. “Self-reliance” does not necessarily preclude transfer of foreign technologies into the developing country, but specifies technological change which occurs in response to demands arising within the developing economy itself, rather than imposed on it from outside. In any country, demand for technological change and distribution of the fruits of technological advance are dependent on its political and social structure, as well as on economic factors, and on the country's international economic and political bargaining power. China, whose leaders have a particular perception of the implications of these relationships for their development objectives, is an especially significant “case study” of the use of science and technology for national development.

Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 51 , July 1972 , pp. 520 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This article is the author's own summary of discussions at the Sussex Study Group on Science and Technology in China's Development. Special thanks are due to Professor Christopher Freeman and Mr Charles Cooper, of the Science Policy Research Unit, for their assistance in preparing this article, but the author is solely responsible for the opinions expressed.Google Scholar

1. Discussion of choice of techniques and technologies in Chinese policies was based on a paper prepared for the Study Group by Dr Shigeru Ishikawa, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.Google Scholar

2. Chinese economic policies since 1949 were summarized for the Study Group by Dr Alexander Eckstein, University of Michigan.Google Scholar

3. The question of sectoral allocation of capital-intensive technologies was discussed in a paper presented to the Study Group by Charles Cooper, Science Policy Research Unit and Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar

4. Dr Ezra Vogel, Harvard University, discussed science, technology and social organization at the Study Group.Google Scholar

5. Noted by Dr Ishikawa, and reported by Jon Sigurdson, Science Policy Research Unit, from his observations of rural industry on a December 1971 visit to China (see The China Quarterly, No. 50).Google Scholar

6. Dr Robert Dernberger, University of Michigan, prepared a paper on technology transfer to China for the Study Group.Google Scholar

7. Innovation policies were discussed by G. Dean and Dr. Bruce McFarlane.Google Scholar

8. A conceptual framework of the science system was presented to the Study Group by C. H. G. Oldham, Deputy Director of the Science Policy Research Unit.Google Scholar

9. Chinese science institutions were reviewed for the Study Group by Manfredo Macioti, UNESCO, Genevieve Dean and Richard Conroy, Science Policy Research Unit.Google Scholar

10. Stevan Dedijer, University of Lund, presented a paper to the Study Group on Marxism and Chinese science policy.Google Scholar

11. The panel was composed of Jorge Sabato, Commission Nacional de Energia Atomica (Argentina); Bruce J. McFarlane, The Australian National University;Google ScholarJohn, Gittings, The China Quarterly; Ashok Parthasarathi, Office of the Prime Minister of India; Shigeru Ishikawa, Hitotsubashi University; and Alexander Eckstein, University of Michigan.Google Scholar