Why do Chinese political leaders have engineering degrees whereas their American counterparts have law degrees?
35 Answers
59.2k Views • Upvoted by Michael Chan, worked in China from 2004 to 2013.
Quora User has 37 endorsements in China.
Great question, and one that gets at the heart of the political cultures of these two countries. It happens that I did my graduate work--including an abortive dissertation that never got beyond a rambling proposal--on the rise of technocracy in post-Mao China.
That China is heavily technocratic is well established: see the work of Li Cheng (Cheng Li) and Lynn White (1990), "Elite Transformation and Modern Change in Mainland China and Taiwan: Empirical Data and the Theory of Technocracy" and other studies by Cheng, which demonstrate the rather astonishing extent to which the Chinese political elite is dominated by technocrats. The authors looked at mayors and Party secretaries of cities of over a million (of which there are today some 165); governors and provincial Party secretaries of China's provinces, autonomous regions, and province-level municipalities; and Central Committee members, and found that by the time of writing there were already more than 80% technocrats (that is, putative or actual office holders with four-year degrees or more in the natural sciences or engineering). Just look at recent politburo Standing Committee membership: In the last two Standing Committees, I believe all but 1 were all engineers.
This was deliberate policy, quite consciously borrowed from Singapore (and to a lesser extent, South Korea, Malaysia, even Taiwan) beginning in the very early 1980s as part of a "Neo-Authoritarian" or "Soft Authoritarian" developmental model that many Chinese political elites believed was to be credited for the rapid rise of the Asian Tigers. Deng sought to replace the "Reds" (i.e., people in power whose positions derived from ideological purity or good (worker, peasant) class background) with the "Experts"--often, Soviet-trained scientists and engineers who had enjoyed a brief ascendancy during the period of Mao's eclipse from 1961 to 1965. He purged the Party of Reds and actually laid out quotas, calling for X percent college-educated cadres by such-and-such a date. During the 1980s, many Chinese intellectuals embraced the technocratic idea, including many scientists and social scientists who would, by decade's end, emerge as very prominent critics of the Chinese Communist Party, like the dissident astrophysicist Fang Lizhi, one of the "black hands" who the Party vilified as puppet-master of the 1989 student-led protests. More typical perhaps was the late Qian Xuesen, an MIT-educated rocket scientist who returned to his native China to head the Chinese rocketry program. An avid supporter of technocracy, Qian even said that he believed governments should be run essentially like an engineering department. The notion that economic, social, and even fundamentally political problems could be approached with an engineer's problem-solving mentality seemed somehow to resonate in China, and was largely unchallenged.
I'm greatly oversimplifying here, but I believe that in a country like China, where the notion that a knowledge elite should run the show is deeply ingrained, technocracy was somehow a natural fit with the political culture. Mengzi (Mencius, the most famous of Confucius's followers) once said, "Let those who labor with their heads rule those who labor with their hands." But it goes back earlier than the 4th-3rd century BCE when he lived: In China's first well-attested historical dynasty, the Shang, a shamanic priesthood whose power was built on oracular divination and communing with ancestor spirits held power, and technology such as it was--bronze casting, scapulamancy and plastromancy--was dominated by that priestly caste. In imperial times, from roughly 60 years into the Han (206 BCE to CE 220) through the Qing's collapse in the early 20th century, a class of scholar-officials with whose elite status was predicated on the "truths" contained in the Confucian canon and certified by passing a series of civil service exams ruled China, with of course some not insignificant interruptions.
With the end of the exam system and the repudiation of Confucianism by the intelligentsia of the early 20th century, there was an effort to supplant the "truths" of the old order with new, scientific (perhaps more accurately, scientistic) truths. Part of this explains the embrace of the "scientific" theories of Marxist dialectical materialism that made Communism popular. Even the paroxysms of Mao's Cultural Revolution--the spasmodic violence, the complete upheaval and turbulence--only attests to how deeply rooted this political privilege accorded to knowledge elites has been in the Chinese political culture.
Turning to the U.S., to me it seems equally natural that lawyers should dominate the political elite in a country built on rule of law, checks and balances (an independent judiciary, for instance), and a fundamentally adversarial concept of politics. It's really been in the American DNA since the founding of the country. John Adams was of course a lawyer, and despite his dedication to the cause of independence even defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. James Madison wasn't a lawyer, though he clearly had aspired to be one (though he never gained admission to the bar). It's hard for me to imagine how the U.S. could be any other way.
Enough for now! Again, fascinating question and one that deserves book-length treatment!
That China is heavily technocratic is well established: see the work of Li Cheng (Cheng Li) and Lynn White (1990), "Elite Transformation and Modern Change in Mainland China and Taiwan: Empirical Data and the Theory of Technocracy" and other studies by Cheng, which demonstrate the rather astonishing extent to which the Chinese political elite is dominated by technocrats. The authors looked at mayors and Party secretaries of cities of over a million (of which there are today some 165); governors and provincial Party secretaries of China's provinces, autonomous regions, and province-level municipalities; and Central Committee members, and found that by the time of writing there were already more than 80% technocrats (that is, putative or actual office holders with four-year degrees or more in the natural sciences or engineering). Just look at recent politburo Standing Committee membership: In the last two Standing Committees, I believe all but 1 were all engineers.
This was deliberate policy, quite consciously borrowed from Singapore (and to a lesser extent, South Korea, Malaysia, even Taiwan) beginning in the very early 1980s as part of a "Neo-Authoritarian" or "Soft Authoritarian" developmental model that many Chinese political elites believed was to be credited for the rapid rise of the Asian Tigers. Deng sought to replace the "Reds" (i.e., people in power whose positions derived from ideological purity or good (worker, peasant) class background) with the "Experts"--often, Soviet-trained scientists and engineers who had enjoyed a brief ascendancy during the period of Mao's eclipse from 1961 to 1965. He purged the Party of Reds and actually laid out quotas, calling for X percent college-educated cadres by such-and-such a date. During the 1980s, many Chinese intellectuals embraced the technocratic idea, including many scientists and social scientists who would, by decade's end, emerge as very prominent critics of the Chinese Communist Party, like the dissident astrophysicist Fang Lizhi, one of the "black hands" who the Party vilified as puppet-master of the 1989 student-led protests. More typical perhaps was the late Qian Xuesen, an MIT-educated rocket scientist who returned to his native China to head the Chinese rocketry program. An avid supporter of technocracy, Qian even said that he believed governments should be run essentially like an engineering department. The notion that economic, social, and even fundamentally political problems could be approached with an engineer's problem-solving mentality seemed somehow to resonate in China, and was largely unchallenged.
I'm greatly oversimplifying here, but I believe that in a country like China, where the notion that a knowledge elite should run the show is deeply ingrained, technocracy was somehow a natural fit with the political culture. Mengzi (Mencius, the most famous of Confucius's followers) once said, "Let those who labor with their heads rule those who labor with their hands." But it goes back earlier than the 4th-3rd century BCE when he lived: In China's first well-attested historical dynasty, the Shang, a shamanic priesthood whose power was built on oracular divination and communing with ancestor spirits held power, and technology such as it was--bronze casting, scapulamancy and plastromancy--was dominated by that priestly caste. In imperial times, from roughly 60 years into the Han (206 BCE to CE 220) through the Qing's collapse in the early 20th century, a class of scholar-officials with whose elite status was predicated on the "truths" contained in the Confucian canon and certified by passing a series of civil service exams ruled China, with of course some not insignificant interruptions.
With the end of the exam system and the repudiation of Confucianism by the intelligentsia of the early 20th century, there was an effort to supplant the "truths" of the old order with new, scientific (perhaps more accurately, scientistic) truths. Part of this explains the embrace of the "scientific" theories of Marxist dialectical materialism that made Communism popular. Even the paroxysms of Mao's Cultural Revolution--the spasmodic violence, the complete upheaval and turbulence--only attests to how deeply rooted this political privilege accorded to knowledge elites has been in the Chinese political culture.
Turning to the U.S., to me it seems equally natural that lawyers should dominate the political elite in a country built on rule of law, checks and balances (an independent judiciary, for instance), and a fundamentally adversarial concept of politics. It's really been in the American DNA since the founding of the country. John Adams was of course a lawyer, and despite his dedication to the cause of independence even defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. James Madison wasn't a lawyer, though he clearly had aspired to be one (though he never gained admission to the bar). It's hard for me to imagine how the U.S. could be any other way.
Enough for now! Again, fascinating question and one that deserves book-length treatment!
Communism and central planning has in many ways skewed the career progression for generations of Chinese citizens. Very much like the former Soviet Union, early communist doctrine believed they were building a new society which needed people like engineers to build and forge new industries. Engineers were put in charge of infrastructure and building projects and this was a test of their ability to lead.
Compare this to the older communist leaders who if anything were doctors, teacherswriters and in Mao's case...a librarian. Prior, to be a leader in China one needed to demonstrate some military credentials either in the WW2, the Chinese civil war, or even the Korean war. China's current leaders have engineering or industrial backgrounds.
On the other hand, back then professions like book keeping or banking was not considered presitgious or a career ladder which is one reason China has so many senior CFOs in industry now. You see the same effect in Russia where many of the health professionals and doctors in the past were women while the men went into engineering as well.
Lawyers seem to abound in the US for several reasons in my opinion. One, its a guaranteed ticket to the middle class and regardless of all the jokes, considered a high status profession. Also, the US culture has for generations been accustomed to the rule of law and civil litigation. In developing countries, laws are ignored and courts are corrupt so lawyers themselves are ineffectual in the system. The US is a democracy and due process is respected so lawyers in my opinion have the same standing as Samurai did in Feudal Japan or gunslingers in the American frontier. They fight for you in the legal system and in theory protect you from other lawyers. IMHO We demonize lawyers in the US but we also look to them for leadership.
Compare this to the older communist leaders who if anything were doctors, teacherswriters and in Mao's case...a librarian. Prior, to be a leader in China one needed to demonstrate some military credentials either in the WW2, the Chinese civil war, or even the Korean war. China's current leaders have engineering or industrial backgrounds.
On the other hand, back then professions like book keeping or banking was not considered presitgious or a career ladder which is one reason China has so many senior CFOs in industry now. You see the same effect in Russia where many of the health professionals and doctors in the past were women while the men went into engineering as well.
Lawyers seem to abound in the US for several reasons in my opinion. One, its a guaranteed ticket to the middle class and regardless of all the jokes, considered a high status profession. Also, the US culture has for generations been accustomed to the rule of law and civil litigation. In developing countries, laws are ignored and courts are corrupt so lawyers themselves are ineffectual in the system. The US is a democracy and due process is respected so lawyers in my opinion have the same standing as Samurai did in Feudal Japan or gunslingers in the American frontier. They fight for you in the legal system and in theory protect you from other lawyers. IMHO We demonize lawyers in the US but we also look to them for leadership.
I would like to contribute some opinions from a Chinese perspective.
China was extremely poor and weak in the early stage of 20th century, and the intellectuals were seeking for the reasons for that. It seems obvious at some extend, the thing that we don't have comparing to the strong western countries are : technology and democracy.
Here it comes Mao's communism, borrowed from Marx. The huge amount of extremely poor farmers were thrilled by the idea of equal society and promising future. They are highly involved in the revolution to make it accomplished.
Mao himself doesn't have any knowledge of technology, more like a poet.He is a guy immersed by the rule of feudal society, and he may have certain idealistic belief in communism when he was young. But latter when he face the reality and was questioned to get out of power, he started the cultural revolution to make him like a god in order to stay in power, causing millions people died.
Communism is only a tool to make the party win the revolution. Now every one I believe even the high level committees realized that, but what can really makes this country strong is technology. Technology in this term means, one couldn't against the rules of the free economy and natural.
Although even the people still don't have the chance to vote their leader, but at some extend the party realized that in order to stay in power and avoid further riot and revolution caused by Mao's mistakes. They have to be more practical, to find some rational people to lead the country not the poet.
Xiaoping Deng is the first one worked this out, he has been to France in his early age, he knows how a strong society functions. So here comes the economy boosting, and he choose Zeming Jiang to be his successor, a leader with a electrical engineering degree. So this became a tradition for choosing the 3rd generation of leaders, first priority: rational.
So communism and Mao, I would like to say becomes the concept like virgin birth to Christianity, everyone knows it's not possible, but it is the foundation of this modern country.Denying it would cause a huge disturb, so let's face it, be cynical.
Long words in short, the circumstances in china is that people and the country like a rational people to be the leader, you don't need to achieve socialism, just not make irrational mistakes like Mao.And engineers always rational.
So far, it works from an engineer point of view, the economy is boosting by embracing the capitalism and free market, people get rich. But they can't fixed the problems Mao did decades ago, and also they can't deny socialism, the risk of causing the disturbance is more than the economy can take. So they come up with a new ideology, Chinese Characteristic of Socialism. Ironically, in practical it is even more capitalism than westerns.
So where's democracy? You know, engineers never adapt a democracy way of solving problems. It can cause more problems, they actually have a great reason for that, Marx's materialism. That is a great economy is the foundation of a wonderful political system.This is like a puzzle of eggs and chicken, when most of people believes that democracy is the reason of a country being strong, engineers believe that democracy is the result of a strong economy, let's fixed it when we are rich.
Maybe I am just being too optimistic.
China was extremely poor and weak in the early stage of 20th century, and the intellectuals were seeking for the reasons for that. It seems obvious at some extend, the thing that we don't have comparing to the strong western countries are : technology and democracy.
Here it comes Mao's communism, borrowed from Marx. The huge amount of extremely poor farmers were thrilled by the idea of equal society and promising future. They are highly involved in the revolution to make it accomplished.
Mao himself doesn't have any knowledge of technology, more like a poet.He is a guy immersed by the rule of feudal society, and he may have certain idealistic belief in communism when he was young. But latter when he face the reality and was questioned to get out of power, he started the cultural revolution to make him like a god in order to stay in power, causing millions people died.
Communism is only a tool to make the party win the revolution. Now every one I believe even the high level committees realized that, but what can really makes this country strong is technology. Technology in this term means, one couldn't against the rules of the free economy and natural.
Although even the people still don't have the chance to vote their leader, but at some extend the party realized that in order to stay in power and avoid further riot and revolution caused by Mao's mistakes. They have to be more practical, to find some rational people to lead the country not the poet.
Xiaoping Deng is the first one worked this out, he has been to France in his early age, he knows how a strong society functions. So here comes the economy boosting, and he choose Zeming Jiang to be his successor, a leader with a electrical engineering degree. So this became a tradition for choosing the 3rd generation of leaders, first priority: rational.
So communism and Mao, I would like to say becomes the concept like virgin birth to Christianity, everyone knows it's not possible, but it is the foundation of this modern country.Denying it would cause a huge disturb, so let's face it, be cynical.
Long words in short, the circumstances in china is that people and the country like a rational people to be the leader, you don't need to achieve socialism, just not make irrational mistakes like Mao.And engineers always rational.
So far, it works from an engineer point of view, the economy is boosting by embracing the capitalism and free market, people get rich. But they can't fixed the problems Mao did decades ago, and also they can't deny socialism, the risk of causing the disturbance is more than the economy can take. So they come up with a new ideology, Chinese Characteristic of Socialism. Ironically, in practical it is even more capitalism than westerns.
So where's democracy? You know, engineers never adapt a democracy way of solving problems. It can cause more problems, they actually have a great reason for that, Marx's materialism. That is a great economy is the foundation of a wonderful political system.This is like a puzzle of eggs and chicken, when most of people believes that democracy is the reason of a country being strong, engineers believe that democracy is the result of a strong economy, let's fixed it when we are rich.
Maybe I am just being too optimistic.
3.6k Views • Upvoted by Marc Bodnick, Fmr Stanford PhD student, Political Science
Andy has 23 endorsements in China.
You don't need public charisma in a 1 party state
The People's Republic of China is not a democracy, they are not elected into office. On the other hand, American leaders need public charisma to sway the masses for votes. Chinese ones do not, they just make deals with each other in private. No Chinese politicians are noteworthy orators on the caliber of US politicians because none of them have to sway the mind of the public to elect them.
This is reflected in what each country contributes to the world; China exports manufactured goods, America exports Hollywood.
First, it is less true with the current generation of leaders than the past one. Current top leader Xi Jinping had a degree in Chemical Engineering, but a PhD in Law (though this seems to have included more politics and management than the Western equivalent would have.) His deputy Li Keqiang has a degree in law and a PhD in economics.
Both of them seem to have gone straight into administration. And to have risen by proving themselves to be efficient managers.
I note also that some of the other answers confuse technology and technocrat. They have the same Greek root, techne, art, skill, cunning of hand. But technology is mostly about machines or systems to work (and is distinct from engineering). A technocrat in the context of politics is mostly someone brought in from outside of the normal political class on the strength of achievments in other areas, mostly business.
As for US politicians, I think you'll find most of them practiced as lawyers and made their name there. This reflects a system where the main qualification for success is sounding good to non-experts, who have most of the votes.
The most successful of all was Reagan, who had a degree in economics and sociology, but made his name as an actor. This allowed him to act massively against the interests of ordinary US citizens and remain immensely popular.
Both of them seem to have gone straight into administration. And to have risen by proving themselves to be efficient managers.
I note also that some of the other answers confuse technology and technocrat. They have the same Greek root, techne, art, skill, cunning of hand. But technology is mostly about machines or systems to work (and is distinct from engineering). A technocrat in the context of politics is mostly someone brought in from outside of the normal political class on the strength of achievments in other areas, mostly business.
As for US politicians, I think you'll find most of them practiced as lawyers and made their name there. This reflects a system where the main qualification for success is sounding good to non-experts, who have most of the votes.
The most successful of all was Reagan, who had a degree in economics and sociology, but made his name as an actor. This allowed him to act massively against the interests of ordinary US citizens and remain immensely popular.
Politics is attractive to Lawyers in democracies like the United States as legal professional skills including appealing to juries, collecting evidence and understanding complex legislation are helpful in politics. Challenges that are common in the legal profession like protecting liberties and testing adversaries and the status quo are also common in democracies. Politicians with a legal background are essential for the creation of good law in a robust democracy.
Too much "lawyer behavior" can make a democracy less effective. For example, adversarialism can lead to destructive partisism and diligent process can cause layers of bureaucratic deadlocks.
Engineers dominate the political landscape in China. This is due to a mix of ideological and historical reasons that make Engineering perceived as a politically safe profession. Infrastructure investment is also a higher priority (compared to say law reform) with huge infrastructure projects pushing engineers into lucrative and influencial positions.
Certain political systems are always going to favor certain professions. The effectiveness of politicians at representing and acting on the views of the people is more important than their professional background.
For more, see the Economist article "There was a lawyer, an engineer and a politician..."
http://www.economist.com/
Too much "lawyer behavior" can make a democracy less effective. For example, adversarialism can lead to destructive partisism and diligent process can cause layers of bureaucratic deadlocks.
Engineers dominate the political landscape in China. This is due to a mix of ideological and historical reasons that make Engineering perceived as a politically safe profession. Infrastructure investment is also a higher priority (compared to say law reform) with huge infrastructure projects pushing engineers into lucrative and influencial positions.
Certain political systems are always going to favor certain professions. The effectiveness of politicians at representing and acting on the views of the people is more important than their professional background.
For more, see the Economist article "There was a lawyer, an engineer and a politician..."
http://www.economist.com/
China has a long history and some very antiquated ideas. One way to think of China is that it is a country made up of engineers who like to build things, occasionally big projects, farmers and small businessmen.
Now America has gone past the stage where it builds things. Instead it just talks about building things. Look at the lousy roads, collapsing bridges, lousy air service, almost non-existent railway network, and cheap urban development. Instead, it has gone the way of having lawyers who argue endlessly, playing dumb word games, and then call it democracy.
Just look at Congress, which is full of lawyers. They wouldn't know how to build anything if they wanted to! But they have endless ideas about how you should NOT build something unless you make a donation to their campaign. In which case they just might vote for your bill.
AMERICA: the best democracy money can buy!
Now America has gone past the stage where it builds things. Instead it just talks about building things. Look at the lousy roads, collapsing bridges, lousy air service, almost non-existent railway network, and cheap urban development. Instead, it has gone the way of having lawyers who argue endlessly, playing dumb word games, and then call it democracy.
Just look at Congress, which is full of lawyers. They wouldn't know how to build anything if they wanted to! But they have endless ideas about how you should NOT build something unless you make a donation to their campaign. In which case they just might vote for your bill.
AMERICA: the best democracy money can buy!
When introducing other countries into the comparison (Germany, Great Brittain, Japan, France, Mexico, Australia, Russia) it seems that the political class is over-representing whatever jobs are the most prestigious:
- in the US, lawyers, especially court lawyers, might be over-represented and often poor, but they still represent the protector of individual freedom against institutional oppression (whether prosecutors or barristers);
- the industrial culture of China made factor engineers the leading figure;
- same for the corporate team leader in Japan;
- independent intellectual worker (doctor, teacher) in France;
- etc.
I do not think this has anything to do with Chinese traditions at all. Until a hundred years ago, Chinese intellectuals were never systematically trained in science. Math was merely interesting number "tricks" and engineering was largely overlooked due to its labor intensiveness.
From my perspective, it's because China's contemporary liberal arts education has not been on par with its science-engineering education yet. Both started to modernize in the 20th century, but science and technology are universal and thus much more easily transferable. While a Chinese university can translate a US physics textbook and use it in a Chinese physics class, such is not the case for arts, history and literature. CCP's various censorship policies slowed liberal arts educations even further. In a field almost exclusively based on creativity, the worst thing a government can do is to put constraints on how one "should" get creative.
As a result, the bulk of the more talented students in China from the late 20th century to today almost voluntarily choose to major in science/engineering because this is where their pursuit of knowledge and creativity is better fulfilled. According to biographical sources, many great Chinese scientists have an unusually high interest and mastery of arts, music, literature, etc. compared with their more nerdy western counterparts. In other words, they couldbecome great artists or writers, but reality may have made them think twice.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Chinese political leaders all have engineering degrees. Governmental leaders are some of the most politically talented people in the country. It just happens that most of those talents in China decided to major in a technical discipline. America, on the other hand, has a more comprehensive education system to pigeon-hole different types of talents. Lawyers are naturally the closest thing to politicians based on their skill set.
From my perspective, it's because China's contemporary liberal arts education has not been on par with its science-engineering education yet. Both started to modernize in the 20th century, but science and technology are universal and thus much more easily transferable. While a Chinese university can translate a US physics textbook and use it in a Chinese physics class, such is not the case for arts, history and literature. CCP's various censorship policies slowed liberal arts educations even further. In a field almost exclusively based on creativity, the worst thing a government can do is to put constraints on how one "should" get creative.
As a result, the bulk of the more talented students in China from the late 20th century to today almost voluntarily choose to major in science/engineering because this is where their pursuit of knowledge and creativity is better fulfilled. According to biographical sources, many great Chinese scientists have an unusually high interest and mastery of arts, music, literature, etc. compared with their more nerdy western counterparts. In other words, they couldbecome great artists or writers, but reality may have made them think twice.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Chinese political leaders all have engineering degrees. Governmental leaders are some of the most politically talented people in the country. It just happens that most of those talents in China decided to major in a technical discipline. America, on the other hand, has a more comprehensive education system to pigeon-hole different types of talents. Lawyers are naturally the closest thing to politicians based on their skill set.
Having visited China often (when doing business), my understanding is that China has actually never been really communist. If one looks over a period of the last 2000 to 3000 years, the communist decades were a blip on the history line, more like a correction mechanism after the Imperial system had lost its grip and power. The underlying philosophy is that China has always been and still is a Confucian system, i.e. a technocracy. It might not be a democracy as in the West (where democracy often doesn't work because it has turned into system of greed) but they carefully replace the leaders every few years. They have a very long term planning, actually 60 years (12 plans of 5 years). These plans are not like the detailed Sovjet central planning but more like a business plan whereby the execution is left to a highly competitive free market. The Chinese are also very good organisers. Look at how quickly they built their high speed train network. I have seen cases whereby a 30 km highway was refurbished over a WE. The same would have taken 1 or 2 years in Europe.
I think that in general, running a country should be more a management/engineering job than a political one. Laywers should only help to create an ethical/moral framework. Beware if they write laws that benefit political interest groups.
I think that in general, running a country should be more a management/engineering job than a political one. Laywers should only help to create an ethical/moral framework. Beware if they write laws that benefit political interest groups.
It's simple. Deng Xiaoping decided that China should focus on developing economy, and he handpicked the next generation leaders who happend to have engineering educations.
Basically he had no other choice,
- Since Chairman Mao destroyed the legal system of China. Only the lowest people took the legal career. And lawyers just didn't exist in China then.
- He cannot trust non-technical bureaucrats who mostly were promoted from Ministry of Propaganda by Mao and his wife Jiang Qing during Cultural Revolution. Actually, he intended to purge most of them.
- He was assigned the vice premier by Mao&Zhou to restore the industry output during the Cultural Revolution. So people from industries were his guys who had engineering education
- Capitalists are extinct animals in Red China then. He obviously could not find candidates from so-called business leaders. Actually, no one got any business administration degree then.
Basically he had no other choice,
- Since Chairman Mao destroyed the legal system of China. Only the lowest people took the legal career. And lawyers just didn't exist in China then.
- He cannot trust non-technical bureaucrats who mostly were promoted from Ministry of Propaganda by Mao and his wife Jiang Qing during Cultural Revolution. Actually, he intended to purge most of them.
- He was assigned the vice premier by Mao&Zhou to restore the industry output during the Cultural Revolution. So people from industries were his guys who had engineering education
- Capitalists are extinct animals in Red China then. He obviously could not find candidates from so-called business leaders. Actually, no one got any business administration degree then.
This is a fascinating question and discussion. I will share a fact that I find fascinating and say that it suggests the future position in China will be quite different from the present position. Thus my comment is that what we see today in the leadership team in China may be changing as fast as we've noticed it.
500,000 Chinese have studied abroad according to the Brookings Institute. 15-17% of the alumni are in the Central Committee of China in 2012, up from 2% in 2002. The source of this fact is "The magic of diasporas" in the Economist, 19 November 2011: http://www.economist.com/
500,000 Chinese have studied abroad according to the Brookings Institute. 15-17% of the alumni are in the Central Committee of China in 2012, up from 2% in 2002. The source of this fact is "The magic of diasporas" in the Economist, 19 November 2011: http://www.economist.com/
Engineers do. Lawyers talk.
EDIT: Engineers focus on the overall system and performance (very much like Chinese valuing collective over individuals). Millions of people could be negatively impacted by a solution that was thought to benefit the whole. Large impact projects like the Three Gorges Dam comes to mind.
Lawyers focus on individual rights and impacts on everyone including the very minority. Their solutions may be mired by compromises. The end result could be more fair to everyone but sub-optimal as a solution.
EDIT: Engineers focus on the overall system and performance (very much like Chinese valuing collective over individuals). Millions of people could be negatively impacted by a solution that was thought to benefit the whole. Large impact projects like the Three Gorges Dam comes to mind.
Lawyers focus on individual rights and impacts on everyone including the very minority. Their solutions may be mired by compromises. The end result could be more fair to everyone but sub-optimal as a solution.
The reason why nearly all Chinese political leaders have engineering backgrounds instead of social science backgrounds is quite simple, actually. These star pupils of their generation who were majored in social science (no mention of political science or law) could never survive the numerous "activities" through CCP's regime for their thoughts, ie Thought Crimes.
Even during the late 70s and early 80s,(when China restarted its national college exam system after 10 years), in some stage, best students (and their parents) were too terrified to touch the area of social and political science. They chosen engineering to avoid trouble. One of my Chinese teacher said even Economics was thought to be a "dangerous" major when he was young since the power of interpretation of all economical orthodox of Marxism belonged to the authority, and it might condemn any heterodox theorist.
Even during the late 70s and early 80s,(when China restarted its national college exam system after 10 years), in some stage, best students (and their parents) were too terrified to touch the area of social and political science. They chosen engineering to avoid trouble. One of my Chinese teacher said even Economics was thought to be a "dangerous" major when he was young since the power of interpretation of all economical orthodox of Marxism belonged to the authority, and it might condemn any heterodox theorist.
If you take a visit to China, you'll find that China is kind of a big construction site, especially during the past 10 years of real estate boom. So practically, Engineers will be more valuable in such a country.
When I was in middle school, some 20 years ago, the teachers would tell us that "learn Math, Physics and Chemistry well, go every where all over the world for wealth." So you see a lot of Chinese engineers in silicon valley, but there're few Chinese lawyers.
Therefore, for your question, the fact is that there were much less students learning laws than those of engineering in the 50s and 60s. And during their career life, they would also have less opportunities of doing big projects and get promoted.
When I was in middle school, some 20 years ago, the teachers would tell us that "learn Math, Physics and Chemistry well, go every where all over the world for wealth." So you see a lot of Chinese engineers in silicon valley, but there're few Chinese lawyers.
Therefore, for your question, the fact is that there were much less students learning laws than those of engineering in the 50s and 60s. And during their career life, they would also have less opportunities of doing big projects and get promoted.
Governance doesn't happen, or at least doesn't work very well, unless there is some kind of chain of command (heads of state can't administer every drainage district and dog pound in the country) and general directions go down the chain of command and get turned into more and more specific directions for implementation (including, spay that dog and vaccinate the other one), and information about what was or was not accomplished goes back up the chain of command (48 states had improved rabies rates this year but the other two got worse).
American governance used to be carried out by officials who were appointed on the basis of patronage rather than on the basis of competence. A bookie or a ward heeler turned Secretary of Commerce might not do a very good job. Eventually that system came to an end and the U.S. got a real civil service system. The people were selected had to be objectively reasonably capable of filling some job in the first place, and then they had to work their way up. All of these people are, I guess, technocrats of one stripe or another. The Defense Department is generally filled with people having military know-how, but the Secretary of Defense is appointed by the President and reflects the "orders going down the chain of command" more strongly than the implementation part of the game. Somebody like John Boyd comes into the DOD with fighter pilot experience and also with an engineering degree. The President says, "We need better jet fighters," and after Boyd and a few cohorts go to work we get the F-16. So there are lots of engineers and people with similar technical qualifications in government. George Marshall was probably as good a general as was Eisenhower, but Marshall was a whiz at organizing and keeping moving all of the supplies needed to win WW II. He must have taught himself that special kind of engineering or must have become that kind of technocrat on his own. I don't think there was a school for that kind of thing or a department at Cal Tech to go to.
The other main thing that has to happen to make this whole thing work is that when the people of your home state get sick of the rabies rate going up year after year, or sick of funds allocated for inoculation campaigns being diverted to a monument to the governor of the state, they must be able to raise a little hell and make the governing system dig the trouble makers out. In the U.S. this might mean electing somebody else for governor, and/or electing somebody for president who would take misappropriation of state funds seriously and straighten out either the appointed officials messing up or the civil service system that was allowing somebody with a high rank in the civil service to play with the people's money.
In the extreme case in the US, we forced a president to resign. If he had not resigned he would have been impeached, found guilty, and deposed. If we didnot have that capability, we could end up with a dictatorial president, and the people would take it to the streets.
In European history there was no civil remedy for a king gone bad. The only answer, up until around the time of the Magna Carta, was revolution. God had supposedly made John, Richard, or Harry king, and that was the end of it. No complaints were to be expressed.
In China, Mencius taught that deposing an evil ruler was the right thing to do. In the age of emperors, Confucianism became the official ideology but they soft-pedaled the right of revolution part, or just removed it from editions of theMencius that were available outside of (probably hidden) private libraries. Although all the emperors probably tried to avoid anyone's looking at the doctrine, it was there all along. In times of revolution, the by-word was "Aid the Way of Heaven," and Heaven was (by their lights anyway) on the way to getting rid of a rotten ruler. Meanwhile, China was in ordinary times elaborating a civil service system with an examination system that was heavy on Confucian ideology and light on practical matters. Officials who went against ideological standards were on very shifty ground. They were almost entirely not technocrats in the sense used in the West.
Deng Xiaoping did not have an engineering degree, but he had a double-dose of education in science, first in France, and later at the "Toilers of the East" program in Moscow. He had lots of life experience that made him value cats of whatever color as long as they could catch rats. Possibly it was his initial impulse and/or his example that has made the CCP favor engineers over ideologues.
Lawyers frequently get involved in politics and people with political aspirations see that governors, people in Congress, and presidents are very frequently lawyers. So they may decide to study law because they want to go into politics, or they may go into politics because they experience the working of the law at first hand and think some laws need to be made or changed. That is one strong reason why elected officials often are lawyers.
The other reason may be that lawyers are by nature and/or by nurture aggressive contenders and defenders of the underdog. Someone who is not comfortable with the confrontational and adversary relationships of the courtroom may, like Eisenhower, feel offended by it or, like some others, feel intimidated by it.
One of my teachers maintained (along with lots of his colleagues I believe) that lawyers are more aggressive than people in most other professions, and that lawyers are that way, perhaps among other reasons, because they are mostly the second child in a family with three or more children. From their early childhood they are sensitized to the unfairness visited on blameless people by time and tides. The elder child, especially the elder son, is the prince of the family and often passes down parental directives as a kind of informal deputy. The elder child may be full of himself as a result, and/or may take advantage. The younger children, and especially the youngest child, can do things at an earlier age that his/her siblings, and, as "the baby of the family" can often get away with just about anything. The second child keeps thinking, "It's not fair! I hate for people to be treated this way!" The s/he grows up, and that is still a part of his/her mainstream plan.
The contentious "I'll knock you off your damned perch, you son of a bitch" character structure would not be appreciated in China. There are no real elections where legitimately taking offense at some lame-brained mayor might be a good idea. So, my guess anyway, the engineer will win "politically" who can calmly point out that building an irrigation canal from reservoir A to city Y is indeed desirable but because of the way the terrain is laid out, there is a 100 meter drop in between A and Y, which are at roughly the same altitude, and pumping all that water all that way would be prohibitively expensive.
The problem with American politics is that we too often have appointed officials who have only ideological credentials and no science or foresight. The remedy has to come after the fact, usually by not re-electing the president or governor who made such a stupid appointment.
The problem with Chinese government is that there are no feedback mechanisms built in by which ordinary people who have been wronged by stupid or immoral actions by officialdom can achieve redress.
America needs more engineers (or at least George Marshall types who know the main stuff and also how to get the right subordinates to do the calculator and spreadsheet work). China needs more people who have gone through some teaching experiences such as the "Toilers of the East" experience that, dangerous laboratory though it may have been for some, taught a whole generation of leaders (including people from Ho Chi Minh to Jiang Jingguo) to look beyond philosophical theory of sacrosanct ideology ("Who cares, really, what these crazy Russians think! It's mostly dog fart, anyway.") to how things really work.
It must have been fascinating to have been one of a hundred or so of the brightest young minds in Asia, stuffed into one building 24/7 and arguing everything out, after hours of course, among themselves!
American governance used to be carried out by officials who were appointed on the basis of patronage rather than on the basis of competence. A bookie or a ward heeler turned Secretary of Commerce might not do a very good job. Eventually that system came to an end and the U.S. got a real civil service system. The people were selected had to be objectively reasonably capable of filling some job in the first place, and then they had to work their way up. All of these people are, I guess, technocrats of one stripe or another. The Defense Department is generally filled with people having military know-how, but the Secretary of Defense is appointed by the President and reflects the "orders going down the chain of command" more strongly than the implementation part of the game. Somebody like John Boyd comes into the DOD with fighter pilot experience and also with an engineering degree. The President says, "We need better jet fighters," and after Boyd and a few cohorts go to work we get the F-16. So there are lots of engineers and people with similar technical qualifications in government. George Marshall was probably as good a general as was Eisenhower, but Marshall was a whiz at organizing and keeping moving all of the supplies needed to win WW II. He must have taught himself that special kind of engineering or must have become that kind of technocrat on his own. I don't think there was a school for that kind of thing or a department at Cal Tech to go to.
The other main thing that has to happen to make this whole thing work is that when the people of your home state get sick of the rabies rate going up year after year, or sick of funds allocated for inoculation campaigns being diverted to a monument to the governor of the state, they must be able to raise a little hell and make the governing system dig the trouble makers out. In the U.S. this might mean electing somebody else for governor, and/or electing somebody for president who would take misappropriation of state funds seriously and straighten out either the appointed officials messing up or the civil service system that was allowing somebody with a high rank in the civil service to play with the people's money.
In the extreme case in the US, we forced a president to resign. If he had not resigned he would have been impeached, found guilty, and deposed. If we didnot have that capability, we could end up with a dictatorial president, and the people would take it to the streets.
In European history there was no civil remedy for a king gone bad. The only answer, up until around the time of the Magna Carta, was revolution. God had supposedly made John, Richard, or Harry king, and that was the end of it. No complaints were to be expressed.
In China, Mencius taught that deposing an evil ruler was the right thing to do. In the age of emperors, Confucianism became the official ideology but they soft-pedaled the right of revolution part, or just removed it from editions of theMencius that were available outside of (probably hidden) private libraries. Although all the emperors probably tried to avoid anyone's looking at the doctrine, it was there all along. In times of revolution, the by-word was "Aid the Way of Heaven," and Heaven was (by their lights anyway) on the way to getting rid of a rotten ruler. Meanwhile, China was in ordinary times elaborating a civil service system with an examination system that was heavy on Confucian ideology and light on practical matters. Officials who went against ideological standards were on very shifty ground. They were almost entirely not technocrats in the sense used in the West.
Deng Xiaoping did not have an engineering degree, but he had a double-dose of education in science, first in France, and later at the "Toilers of the East" program in Moscow. He had lots of life experience that made him value cats of whatever color as long as they could catch rats. Possibly it was his initial impulse and/or his example that has made the CCP favor engineers over ideologues.
Lawyers frequently get involved in politics and people with political aspirations see that governors, people in Congress, and presidents are very frequently lawyers. So they may decide to study law because they want to go into politics, or they may go into politics because they experience the working of the law at first hand and think some laws need to be made or changed. That is one strong reason why elected officials often are lawyers.
The other reason may be that lawyers are by nature and/or by nurture aggressive contenders and defenders of the underdog. Someone who is not comfortable with the confrontational and adversary relationships of the courtroom may, like Eisenhower, feel offended by it or, like some others, feel intimidated by it.
One of my teachers maintained (along with lots of his colleagues I believe) that lawyers are more aggressive than people in most other professions, and that lawyers are that way, perhaps among other reasons, because they are mostly the second child in a family with three or more children. From their early childhood they are sensitized to the unfairness visited on blameless people by time and tides. The elder child, especially the elder son, is the prince of the family and often passes down parental directives as a kind of informal deputy. The elder child may be full of himself as a result, and/or may take advantage. The younger children, and especially the youngest child, can do things at an earlier age that his/her siblings, and, as "the baby of the family" can often get away with just about anything. The second child keeps thinking, "It's not fair! I hate for people to be treated this way!" The s/he grows up, and that is still a part of his/her mainstream plan.
The contentious "I'll knock you off your damned perch, you son of a bitch" character structure would not be appreciated in China. There are no real elections where legitimately taking offense at some lame-brained mayor might be a good idea. So, my guess anyway, the engineer will win "politically" who can calmly point out that building an irrigation canal from reservoir A to city Y is indeed desirable but because of the way the terrain is laid out, there is a 100 meter drop in between A and Y, which are at roughly the same altitude, and pumping all that water all that way would be prohibitively expensive.
The problem with American politics is that we too often have appointed officials who have only ideological credentials and no science or foresight. The remedy has to come after the fact, usually by not re-electing the president or governor who made such a stupid appointment.
The problem with Chinese government is that there are no feedback mechanisms built in by which ordinary people who have been wronged by stupid or immoral actions by officialdom can achieve redress.
America needs more engineers (or at least George Marshall types who know the main stuff and also how to get the right subordinates to do the calculator and spreadsheet work). China needs more people who have gone through some teaching experiences such as the "Toilers of the East" experience that, dangerous laboratory though it may have been for some, taught a whole generation of leaders (including people from Ho Chi Minh to Jiang Jingguo) to look beyond philosophical theory of sacrosanct ideology ("Who cares, really, what these crazy Russians think! It's mostly dog fart, anyway.") to how things really work.
It must have been fascinating to have been one of a hundred or so of the brightest young minds in Asia, stuffed into one building 24/7 and arguing everything out, after hours of course, among themselves!
China until quite recently basically banned lawyers, therefore a law education was not even possible. "Provisional Act on Lawyers of the People's Republic of China, which took effect on January 1, 1982. Before the law went into effect, there were only [...] 4,800 lawyers in China" http://en.wikipedia.org/w
Since China is a Communist country, where the working class (ie, the urban blue collars) is supposedly the ruler of the society, it makes sense for the political elite to come mainly from the "higher" urban blue collars = engineers (as that's how they are considered in a Communist country).
Be sure that all of those leaders have the political school, nothing else really matters.
So the real comparison would be between political school graduates in China vs. law school graduates in the US.
Since China is a Communist country, where the working class (ie, the urban blue collars) is supposedly the ruler of the society, it makes sense for the political elite to come mainly from the "higher" urban blue collars = engineers (as that's how they are considered in a Communist country).
Be sure that all of those leaders have the political school, nothing else really matters.
So the real comparison would be between political school graduates in China vs. law school graduates in the US.
Historically, engineers have been highly valued in communist countries because when the government is responsible for all construction and production, who're you gonna call? You need engineers. And working for the government, engineers who want to advance have to become political animals. In a democracy, government is only responsible (theoretically) for legislating and regulating, hence experts in law rise to the top. It's a bit of a case of an unworkable form of government run by reasonably capable people vs. a workable form of government run by sleazeballs (just kidding, but you get the point). European countries, being somewhat of a hybrid, also have a higher proportion of 'technocrats' in high office than the US.
That is a sharp observation and question in comparative cultural study. It's determined by the way of thinking and political top priorities shaped by their different cultural heritage for thousands of years.
The philosophical and religious tradition of the Greek, Roman, Judeo-Christian culture has been to pursue freedom and justice. If I ask what or rather who is the ultimate justice? You'd understand what I mean. Harmonious co-existence of the differences is unjust heresy and evil in the universalized system of rule of God's law in the west. Hence American leaders are better off being lawyers. And they often (pretend to) have spiritual advisers. Building a prosperous society is not govt's job description. It's up to individuals and private corporations in capitalism.
The Chinese could care less about supernatural ideals of freedom and justice. There is no such concepts in the Chinese philosophy of Taoism and Confucianism. The Chinese follow and advocate the way of the nature. They care about the harmony and prosperity of the people, and yes, harmonious co-existence of the differences is a moral virtue. In other words, what the Chinese want is the leaders to construct. Hence they better off being engineers, architects and MBA's. And that's why they suck at dealing with crazy western religions like Christianity and communism and ideologies like the supernatural human rights.
The philosophical and religious tradition of the Greek, Roman, Judeo-Christian culture has been to pursue freedom and justice. If I ask what or rather who is the ultimate justice? You'd understand what I mean. Harmonious co-existence of the differences is unjust heresy and evil in the universalized system of rule of God's law in the west. Hence American leaders are better off being lawyers. And they often (pretend to) have spiritual advisers. Building a prosperous society is not govt's job description. It's up to individuals and private corporations in capitalism.
The Chinese could care less about supernatural ideals of freedom and justice. There is no such concepts in the Chinese philosophy of Taoism and Confucianism. The Chinese follow and advocate the way of the nature. They care about the harmony and prosperity of the people, and yes, harmonious co-existence of the differences is a moral virtue. In other words, what the Chinese want is the leaders to construct. Hence they better off being engineers, architects and MBA's. And that's why they suck at dealing with crazy western religions like Christianity and communism and ideologies like the supernatural human rights.
762 Views
I read an article few months ago talking about the differences of the graduates between Peking University and Tsinghua University:
It says gradutes from Peking tend to be more open-minded and people-oriented while
gradutes from Tsinghua tend to be more "dumb" and "disciplined", that means engineers from Tsinghua tend to hold fast to communist tenets and will not sway too far away from the CPC guidelines.
But i guess, in 1989, the numbers of students from these two universities on Tiananmen Square were probably not that far off..
Well, it's just a way of looking at this question...
It says gradutes from Peking tend to be more open-minded and people-oriented while
gradutes from Tsinghua tend to be more "dumb" and "disciplined", that means engineers from Tsinghua tend to hold fast to communist tenets and will not sway too far away from the CPC guidelines.
But i guess, in 1989, the numbers of students from these two universities on Tiananmen Square were probably not that far off..
Well, it's just a way of looking at this question...
This question make me recall a joke about a current Chinese leader:
- Hey, do you know Zhang Dejiang will take charge of China's economic affairs?
- So What?
- There are one good news and one bad news. The good one is he has a degree of economics.
- What's the bad one?
- He received the degree from Kim Il-sung University in Pyongyang.
- Hey, do you know Zhang Dejiang will take charge of China's economic affairs?
- So What?
- There are one good news and one bad news. The good one is he has a degree of economics.
- What's the bad one?
- He received the degree from Kim Il-sung University in Pyongyang.
I'm clueless about Chinese politics, but having a STEM-related degree in the world of politics isn't just in China. In Europe, there have been some major political leaders with science degrees. Former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher had a Chemistry degree and worked as a research scientist prior to her political life and current chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel has a doctorate in quantum chemistry.
The type of university degree a person has doesn't really matter. It is usually the type of leadership and political knowledge a person has that influences whether the politician is good. China obviously has no elections, so who cares about what university degree the leaders have. The law degree is just a formality. The U.S just wants the president to have knowledge in law just so they can be reassured that the president knows what he/she is doing. However in the past and current events, some presidents don't look like they knew what they were doing and they still had law degrees.
The type of university degree a person has doesn't really matter. It is usually the type of leadership and political knowledge a person has that influences whether the politician is good. China obviously has no elections, so who cares about what university degree the leaders have. The law degree is just a formality. The U.S just wants the president to have knowledge in law just so they can be reassured that the president knows what he/she is doing. However in the past and current events, some presidents don't look like they knew what they were doing and they still had law degrees.
A very simple explanation would be that America has an excess of J.D.s, while China has a shortage.
Back in 2007 or so, I attended a lecture on law in China, and the speaker cited a statistic saying that there are more lawyers in the state of California (37 million population) than in the entirety of China (1.3 billion population).
Based on some quick internet research, even as the number of lawyers rises in China, it does not seem to necessarily mean that the number of law degrees rises (I think this number was accurate in 2002 http://www.china.org.cn/e
In addition, China's regulatory institutions are still rapidly evolving, while the US's have been steadily developing for centuries, so there's value to a US leader learning how the system currently works in order to navigate the extant maze of bureaucracy and red tape, while a Chinese leader would want to learn to build something more efficient from the ground up.
Back in 2007 or so, I attended a lecture on law in China, and the speaker cited a statistic saying that there are more lawyers in the state of California (37 million population) than in the entirety of China (1.3 billion population).
Based on some quick internet research, even as the number of lawyers rises in China, it does not seem to necessarily mean that the number of law degrees rises (I think this number was accurate in 2002 http://www.china.org.cn/e
China has 110,000 Lawyers & over 9,000 law offices The number of lawyers in China has exceeded 110,000, with half of them having a tertiary education background, according to the head of the All-China Lawyers Association.
Forty percent of the China lawyers hold university diplomas, while five percent have obtained master's degree's or doctorate's, the official noted.http://www.chinalawyers.com/
In addition, China's regulatory institutions are still rapidly evolving, while the US's have been steadily developing for centuries, so there's value to a US leader learning how the system currently works in order to navigate the extant maze of bureaucracy and red tape, while a Chinese leader would want to learn to build something more efficient from the ground up.
I think you'll find a lot of political opinions here, but I think you can also find your own answer by simply rewording your own question:
In a one party system when political science and law have "correct" predefined answer, how does a future leader give themselves distinction and add value in such a system?
I think the answer is obvious.
In a one party system when political science and law have "correct" predefined answer, how does a future leader give themselves distinction and add value in such a system?
I think the answer is obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments always welcome!