The Role of the State in Fostering Science and Innovation
I am currently completing a co-authored book manuscript tentatively titled Revisiting the Needham Question: The Rise and Fall of Chinese Inventiveness, forthcoming in 2025 from Princeton University Press. The book revisits Joseph Needham’s seminal question: “Why and how did China cede its leadership in science and technology to Western countries in the 17th century and fail to launch its own Industrial Revolution?”
We address this question with empirical evidence from over 10,000 inventions and scientific discoveries, drawing on data meticulously coded from Science and Civilization in China over the past decade. We reframe the question by focusing on temporal variations within Chinese history rather than a static comparison between China and Europe. Specifically, we explore: 1) What enabled ancient China to initially lead the world in science and technology for centuries? and 2) Why—and crucially, when—did China begin to fall behind?
Our findings indicate that imperial China was at the forefront of technological advancement from the 5th century BCE to the 6th century CE, experienced a gradual decline from the 6th to the 13th century, and faced a significant stagnation from the 14th to the 19th century. We propose a theory on the double-edged role of the state, introducing a tripartite typology of the imperial Chinese state that aligns closely with technological development patterns. This framework conceptualizes Chinese history as a journey through three distinct political phases with varied impacts on technology: 1) the polycentric state, characterized by political and ideological polycentrism; 2) the enabling state, marked by reduced ideological diversity and political polycentrism; and 3) the controlling state, where state capacity was concentrated on political absolutism and ideological uniformity.
The book’s findings offer significant policy implications: while the state should continue to provide financial and infrastructural support for science and innovation, it should avoid intervening in specific topics or industries. Emphasizing sustainable development, the research advocates for a balance where state support could foster long–term growth and innovation without stifling the autonomy and dynamism essential for a thriving society.
Policy Choices, Social Networks, and Political Consequences
I study the antecedent of network formation and its impact on political consequences. Regarding how networks and politics are intertwined, I focus on a specific historical context: the civil-service examinations (CSE) in historical China. By analyzing a unique dataset of 12,752 students who passed the CSEs between 1400 and 1580, my co-authored research has provided significant insights into this system. For instance, in the article “Intergenerational Mobility through Inhabited Meritocracy” published in the Canadian Review of Sociology, we analyze the causal effect of social capital on upward mobility, distinguishing between the availability and mobilization dimensions of social capital. Our findings reveal that while availability of social capital (e.g., having ancestors in the bureaucracy) significantly impacted exam rankings, its mobilization (e.g., whether a student’s father was alive) was less crucial, suggesting that family legacy was more influential than individual agency.
Furthering on social networks and politics, our article “Networks Rewired,” conditionally accepted by Social Forces, delves into the origins and consequences of native place ties among the political elite starting in the 15th century. We argue that a regional quota system introduced in 1427–an extreme case of affirmative action– inadvertently mobilized these ties as a primary basis for network homophily, which then influenced examination evaluations and political careers. Our analysis reveals that examiners frequently favored students from their home provinces, thereby perpetuating regional inequality among political elites. This trend is further examined in the working paper “Hiring Managers,” where we employ insights from personnel economics to model the strategic discretion exercised by examiners in their hiring decisions. We find that place-based favoritism was tolerated because it ultimately led to superior post-hiring performance.
Organizational Identities and Social Change
My research delves into how organizational identities are constructed and their broader implications. On the supply side, I explore how members of a religious organization create and communicate their collective image to attract and engage stakeholders. In my article “Becoming Buddhists,” published in the British Journal of Sociology, I document the emergence of a new organizational prototype within Buddhism. A group of elite university students navigated various institutional constraints, became monks, and founded a new temple in Beijing. Throughout this process, they strategically made identity claims at various stages, which helped reshape conventional religious practices into an organized template and enhanced their integration into society. As they expanded their efforts to develop a spin-off charity foundation, they also fostered a cultural repertoire of volunteering, thereby enhancing civic participation. Building on this, my working paper “The Value of Organizational Identities” analyzes the emergence of approximately 7,000 foundations in China, linking their choices of goals to within-country institutional variations.
Turning to the demand side, I analyze how organizational identities are perceived and evaluated by external audiences. In the co-authored article “Revolving around Political Connections,” published in Socio-Economic Review, I explore the negative signaling effect of government venture capital (GVC) backing on initial public offering (IPO) valuations. The study argues that GVC, seen as a political connection, is perceived negatively by investors due to the stark contrast between state and private ownership. While GVC backing may initially help secure resources and an IPO quota, it subsequently signals a lack of managerial autonomy, which diminishes IPO valuations.
Institutionalization of Corporate Social Responsibility
Interested in how businesses respond to social movement pressures, my research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) focuses on its institutional origins and evolution over time. In the article “Institutionalizing Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure” published in Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, we trace the historic websites of global Fortune 500 companies to understand the development of CSR reporting. Our findings show how companies transitioned from ad hoc mentions of CSR to adopting a formal reporting template in response to global initiatives like the Global Compact.
I also explore the organizational heterogeneity in CSR responses, particularly how founding imprints influence firms’ CSR practices. In a series of co-authored papers published in management and sociology journals, we analyze 1,037 firms in China and find that those established in the socialist era are more likely to emphasize labor themes but less likely to engage in environmental protection. This reflects the historical context of their founding.
As CSR continues to evolve, I am currently collaborating on a project examining how firms improve their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores. Specifically, we study the impact of the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 on Chinese firms’ CSR practices, finding that early adopters of CSR initiatives—those mobilized by the state post-earthquake—have since adapted more effectively to the emerging ESG framework.
Evolving Interests
The completion of my manuscript, Revisiting the Needham Question, represents a key step in understanding the historical dynamics of technological leadership and state influence. This project has opened up new research directions that I am eager to pursue. I plan to examine how modern state policies affect the innovation ecosystem and the broader implications for an equitable and just society. In particular, I intend to explore critical issues such as data governance, privacy, digital inequality, and antitrust dynamics against monopolistic practices in the tech industry, assessing how these factors shape the landscape of innovation and influence the distribution of opportunities within society.