Ever wonder why some countries seem to build at lightning speed while others get bogged down in red tape? A new book by Dan Wang reveals a fascinating cultural difference: the engineer versus the lawyer. Could this fundamental distinction explain global competitive advantages? Discover the insights that could reshape how we view national development.
Dan Wang’s new book, “Breakneck,” offers a provocative new framework for understanding the divergent development paths and competitive strategies of the United States and China, positing a fundamental distinction between a “lawyerly society” and an “engineering state.”
Wang’s central argument delves into the professional backgrounds dominating the elite classes of both nations. In Washington, political leaders predominantly emerge from legal fields, fostering a governance style that prioritizes meticulous compliance, extensive litigation, and deliberate processes. Conversely, Beijing’s senior leadership is often steeped in civil or defense engineering, cultivating a preference for rapid execution, large-scale construction, and a willingness to address complexities after deployment.
This educational divergence, Wang theorizes, profoundly shapes national governance styles and China’s development strategies. The lawyerly approach of the US, while ensuring checks and balances, can lead to prolonged approval cycles and bureaucratic hurdles, impacting US infrastructure projects. The engineering mindset, however, facilitates swift decision-making and ambitious infrastructure initiatives, enabling China’s rapid development.
It’s crucial to understand that Wang’s framework isn’t about declaring a superior system but rather positioning the US and China at opposite ends of a spectrum. Other developed nations, such as France, Germany, and Japan, typically fall somewhere in between these two extremes, exhibiting a blend of both legal and engineering influences in their governance.
Wang’s proposed solution for enhancing global competition involves a strategic rebalancing. He suggests that for the United States to boost its engineering state capacity by about 20 percent, it needs to recover some of its historical “building muscles.” Simultaneously, he argues that China could benefit from becoming approximately 50 percent more “lawyerly,” potentially by incorporating more legal scrutiny into its rapid development processes.
Historically, the United States was a formidable engineering state, responsible for monumental achievements like the transcontinental rail systems, the Apollo missions, and the Manhattan Project. New York City itself stands as a testament to this past, with its century-old subway system being a marvel of early 20th-century US infrastructure. Wang suggests that modern America could draw inspiration from this legacy.
The discussion extends to figures like Robert Moses, New York’s controversial urban planner, who spearheaded massive infrastructure projects that reshaped the city, despite also displacing communities. Wang uses such examples to highlight the transformative power of decisive builders and argues that contemporary urban planning in the US could benefit from a renewed emphasis on ambitious construction, balancing efficiency with social considerations to avoid excessive litigation.
Ultimately, Dan Wang’s compelling new book challenges conventional wisdom, offering a fresh lens through which to examine the dynamics between the world’s two largest superpowers. By focusing on the foundational differences in leadership training and their resulting governance philosophies, “Breakneck” provides critical insights into China’s development trajectory and what the US might need to recalibrate for sustained global competition.
