Two important secondary sources for information on Chinese civil aviation were the Rand Corp.'s Memorandums RM-4666–PR, June 1966, and RM-4666-1-PR, December 1968, entitled Civil Aviation in Communist China Since 1949. These two reports, written by Harriet E. Porch, provide valuable information on the development of civil aviation in China since 1949. They cover such topics as administration, operations, traffic, and aircraft inventory. Jane's All the World's Aircraft gives detailed information on the types of aircraft used by the CAAC and permits an appraisal of these aircraft. The Western press has also been very useful in providing recent information on civil aviation. A proliferation of articles on possible Chinese aircraft purchases and extended Chinese international air service has recently appeared in the U.S. and foreign press. Many articles on Chinese civil aviation in general have been published in the press and in periodicals since the Chinese have shown interest in acquiring additional aircraft. Source material for the military logistics section of the paper was largely restricted to two books on the PLA and two articles on Chinese military capabilities. Information on military logistics is limited; thus, much of the section is based on a general knowledge of the transportation system and its operations. Two books on the PLA, The Chinese People's Liberation Army, New York, 1967, by Samuel B. Griffith II, and The Red Army of China, New York, 1963, by Edgar O'Ballance, provide general background information on military logistics operations in the country, although little specific description of these operations is included. General Griffith also published an interesting article in Foreign Affairs, January 1965, entitled "Communist China's Capacity to Make War," which presents an overview of China's military logistic capabilities. Also, an article by Michael Yahuda in Current History, September 1969, entitled "China's Military Capabilities," includes some material on military logistics, especially in the area of the SinoSoviet border. The mammoth publication (776 large pages with small print) entitled The Politics of the Chinese Red Army: A Translation of the Bulletin of Activities of the People's Liberation Army, Stanford, 1966, contains little information on military logistics, but it did yield a figure for the number of military vehicles in the army in 1961. In addition to the sources mentioned above, a number of journal articles contain interesting and informative accounts of various aspects of the Chinese transportation system. Following is a list of the more pertinent articles: Ranjit Chaudhuri, "The Present State of Transportation in China," China Report, November-December 1968, p. 1. Holland Hunter, "Transport in Soviet and Chinese Development," Economic Development and Cultural Change, October 1965, p. 71. Victor D. Lippit, "Development of Transportation in Communist China," The China Quarterly, July-September 1966, p. 101. Colina McDougall, "Revolution on China's Railroads," Current Scene, August 16, 1968, p. 1. Harald Munthe-Kaas, "Roads and Rails in China," Far Eastern Economic Review, February 17, 1966, p. 275. Jan S. Prybyla, "Transportation in Communist China," Land Economics, August 1966, p. 268. "Railroads and Highways," China News Analysis, December 4, 1964, p. 1. Data on the Soviet railroads were taken from Soviet handbooks and from an excellent article entitled "Soviet Railways: a vast new plan as traffic totals soar," in the October 1971 issue of the International Railway Journal. CHINA'S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: CONTINUITY AND INNOVATION By LEO A. ORLEANS I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS* Since the Cultural Revolution China has once again demonstrated her almost uncanny ability to "bounce back." True of the country as a whole, it is also true of her science, technology and education. The rather widespread conviction that the Cultural Revolution has had calamitous and lasting effects on science and technology stems primarily from the belief that the assault against the scientists, engineers, and professors decimated their ranks and left those remaining demoralized, embittered, and ineffective. It is true that the intellectual community was probably affected more than any other segment of the society, but it is now obvious that it did not suffer any permanent damage. If Mao Tse-tung is to be held responsible for the attacks against intellectuals, he should also be given some credit for keeping these attacks under control, for it is important to realize that Mao is neither anti-intellectual nor anti-science. On the contrary, he has great respect for knowledge and learning. What he is against is elitism and it is this very common characteristic that the policies of verbal abuse and physical work have been trying to eradicate from the consciousness of the Chinese intellectuals. Actually, perhaps the words that best describe today's science in the People's Republic of China are continuity and innovation. The policies that guided scientific and technological development in China during the 15 years prior to the Cultural Revolution are still in effect, and what are often assumed to be vacillations are little more than temporary changes in attitudes and pressures due to the political mood of a particular period. In other words, politics have always been in command-even when in practice this was not the case; scientists and engineers, particularly if they were foreign trained, were always suspect even when they were in ascendancy; applied science to meet immediate economic needs always took priority over basic research-even though during more relaxed periods individual scientists may have strayed from this principle; self-reliance, for whatever purpose, was always preferred to dependency on outside assistance-even though at times ideology gave way to expediency. Because all these principles were pounded with special fervor during the Cultural Revolution, some recent observers of the China scene interpreted them as significant changes from the past, whereas they actually represent more of a continuum. At the same time that there has been continuity in the basic principles relating to science and technology, the Cultural Revolution did bring some important changes, but these were more a reflection of *Warm thanks to David L. Putnam and Margaret Finarelli for their very helpful comments. |