13 ms·

I think the notion of proliferation of broadly available technical knowledge is correct, but I'm not entirely convinced whether literature in particular was so

I think the notion of proliferation of broadly available technical knowledge is correct, but I'm not entirely convinced whether literature in particular was so relevant. In How Asia Works, a great book on industrial expansion in Asia, Studwell notes that when Taiwan was moderately prosperous and dominated by industry half of the workforce could not even read. What really benefited East-Asia was a grey-collar culture, a national, egalitarian educational system and corporatism rather than a white-collar, classist and academic culture more common in say, England. This is something you also find in Germany. The education system was designed to be broad. Schools were universal and focused on practical knowledge, with few ivory towers. Knowledge was historically and is still spread around between institutes (Frauenhofer say), firms, and industry-friendly universities, dispersed and practical rather than concentrated, theoretic and elitist. This Prussian style system which is really where most German institutions come from also was quite literally copied by a lot of now industrial powerhouses in Asia.

baybal2 5y ago
A tidbit: English bureaucratic system was in part copied from pre-1905 China, through East India Company.
- jimnotgym 5y ago
  And we still call government bureaucrats 'Mandarins' for that reason. Especially, 'Whitehall Mandarins', Whitehall being the area of London where several government ministeries are based.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Linguistic curiosities abound. “Mandarin” also being the name of a particular type of orange (fruit) because of the Chinese connection. The Dutch word for the fruit being “sinaasappel” — Modification of earlier “Chinas-appel” (close enough to English to guess) — https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/sinaasappel https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/sinaasappel However, the Orange Order in Northern Ireland is named after the Dutch King William of Orange, whose title “Prince of Orange” derives from a principality in southern France — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Orange https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Orange — but this in turn is probably etymologically derived from the Gaulish ar-aus(i)o- ('temple, cheek': https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange,_Vaucluse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange,_Vaucluse) while the fruit and colour come from the Arabic nāranj (نارنج) which is probably close to the original name for the fruit in Asia.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  "Copying the best parts of a proven system while dropping the worst parts" is a good method of achieving progress. To a degree, most modern programming languages do just that - inspire themselves in ye olde K&R C of the 1970s heavily, but dropping the parts that made the code unsafe or impractical.
- twelvechairs 5y ago
  And it was re-exported too. Singapore particularly has developed from the english bureaucracy of the mid 20th C (as well as the earlier Chinese system) and has retained a very strong 'public service' while this has been dismantled in a lot of English-speaking world in the late 20th C
cycomanic 5y ago
I'm not sure I agree. The pillar of the Humbold University system is holistic learning and research with freedom from "practical" constrains and political interference. In particular it is a model of general education beyond just vocational training. I also note that in addition to the Fraunhofer institutes which as you rightly say have a applied f9cus there are also the Max Planck Institutes with a much more fundamental focus. In fact I would argue that research in Germany is much more fundamentals focused than in many other countries.
- FabHK 5y ago
  Sure, there is the tradition of the purely academic Humboldt University in Germany, but there is also a long tradition of vocational training mixed with some theoretical schooling ("Ausbildung"). So there are definitely both strands, and to put fundamental scientific achievements into practice, the second one might matter more.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    I don't think so, plumbers, bricklayers etc. are not the ones putting fundamental scientific achievements into practice. That's engineers and other scientists. That doesn't mean the German system of separating vocational training and university training is not useful. However it does actually the opposite of what the original post hypothized, it separates vocational training from universities. Unlike in many other countries, universities in Germany do not do vocational training in general.
    - _Microft 5y ago
      There are also Fachhochschulen, "universities of applied sciences", that cover the middle ground between vocational and academic training.
- Ajef 5y ago
  As far as I know the Universities are generally more research focused in comparison the the "Fachhochschulen". However according to [1] there are simply more Fachhochschulen than universities in Germany - obviously this doesn't say anything about their cumulative size in comparison to each other. [1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/247238/umfrage/hochschulen-in-deutschland-nach-hochschulart/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/247238/umfrag...
lwkl 5y ago
I don't live in Germany but one of it's German speaking neighbors and we have also have a so called dual education system. In tertiary education there are multiple tracks you can choose the more academically focused universities, more industry focused universities of applied sciences and higher certificates in the profession you learned (my father for example got a master painter certification, which allowed him to train apprentices and taught him a lot of the skills to run his own business). But what's more important the school system starts splitting people up into workers and academics as soon as they start their secondary education: - The kids that perform better in school go to the "Gymnasium" which leads them to get a high school degree (Abitur or Matura) which allows entry to universities focused on academics. - The kids that perform worse go to a junior high school and start an apprenticeship and go to vocational school after finishing junior high. The academically stronger kids also have the option to get a high school degree at vocational school that allows them to enter a university of applied science (Fachabitur or Berufsmaturität). Of course there are ways to change between the two tracks but most people follow one of the given paths. And I'd say even the more "ivory-tower" universities at least in STEM are really industry focused with companies having a big presence on campuses.
- oblio 5y ago
  That system sounds super harsh, though. I think it splits the tracks when you're 10. I know plenty of folks who didn't know what they wanted to do even when they were 20, how are you supposed to do that when you're 10?
  - namenotrequired 5y ago
    You don't choose. It's decided for you based on your ability. Edit: not disagreeing that it's harsh, just wanted to clarify that point.
    - Haga 5y ago
      Which is mostly decided by the class of your parents
    - 5y ago
jonwachob91 5y ago
>>>Studwell notes that when Taiwan was moderately prosperous and dominated by industry half of the workforce could not even read. What really benefited East-Asia was a grey-collar culture, a national, egalitarian educational system and corporatism rather than a white-collar, classist and academic culture more common in say, England. The rise of industrialization in the states was driven by an educated work force from England that was low on supplies and materials, so they immigrated to the USA which had an abundance of supplies and materials. When the English workers that were educated in various industrialization techniques setup in the USA, Americans got apprenticeship jobs under the educated English workers and learned. Your observation about England being white-collar, classist and academic culture may be true to a general extent, but they were the first industrialized nation and then spread that industrialization knowledge through firms, trade, and related institutions. England did not rely on a classist ivory tower culture to operate their industrial sector nor to spread that knowledge.
hilbert42 5y ago
"What really benefited East-Asia was a grey-collar culture, a national, egalitarian educational system and corporatism rather than a white-collar, classist and academic culture more common in say, England." I can't agree more, as I saw what you say for a fact when working in Asia (mainly in Japan and to a lesser extent elsewhere—as I'd spent less time in those other areas). The work I was doing at the time meant that I mingled daily with ordinary workers and I could see firsthand the way the work culture worked. I recall several instances that struck home to the extent that I've never forgotten them—and I've recounted them to others on many occasions since to illustrate this cultural difference, for they manifest in different (and very sensible) patterns of work (the approach to certain types of work are altogether different to those one typically sees in Western cultures). Once such instance involved a very well known Japanese car manufacturer (where for a time I found myself working in a Japanese car manufacturing plant along with the workers (it's too involved to explain how this came about, you'll just have to take my word that it's fact). Needless to say, car manufacturing plants are complex beasts especially when they involve JIT (Just in Time), automated assembly, robots etc. as well as skilled manual labor—all simultaneously occurring together. Here, the instance that stands out is how the cleaner/floor-sweeper was employed. Unlike in the West where his job would have been clearly defined to only one type of task—here, that being to keep everything at floor level clean—his 'equivalent' position in Japan was in fact much more complex (also his work was much more varied and thus more interesting for him). Instead of just having to keep the floor clean he had full responsibility for everything that happened in his section of the factory from right at floor level to 30cm above it. This meant that his work and responsibilities involved the following: (a) Keeping the floor clean and ensuring that things/miscellaneous objects were not left in the wrong place that would hinder production. (b) He had full responsibility to ensure that any damage to the floor's work surface was fixed immediately/ASAP and that included ensuring any damage to the painted surface was immediately repainted. (c) He was fully responsible to ensure that any damage to the robot tracks (copper strips embedded at the floor's surface that robots followed to move and deliver stuff) were fixed immediately (as the copper was exposed, the tracks could be easily damaged (an open-circuit could bring things to a halt, hence if damage occurred there then it was of considerable urgency to have them fixed). Moreover, any failure meant that the monkey was on his back to have things up and running ASAP—but what's truly significant was that he had full autonomy to act immediately without first having to seek approval from his supervisors—as he had both the authority and resources at his disposal to do so (if his supervisonrs hadn't already been made aware of the problem, which is most unlikely given the plant's excellent submarine-like Christmas tree fault system that alerts everyone across the plant, then they'd have been informed afterwards). (d) He was responsible for ensuring that all ancillary plant and equipment between floor level and 30cm above it was working and fully maintained (that included facilities such as power outlets (which included both 110 and 220V outlets at every point), note: all power utility outlets were within this 30cm range. (Excluded from his responsibility was plant specifically related to the manufacturing process, industrial machines, presses etc. although he'd be part of the team involved in helping to fix them). (e) He was responsible for ensuring any damage to the walls within this 30cm range was fixed (this also meant responsibly for keeping them clean and when necessary having them repainted. Clearly, this worker had considerable responsibilities and that he'd been properly trained for the work, in fact he wasn't just a cleaner but rather a skilled worker who had to have at least trade-level skills in several trades and the guys who did this work took it very seriously indeed (they considered what they did to be absolutely essential to the production process). I don't have time to discuss the production line fault system except to say that when a production fault occurred all workers responded in ways that would make a drill sergeant very happy (frankly, it was amazing to witness). This and other instances were an eye-opener to me, the way things happened there I reckon just couldn't be implemented in the West, and similarly to you I'd put this down to both the egalitarian educational systems common throughout Asia as well as to workers having a different type of attitude to work—one that's instinctively much more collaborative (they've a very clear sense of the common goals). ______ BTW/Afterthought: I reckon you're right about Germany, it's always had a strong apprenticeship culture from ancient times and it's always paid attention to skill and craftsmanship and not just learning a trade for its own sake (that became evident to me years ago when I was working there). If any part of European cultural work practice can be reasonably equated to that existing in Asia then the German approach to training and apprenticeships has to be the closest (although I reckon it's still quite different to what's seen in Asia). Longstanding journeyman exams, (Gesellenprüfung), and even the more modern duales Ausbildungssystem, vocational training system in Germany along with the traditional time traveling around between an apprentice's training and full-time employment to gain experience shows that traditional apprenticeship culture in Germany was not lost to the same extent as it seems to have been in Anglophone countries, Britain, US, etc. What mainly seems to have happened in Anglophone countries was that a major shift in thinking (a cultural shift) occurred after WWI and we saw a diminution in the influence of traditional guilds/guild halls followed quickly by an abolition of the need for an apprentice to continue studying to become a master craftsman. Failure of a perceived need to continue the master craftsman tradition meant a concomitant loss of respect for that once-revered position, and so on. Why this occurred almost immediately after WWI is hard to say except that I reckon it had much to do with the fact that there are more woodworkers buried in battlefields of Flanders than for any other profession (the next tally being other tradesmen). Thus, after the War the tradition died out for two reasons: (a) there were too few skilled artisans left to take up the guilds tradition as traditionally structured before the War, and (b) that in the wake of this huge loss of personnel from the workforce the way the trades operated was streamlined (and this also included the way apprentices were trained). Why this 'withering' didn't happen in Germany to the same extent given that there are just about as many Germans buried in Flanders as those from other nations, Britain, France etc. is a moot point and it needs answering. The only things I can think of are that German cultural values were different and that they were in fact stronger (Germany didn't start to industrialize until much later than did Britain—industrialization wasn't fully underway in Germany until Bismarck), and perhaps this delay contributed to the fact that values hadn't had time to weaken to the extent that they did in Britain and elsewhere. Moreover, it's likely that intrinsic German values also played a strong role, that being that ingrained cultural practices were harder to shift than elsewhere. If anyone has thoughts or a better/more accurate answer then I'd be glad to hear it.

baybal2 5y ago

A tidbit: English bureaucratic system was in part copied from pre-1905 China, through East India Company.

jimnotgym 5y ago
And we still call government bureaucrats 'Mandarins' for that reason. Especially, 'Whitehall Mandarins', Whitehall being the area of London where several government ministeries are based.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Linguistic curiosities abound. “Mandarin” also being the name of a particular type of orange (fruit) because of the Chinese connection. The Dutch word for the fruit being “sinaasappel” — Modification of earlier “Chinas-appel” (close enough to English to guess) — https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/sinaasappel https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/sinaasappel However, the Orange Order in Northern Ireland is named after the Dutch King William of Orange, whose title “Prince of Orange” derives from a principality in southern France — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Orange https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Orange — but this in turn is probably etymologically derived from the Gaulish ar-aus(i)o- ('temple, cheek': https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange,_Vaucluse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange,_Vaucluse) while the fruit and colour come from the Arabic nāranj (نارنج) which is probably close to the original name for the fruit in Asia.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"Copying the best parts of a proven system while dropping the worst parts" is a good method of achieving progress. To a degree, most modern programming languages do just that - inspire themselves in ye olde K&R C of the 1970s heavily, but dropping the parts that made the code unsafe or impractical.
twelvechairs 5y ago
And it was re-exported too. Singapore particularly has developed from the english bureaucracy of the mid 20th C (as well as the earlier Chinese system) and has retained a very strong 'public service' while this has been dismantled in a lot of English-speaking world in the late 20th C

cycomanic 5y ago

I'm not sure I agree. The pillar of the Humbold University system is holistic learning and research with freedom from "practical" constrains and political interference. In particular it is a model of general education beyond just vocational training. I also note that in addition to the Fraunhofer institutes which as you rightly say have a applied f9cus there are also the Max Planck Institutes with a much more fundamental focus. In fact I would argue that research in Germany is much more fundamentals focused than in many other countries.

FabHK 5y ago
Sure, there is the tradition of the purely academic Humboldt University in Germany, but there is also a long tradition of vocational training mixed with some theoretical schooling ("Ausbildung"). So there are definitely both strands, and to put fundamental scientific achievements into practice, the second one might matter more.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  I don't think so, plumbers, bricklayers etc. are not the ones putting fundamental scientific achievements into practice. That's engineers and other scientists. That doesn't mean the German system of separating vocational training and university training is not useful. However it does actually the opposite of what the original post hypothized, it separates vocational training from universities. Unlike in many other countries, universities in Germany do not do vocational training in general.
  - _Microft 5y ago
    There are also Fachhochschulen, "universities of applied sciences", that cover the middle ground between vocational and academic training.
Ajef 5y ago
As far as I know the Universities are generally more research focused in comparison the the "Fachhochschulen". However according to [1] there are simply more Fachhochschulen than universities in Germany - obviously this doesn't say anything about their cumulative size in comparison to each other. [1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/247238/umfrage/hochschulen-in-deutschland-nach-hochschulart/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/247238/umfrag...

lwkl 5y ago

I don't live in Germany but one of it's German speaking neighbors and we have also have a so called dual education system. In tertiary education there are multiple tracks you can choose the more academically focused universities, more industry focused universities of applied sciences and higher certificates in the profession you learned (my father for example got a master painter certification, which allowed him to train apprentices and taught him a lot of the skills to run his own business). But what's more important the school system starts splitting people up into workers and academics as soon as they start their secondary education: - The kids that perform better in school go to the "Gymnasium" which leads them to get a high school degree (Abitur or Matura) which allows entry to universities focused on academics. - The kids that perform worse go to a junior high school and start an apprenticeship and go to vocational school after finishing junior high. The academically stronger kids also have the option to get a high school degree at vocational school that allows them to enter a university of applied science (Fachabitur or Berufsmaturität). Of course there are ways to change between the two tracks but most people follow one of the given paths. And I'd say even the more "ivory-tower" universities at least in STEM are really industry focused with companies having a big presence on campuses.

oblio 5y ago
That system sounds super harsh, though. I think it splits the tracks when you're 10. I know plenty of folks who didn't know what they wanted to do even when they were 20, how are you supposed to do that when you're 10?
- namenotrequired 5y ago
  You don't choose. It's decided for you based on your ability. Edit: not disagreeing that it's harsh, just wanted to clarify that point.
  - Haga 5y ago
    Which is mostly decided by the class of your parents
  - 5y ago

jonwachob91 5y ago

>>>Studwell notes that when Taiwan was moderately prosperous and dominated by industry half of the workforce could not even read. What really benefited East-Asia was a grey-collar culture, a national, egalitarian educational system and corporatism rather than a white-collar, classist and academic culture more common in say, England. The rise of industrialization in the states was driven by an educated work force from England that was low on supplies and materials, so they immigrated to the USA which had an abundance of supplies and materials. When the English workers that were educated in various industrialization techniques setup in the USA, Americans got apprenticeship jobs under the educated English workers and learned. Your observation about England being white-collar, classist and academic culture may be true to a general extent, but they were the first industrialized nation and then spread that industrialization knowledge through firms, trade, and related institutions. England did not rely on a classist ivory tower culture to operate their industrial sector nor to spread that knowledge.

hilbert42 5y ago

"What really benefited East-Asia was a grey-collar culture, a national, egalitarian educational system and corporatism rather than a white-collar, classist and academic culture more common in say, England." I can't agree more, as I saw what you say for a fact when working in Asia (mainly in Japan and to a lesser extent elsewhere—as I'd spent less time in those other areas). The work I was doing at the time meant that I mingled daily with ordinary workers and I could see firsthand the way the work culture worked. I recall several instances that struck home to the extent that I've never forgotten them—and I've recounted them to others on many occasions since to illustrate this cultural difference, for they manifest in different (and very sensible) patterns of work (the approach to certain types of work are altogether different to those one typically sees in Western cultures). Once such instance involved a very well known Japanese car manufacturer (where for a time I found myself working in a Japanese car manufacturing plant along with the workers (it's too involved to explain how this came about, you'll just have to take my word that it's fact). Needless to say, car manufacturing plants are complex beasts especially when they involve JIT (Just in Time), automated assembly, robots etc. as well as skilled manual labor—all simultaneously occurring together. Here, the instance that stands out is how the cleaner/floor-sweeper was employed. Unlike in the West where his job would have been clearly defined to only one type of task—here, that being to keep everything at floor level clean—his 'equivalent' position in Japan was in fact much more complex (also his work was much more varied and thus more interesting for him). Instead of just having to keep the floor clean he had full responsibility for everything that happened in his section of the factory from right at floor level to 30cm above it. This meant that his work and responsibilities involved the following: (a) Keeping the floor clean and ensuring that things/miscellaneous objects were not left in the wrong place that would hinder production. (b) He had full responsibility to ensure that any damage to the floor's work surface was fixed immediately/ASAP and that included ensuring any damage to the painted surface was immediately repainted. (c) He was fully responsible to ensure that any damage to the robot tracks (copper strips embedded at the floor's surface that robots followed to move and deliver stuff) were fixed immediately (as the copper was exposed, the tracks could be easily damaged (an open-circuit could bring things to a halt, hence if damage occurred there then it was of considerable urgency to have them fixed). Moreover, any failure meant that the monkey was on his back to have things up and running ASAP—but what's truly significant was that he had full autonomy to act immediately without first having to seek approval from his supervisors—as he had both the authority and resources at his disposal to do so (if his supervisonrs hadn't already been made aware of the problem, which is most unlikely given the plant's excellent submarine-like Christmas tree fault system that alerts everyone across the plant, then they'd have been informed afterwards). (d) He was responsible for ensuring that all ancillary plant and equipment between floor level and 30cm above it was working and fully maintained (that included facilities such as power outlets (which included both 110 and 220V outlets at every point), note: all power utility outlets were within this 30cm range. (Excluded from his responsibility was plant specifically related to the manufacturing process, industrial machines, presses etc. although he'd be part of the team involved in helping to fix them). (e) He was responsible for ensuring any damage to the walls within this 30cm range was fixed (this also meant responsibly for keeping them clean and when necessary having them repainted. Clearly, this worker had considerable responsibilities and that he'd been properly trained for the work, in fact he wasn't just a cleaner but rather a skilled worker who had to have at least trade-level skills in several trades and the guys who did this work took it very seriously indeed (they considered what they did to be absolutely essential to the production process). I don't have time to discuss the production line fault system except to say that when a production fault occurred all workers responded in ways that would make a drill sergeant very happy (frankly, it was amazing to witness). This and other instances were an eye-opener to me, the way things happened there I reckon just couldn't be implemented in the West, and similarly to you I'd put this down to both the egalitarian educational systems common throughout Asia as well as to workers having a different type of attitude to work—one that's instinctively much more collaborative (they've a very clear sense of the common goals). ______ BTW/Afterthought: I reckon you're right about Germany, it's always had a strong apprenticeship culture from ancient times and it's always paid attention to skill and craftsmanship and not just learning a trade for its own sake (that became evident to me years ago when I was working there). If any part of European cultural work practice can be reasonably equated to that existing in Asia then the German approach to training and apprenticeships has to be the closest (although I reckon it's still quite different to what's seen in Asia). Longstanding journeyman exams, (Gesellenprüfung), and even the more modern duales Ausbildungssystem, vocational training system in Germany along with the traditional time traveling around between an apprentice's training and full-time employment to gain experience shows that traditional apprenticeship culture in Germany was not lost to the same extent as it seems to have been in Anglophone countries, Britain, US, etc. What mainly seems to have happened in Anglophone countries was that a major shift in thinking (a cultural shift) occurred after WWI and we saw a diminution in the influence of traditional guilds/guild halls followed quickly by an abolition of the need for an apprentice to continue studying to become a master craftsman. Failure of a perceived need to continue the master craftsman tradition meant a concomitant loss of respect for that once-revered position, and so on. Why this occurred almost immediately after WWI is hard to say except that I reckon it had much to do with the fact that there are more woodworkers buried in battlefields of Flanders than for any other profession (the next tally being other tradesmen). Thus, after the War the tradition died out for two reasons: (a) there were too few skilled artisans left to take up the guilds tradition as traditionally structured before the War, and (b) that in the wake of this huge loss of personnel from the workforce the way the trades operated was streamlined (and this also included the way apprentices were trained). Why this 'withering' didn't happen in Germany to the same extent given that there are just about as many Germans buried in Flanders as those from other nations, Britain, France etc. is a moot point and it needs answering. The only things I can think of are that German cultural values were different and that they were in fact stronger (Germany didn't start to industrialize until much later than did Britain—industrialization wasn't fully underway in Germany until Bismarck), and perhaps this delay contributed to the fact that values hadn't had time to weaken to the extent that they did in Britain and elsewhere. Moreover, it's likely that intrinsic German values also played a strong role, that being that ingrained cultural practices were harder to shift than elsewhere. If anyone has thoughts or a better/more accurate answer then I'd be glad to hear it.