Resolving the Needham Puzzle: Let the Evidence Speak—An Explanation on the Origin of China's Tobacco Industry

In 1954, the famous British historian Joseph Needham put forward a famous puzzle in the preface to his Science and Civilisation in China: before the 15th century, China's civilization was ahead of that of Western countries, both in terms of economics and technology; however, China suffered a disastrous decline in the subsequent era, while its Western counterparts underwent the Industrial Revolution and became the great powers of the world. Thus, Needham asked, why did the scientific revolution, which had taken place in the Western world since the 16th century, not originate in China? This paper has broken new ground both methodologically and substantively concerning the Needham Puzzle. By applying the data found in Chinese historical bibliographies of China as a proxy for the changes in the knowledge stock, this paper proposes the institutional change hypothesis and provides empirical evidence for the dynamic trend of China’s technological development, thereby providing a possible explanation for the Needham Puzzle. And the loss of human capital in science and technology constitutes a necessary condition for the origin of China's tobacco industry. Because the tobacco planting industry is a labour-intensive industry, rather than a technology-intensive industry.

Joseph Needham’s inspiration for research on agricultural history in China

Ancient Chinese civilization was agricultural. To grasp the essence of science and civilization in China, Dr Joseph Needham drew attention to its agricultural development. He maintained close academic relations with Chinese historians of agriculture and obtained their help from time to time for the compilation of his Science and Civilisation in China. Needham also had a far-reaching influence on research on the agricultural history of China, both on its institutionalization and on transitions in the directions of research. The so-called ‘Needham puzzle’ was first proposed systematically in his address titled ‘Science and agriculture in China and the West’ at the annual conference of the China Agronomic Association in Chongqing in 1943. He believed that science is not isolated from society but is an indivisible part of civilization and that civilization has evolved as the result of the interactions of science, society and the environment.

The Needham Puzzle Reconsidered: Organizations, Organizing, and Innovation in China

ABSTRACT This paper discusses some aspects of innovation in China. As China seeks to transition to a knowledge-based economy, it may become more important for China to develop innovative technologies to sustain economic growth. How do China's history, culture, institutions, and organizations aid or hinder innovation? How does China's national innovation system compare to the innovation culture in the US, as well as other developed and emerging economies? What are the prospects for the future of the Chinese national innovation system? Our starting point is the Needham Puzzle – the paradox that while China was once a world leader in technological development, it fell behind; the Industrial Revolution happened in Europe rather than in China. Potential explanations for the Needham Puzzle may shed light on the challenges facing innovation in modern China. We identify three factors that might help explain the Needham Puzzle; assess how the Needham Puzzle and Chinese culture and history have affected the modern innovation system; discuss comparative aspects of innovation ecosystems in the United States and elsewhere; and suggest that Chinese innovation emphasizes exploitation and refinement of existing knowledge to the exploration and development of new knowledge. We also discuss implications for the future of innovation in China.

The Needham Question Today

The Needham Puzzle is part of a larger and very complex historical enigma. What explains the slow-down in scientific innovation in China about five hundred years ago? Also, after a recent forty-year period of growth not heavily dependent on spontaneous innovation, are such inherited influences returning to the surface as significant obstacles at a time when innovativeness is becoming more strategic?