The Engineering State? - One Thousand Means

SubscribeSign in

The Engineering State?<br>Review: Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future, by Dan Wang. W. W. Norton, 2025. 288 pp.<br>Aug 14, 2026

Share

If you have been anywhere on Substack in the last year, you have likely encountered, either in form or in substance, Dan Wang’s tell-all on China, Breakneck. Wang has made the rounds across the online world, speaking with a long parade of China experts, abundance capitalists, economists, and academics about his novel framework for viewing the world’s two largest economies: China is an engineering state administered by engineers, whereas the United States is a lawyerly society run by lawyers. Better to understand China and the United States through these labels than through the imperfect ascriptions of socialist and capitalist, Wang argues. China has modernized and built at warp speed because it is an engineering state, while the United States has slid into the morass because statutes and suits block much-needed manufacturing and infrastructure development.<br>Breakneck’s lofty objective is to demystify Chinese intentions and political character for Western generalist audiences. Wang largely succeeds, painting his picture of China, the engineering state, with smooth prose and anecdotes that evince China’s obsession with engineering technology and society. Wang is quippy and quotable, and his writing shines in the chapters where he focuses his sights exclusively on telling China’s story.<br>Above all, the guiding motive for Breakneck is Wang’s belief that the United States and China are more alike than dissimilar, and should therefore learn from one another. The author says that China’s overemphasis on engineering and its shortage of lawyers have produced atrocities like the one-child policy—a project that would never have survived the sharp tongue of American pluralism and the lawyers who defend it. And for the United States, the lesson is to just build more, like China has done. Speaking with Tyler Cowen in December, Wang prescribed that the United States be 20% more “engineering-minded” and China 50% more lawyerly. This framework, and the policy it implies, sounds sensible, picking at the weaknesses of both societies.<br>However, Wang’s engineer-versus-lawyer framework feels so right and so straightforward that analysts have largely failed to examine it with the requisite rigor. I’ve yet to come across a review that grapples with the idea of the engineering state and its appropriateness for describing China.<br>When further examined, Wang’s framework proves to be not a helpful heuristic for explaining China’s behavior and intent, but a flattering abstraction—one that obscures the revolutionary history and dialectical authoritarianism actually driving Chinese development, and that tells us less about China than the word it was meant to replace.<br>The difference between an and the<br>Wang presents two definitions of engineering statehood, divided based upon the modifying article. Wang uses “ an engineering state” to describe something general—the nation that China is, the United States was, and any country can be. “ The engineering state” is a concept that can only describe the People’s Republic of China. This characterization is deeply personal, taking on the flaws and quirks the modern Party government exhibits. Wang does not clarify this distinction, and places the burden on the reader to navigate the similarities and dissimilarities between the indefinite and definite engineering states.<br>The features of an engineering state can get confused with those of the engineering state. An engineering state can be a state that is administered by engineers. This is a notable feature of the modern Chinese Party government, with leaders from Jiang Zemin to Xi Jinping holding bachelor’s degrees in various engineering fields. However, Wang admits in an interview that the engineering training many of these leaders received was “perfunctory at best”, recognizing the gap in knowledge between engineers by accreditation and engineers by vocation. He grants exceptions—Hu Jintao, he notes, actually helped build a dam—but the exceptions prove the rule. Thus, an engineering state is not simply defined by its leaders’ college degrees; an engineering state must also be adept at completing engineering projects. Wang uses the term in this way when describing President Dwight Eisenhower’s America as an engineering state, given its success in constructing the interstate highway system. Qualifying engineering projects also include physical works like factories, dams, and bridges. Social engineering programs count too—Wang almost implies they are comorbid with periods of intense physical development. Subjugation of minority populations in the name of industrial progress featured in both the U.S. and Chinese pushes toward modernity. How these projects fit into Wang’s moralization of anengineering state as either good or bad is unclear.<br>The concept of...