1. This post provides a compelling analysis of the contrasting strategic mindsets driving the technological rivalry between the US and China. The metaphor of “sprint vs. marathon” effectively captures the essence of their approaches—America’s pursuit of short-term dominance and exclusivity, and China’s long-term strategy of inclusivity and negotiation. While the US’s sprint approach may yield quick wins, it risks overreach and diminishing returns, especially as it faces growing resistance from allies and rivals alike. On the other hand, China’s marathon mindset, with its emphasis on sustained growth, adaptability, and cooperation, seems better suited for navigating the complexities of an increasingly interconnected and volatile world.

   What stands out in this analysis is the idea that technological and geopolitical success requires more than just immediate action—it requires a vision for the future, one that balances tactical moves with strategic depth. The competition between these two global powers serves as a reminder that true dominance in the technological era is not just about being fast; it’s about being smart, patient, and resilient in the long run.

   The implications extend beyond the US and China—other nations can learn valuable lessons about the importance of long-term planning, cooperation, and adaptability in the face of shifting global dynamics.

   Reply

2. Articles of Faith and Pillars of Practice: That is driving theatres of Tech Wars today!

   Reply

3. Summary of “The Philosophies Behind the US-China Tech War” by Tariq H. Malik (LSE Business Review)
   Tariq H. Malik explores the fundamental philosophical differences between the US and China in their race for technological supremacy. The US follows a “sprint” approach, aiming for short-term victories through exclusivity, control, and restrictions, whereas China takes a “marathon” approach, prioritizing inclusivity, long-term planning, and strategic flexibility.

   China’s Marathon Strategy
   Rooted in Confucian and Sun Tzu principles, China’s strategy emphasizes:

   Winning without fighting – Diplomacy and economic partnerships (e.g., the Belt and Road Initiative) over direct confrontation.
   Strategic flexibility – Adapting to technological and geopolitical shifts.
   Abstract reality – Maintaining ambiguity to keep competitors uncertain.
   China’s dominance in key resources like silicon and chemicals strengthens its long-term position, allowing it to develop alternative systems and enhance soft power.

   America’s Sprint Strategy
   Guided by Machiavellian and Clausewitzian thinking, the US prioritizes:

   Exclusivity – Restricting access to critical technologies like semiconductors.
   Binary thinking – Viewing competition as a zero-sum game (ally vs. adversary).
   Dependency shift – Aiming to reduce reliance on China while increasing China’s dependence on US technology.
   While the US has achieved short-term wins, such as restricting Huawei and semiconductor exports, these policies may undermine its long-term competitiveness by alienating allies and losing global talent.

   Narratives and Global Influence
   The US narrative relies on negation and control, framing China as a threat.
   China’s narrative focuses on negotiation and cooperation, positioning itself as a stabilizing force in a fragmented world.
   Implications
   The article suggests that policymakers should learn from both approaches: balancing short-term tactics with long-term vision. The US risks strategic overreach with its sprint mentality, while China’s patience and adaptability may position it for sustained global leadership. The competition serves as a broader lesson in resilience, vision, and strategic alignment in an evolving geopolitical landscape.

   Reply

4. I can write about Tsun Zi what he said.

   Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, provides timeless wisdom on how to behave in war. His principles emphasize strategy, deception, adaptability, and efficiency. Here are some of his key teachings:

   Know Yourself and Your Enemy
   “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

   Deception and Strategy
   “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

   Speed and Adaptability
   “Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy’s unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions.”

   Winning Without Fighting
   “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

   Avoid Prolonged Conflict
   “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”

   Use of Terrain and Conditions
   “The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.”

   Strength and Weakness
   “Appear strong when you are weak, and weak when you are strong.”

   Leadership and Morale
   “Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look upon them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death.”

   Opportunism and Flexibility
   “Opportunities multiply as they are seized.”

   Preparedness and Planning
   “Every battle is won before it is ever fought.”

   Sun Tzu’s philosophy is not just about direct combat but also about strategy, preparation, and psychological warfare. His teachings remain relevant today in military tactics, business strategy, and even personal decision-making.

   Reply

5. I am thinking:
   If Sun Tzu were an Indian general and strategist, his philosophy in The Art of War would likely reflect the historical, philosophical, and strategic traditions of India. He would draw from Kautilya’s Arthashastra, Mahabharata’s war strategies, and Buddhist and Hindu principles of dharma (duty), artha (strategy), and karma (consequences). Here’s how his principles might be rephrased in an Indian context:

   Know Yourself, Know Your Dharma
   “One who understands the strengths and weaknesses of his own army, as well as those of his enemy, will emerge victorious like Krishna guiding Arjuna on the battlefield.”

   War is Won Before It Begins
   “Just as Chanakya advised Emperor Chandragupta, true victory is secured through strategy, alliances, and preparation before swords are drawn.”

   Deception is an Art of Survival
   “As Krishna used illusion (maya) and diplomacy in the Mahabharata, so must a wise ruler ensure his enemy sees only what is meant to be seen.”

   Strike Like Lord Hanuman in Lanka
   “Move like the wind, strike like thunder—unexpected, precise, and devastating, as Hanuman did when he set Lanka ablaze.”

   Avoid Unnecessary Battles
   “A wise king seeks peace when it serves his people, but war when it is inevitable, just as Ashoka only waged war before embracing dharma.”

   The Weak Can Defeat the Strong Through Strategy
   “A deer may escape the tiger not by fighting but by knowing the jungle better. The Pandavas, though exiled, reclaimed their kingdom through patience, alliances, and tactics.”

   The Battlefield is a Test of Dharma
   “War is not just about conquest but about righteousness. Victory without justice leads to chaos, as seen in the fall of the Kauravas despite their strength.”

   Win Without Fighting, Like Chanakya
   “A ruler who wins through diplomacy, economic strength, and wisdom shall reign longer than one who relies on brute force.”

   Power Lies in Unity
   “Like the unity of the Marathas against the Mughals or the Vijayanagara Empire against invaders, a divided army falls, but a united one rises against all odds.”

   Time and Terrain Decide Fate
   “Just as Shivaji Maharaj used the Western Ghats to outmaneuver his enemies, a great general turns nature into an ally and never fights on enemy-chosen ground.”

   If Sun Tzu were Indian, his strategies would deeply intertwine with Indian warfare principles—stealth and strategy over brute force, alliances over isolation, and wisdom over arrogance. His teachings would resonate with India’s historical, philosophical, and spiritual traditions, making war not just about victory but about dharma, justice, and long-term stability.

   Reply

6. The world of human being is integral based upon the existence fortune; as the historically accumulated product of civilizations, science and technolgy ought to be taken with regard to the common progress of the whole world. In light of the general logics and the objective laws, the sci-tech’s ascriding development and revolution will be continously stimulated on condition of honest share and efficient cooperation.

   Reply

7. Key differences in the context of tech wars:

   Cyber warfare: Sun Tzu’s principles can be applied to cyber warfare, emphasizing the importance of deception, surprise, and disrupting the enemy’s networks. American strategies also recognize the importance of cyber warfare, but may focus more on developing offensive capabilities and defending against cyberattacks.

   Information warfare: Both Sun Tzu and American strategists recognize the importance of information warfare in shaping the narrative and influencing public opinion. However, American strategies may place more emphasis on using media and technology to disseminate information and counter enemy propaganda.

   Economic warfare: Sun Tzu’s principles can be applied to economic warfare, emphasizing the importance of weakening the enemy’s economy and disrupting their supply chains. American strategies may also incorporate economic tools, such as sanctions and trade restrictions, to achieve strategic goals in a tech war.

   Reply

8. This is an excellent analysis of the Sino-US technological competition by Professor Tariq H. Mailk. If one were to look at the world history, including that of empires, from a cyclical perspective, one may notice recurrent rise and fall of various actors. Existing empires start ageing after a certain period of their glory and grandeur. They are replaced by new ones. The process continues. The Sino-US technological rivalry also has economic, geopolitical, military and socio-cultural dimensions. It is not a pure, theoretical science. The prevailing conditions of the nations determine their approaches, policies, priorities and strategies. This is best reflected in the policies, laws and practices of the US and the People’s Republic of China.

   Reply

9. Tariq Malik’s analysis of the US-China tech war through the lens of contrasting strategic philosophies offers valuable insights. He effectively highlights the distinction between the US’s “sprint” mentality, characterized by a focus on short-term victories and maintaining technological dominance through exclusivity, and China’s “marathon” approach, which prioritizes long-term goals, strategic flexibility, and “winning without fighting.” This framework, rooted in Confucian and Sun Tzu’s principles, emphasizes diplomacy, partnerships, and cultivating psychological uncertainty in rivals. Malik’s comparison allows us to appreciate the nuanced approaches each nation brings to this critical competition.

   However, as I have observed in my own work on Confucian capitalism and my visits to China spanning from the Mao era to the present day, directly comparing the US and China in this context might be an oversimplification. While China benefits from a multi-millennial, deeply ingrained philosophical heritage that shapes its strategic thinking, the US lacks a comparable foundation. The US strategic approach is born from a different set of historical forces, including its frontier experience, immigrant history, and rapid rise to global power. This leads to a more reactive, problem-solving orientation, often driven by immediate geopolitical concerns rather than long-term civilizational goals. Therefore, while Malik’s comparison is insightful, it’s crucial to acknowledge these fundamental differences in historical and cultural contexts.

   Instead of a direct comparison, perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to examine the factors that shape US strategy in the absence of a unifying philosophical anchor like Confucianism or Sun Tzu. These factors could include its economic and technological prowess, its reliance on formal alliances and international institutions, and its pragmatic, problem-solving approach. By understanding these alternative drivers of US strategic thinking, we can gain a more complete picture of the dynamics at play in the tech war and avoid the pitfalls of a simplistic, culturally deterministic analysis.

   Reply

10. The U.S. approach, driven by a sprint mentality, reflects a more capitalistic, market-driven philosophy, where the emphasis on immediate returns fosters rapid innovation cycles. This model encourages risk-taking and promotes a high turnover of ideas, leading to constant disruption and quick technological advancements. However, this rapid-fire innovation can also create a sense of instability, as it often prioritizes short-term gains over long-term sustainability. In economic terms, this can result in an inefficient allocation of resources, where businesses may focus on short-term profitability at the expense of long-term research and development.

    On the other hand, China’s marathon approach reflects a more state-driven, strategic model, where the focus is on sustained, long-term growth. This philosophy enables China to allocate substantial resources towards foundational technologies and large-scale infrastructure projects, fostering an environment conducive to incremental innovation. While this model allows for stability and long-term planning, it can also create inefficiencies in the short run, as it tends to resist the kind of market dynamism and disruptive innovation seen in more flexible economies.

    Ultimately, these two philosophies suggest a broader question: is long-term stability more important than short-term flexibility? And can these two approaches, seemingly so different, find a way to complement each other in a globalized economy?

    Reply

11. I strongly agree with the aforementioned view that the United States develops technology in a sprint-like manner, while China adopts a marathon-like approach, rooted in their respective traditional cultural differences. From the perspective of fundamental national conditions, the United States is a developed country, whereas China is a developing nation. The economic disparities between the two likely determine that China is more suited to a marathon-style development, advocating for win-win cooperation with other countries, aiming for mutual development and progress.

    Reply

12. This article provides a clear and insightful look into the philosophies driving the US-China tech war. It breaks down complex ideas into understandable points, making it accessible for readers who may not be experts in the field. The comparison of both nations’ approaches to technology and innovation is particularly interesting, offering a balanced perspective. Overall, it’s a well-written piece that sheds light on a critical global issue.

    Reply

13. This article provides a well-summarized analysis of the economic conflicts between China and the U.S. However, beyond economic interests, the underlying tensions are deeply rooted in cultural differences. As a result, predicting future disputes between these two global powers remains highly uncertain.

    Reply

14. Which one will win the game? Or will there be a win-win game?

    Reply

15. Read your article, I benefited a lot. Your innovative perspective on “Sino-US Science and technology competition” has given me a deep understanding. At the same time, I would like to make a little comment of my own, if there is any mistake, please forgive me. In the final analysis, the philosophical and theoretical differences between China and the United States in the competition of science and technology are the differences in the historical and cultural background of China and the United States, which has a profound impact on the development path and competitive strategy of the two countries in the field of science and technology, which is the philosophical content mentioned in this paper. In its relatively short history, the United States has sought progress in rapid development and prevailed in pragmatism since its founding. This culture has led to America’s desire for short-term results. As mentioned in the article, when it comes to technology competition, they see it as a sprint to gain instant benefits. From the perspective of cultural origin, this is in line with the mentality of people seeking quick success in order to obtain land and resources during the westward movement of the United States. In contrast, China has a long history of thousands of years, and its traditional culture emphasizes the word “harmony”. The Confucian advocate of “harmony is precious”, and the Taoist “rule without doing anything” (here “inaction” is not inaction, but compliance with the law) have imprinted the “soft” background color of China’s development in the modern technological competition. The Belt and Road Initiative is a case in point. Economic cooperation will drive common development of all countries, and other countries will be regarded as partners and “brothers within the four seas”. In other words, it may be that China’s long history has formed the “marathon” mode of China’s development.
    That’s all. Thanks for reading.

    Reply

16. I generally concur with the narratives presented by the Great Malik here. The combative portrayal of the United States juxtaposed with the modest perspective of China renders the argument particularly compelling to numerous readers. I find the portrayal of the two to be particularly engaging, utilizing stylized elements while avoiding overt stereotypes. To complement, I wish to stress two relevant dimensions pertinent to the discussions here, namely, the historical epistemological foundation of Chinese science and the way how science in China is likely to put forward itself.

    While Chinese ideology has been shaped by Confucianism since ancient times, during which numerous schools of thought thrived, there exists a potential bias in favoring the perspectives of one or a limited number of thinkers, especially those from antiquity or the medieval period. This is due to the significant revisions that Confucianism experienced, stemming from extensive discussions among diverse schools over a span of no less than eight centuries. The prevailing Confucian principles that have shaped statecraft and the general mindset of the Chinese populace since the late 19th century stand in sharp contrast to those of the Song (960-1179) and early Ming periods, when Neo-Confucianism held sway over both intellectuals and the court. While each asserts that they provide an authentic interpretation of the Confucian canon from antiquity, much of which consists of Confucius’ sayings or materials compiled by him, the disparities are so significant that they frequently find themselves in direct intellectual conflict. The pragmatic Confucianism that arose during the Southern Song dynasty progressively established itself as the prevailing ideology in China, receiving further endorsement from prominent intellectuals in the late Qing period. Their approach was notably pragmatic, aimed at swiftly enhancing the state capacity of the empire in response to the West’s imposition on China following the Opium War in 1842. Nonetheless, the pragmatic approach termed “Chinese base, Western function” or “Chinese substance, Western function” (zhongti xiyong) emerged during the late Qing and swiftly garnered approval from both the court and a populace steeped in xenophobia. This doctrine upholds the notion that China should retain its Confucian identity, ensuring that its political framework remains intact while selectively integrating Western technology to serve practical ends. Some scholars contend that even Western technological advancements were appropriated from ancient China, leading to a disconnection from their origins. The doctrine of substance and function, albeit under different terminology, has persisted to the present day, experiencing only a brief disruption during the ephemeral Republican period.

    The interplay between scientific innovation and Confucianism presents a multifaceted dynamic. At first glance, the various Confucian schools appear to collectively underscore the significance of scientific pursuits known as gewu, or the investigation of things, which serves as a means to broaden knowledge and attain both moral and practical comprehension. Zhu Xi’s interpretation of the Great Learning (Daxue) emphasizes the notion that comprehending the world, encompassing its material dimensions, is crucial for attaining harmony and order. In their pursuit of sincerity, they diligently expanded the breadth of their understanding. The expansion of knowledge resides in the exploration of phenomena. It is evident that Neo-Confucians emphasize the significance of knowledge acquisition and innovation within the material realm; however, their overarching objective remains the cultivation of moral being. In contrast, their adversaries, the utilitarian Confucians like Chen Liang, championed pragmatic reforms aimed at rectifying issues in statecraft, including bureaucratic inefficiency and economic challenges. Their emphasis on “enriching the country and strengthening the army” (fuguo qiangbing) illustrates a practical methodology to governance that may harmonize with technological progress. Chen Liang posited that the realization of the kingly way is contingent upon the attainment of economic wellbeing, asserting: “If we do not align our actions with the exigencies of the times, how can we expect to succeed?” Consequently, the utilitarian Confucians, while regarded by the Neo-Confucians as heretical or extreme, nonetheless do not reach the intellectual heights of Enlightenment thinkers in Europe, where both the Aristotelian approach and Baconian philosophy were notably lacking.

    Having laid out the uninspiring historiography of China’s historical march in scientific endeavors, which pretty much resemble a textbook Needham puzzle, I do not see the future of Chinese science as gloomy. Recall that the main line of intellectual developments in the Qing dynasty, “Han Learning”, was a result of harsh censorship imposed by early Qing emperors. The Qing scholars began to distant themselves from politics and devoted themselves to the study of Confucian classics or jingxue using scientific approaches such as “philology”, “glossing of meanings by relying on evidence” (xungu), “textual criticism” (xiaokan), and “higher criticism” (kaoding). During the course of two century, the Qing Han learning scholars development a whole set of scientific concepts such as “doubt”; “fact gathering”; “collecting and stitching”, and alike, which constituted scientific spirit comparable to the Western one since Enlightenment. All of these were given high credit. Hu Shi, for instance, saw Han learning scholars as methodological forerunners of the “scientific spirit” of inquiry of the new historiography and viewed that there was an important similarity between Qing
    scholarship and Renaissance Europe. Liang Qichao believed that this type of scholarship represented a break with Song-Ming types of gewu learning. This “Chinese Renaissance” as academic freedom finally led to the May 4th Movement which aimed to prioritize science and democracy over morality and monarch scapegoated by Confucianism. Over time, people realized that it was not Confucianism itself, rather, the misunderstanding of Confucianism as superstition, constituted the obstacle to the modernization of China. Nevertheless, given sufficient time, science will find her own way, the right way, to triumph. Like what Hu commented the work of Qing scholars in 1924 that “(they) may be shown by a later age to be utterly useless,” “the attitude and method of seeking and testing evidence will live long and may furnish us the only valuable heritage with which modern China may feel a little more at home in this wonderful world of modern science”.

    Having delineated the rather unremarkable historiography of China’s progression in scientific pursuits, which closely mirrors a conventional Needham puzzle, I remain optimistic about the future of Chinese science. It is important to note that the primary trajectory of scholarly advancements during the Qing dynasty, known as “Han Learning,” emerged as a consequence of the stringent censorship enforced by the early Qing emperors. The scholars of the Qing dynasty gradually distanced themselves from political affairs, instead dedicating their efforts to the examination of Confucian classics, or jingxue. They employed scientific methodologies, including philology, the glossing of meanings based on evidence (xungu), textual criticism (xiaokan), and higher criticism (kaoding). Over the span of two centuries, scholars of Qing Han learning cultivated a comprehensive array of scientific concepts, including “doubt,” “fact gathering,” and “collecting and stitching,” among others. These concepts formed a scientific ethos that stands in parallel to that of the Western tradition since the Enlightenment. All of these received considerable recognition. Hu Shi, for example, regarded Han learning scholars as pioneering figures in the methodological approach that would later characterize the “scientific spirit” of inquiry in modern historiography. He observed a significant parallel between Qing scholarship and that of Renaissance Europe. Liang Qichao posited that this form of scholarship signified a departure from the gewu learning characteristic of the Song and Ming dynasties. The so-called “Chinese Renaissance” marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of academic freedom, culminating in the May 4th Movement, which sought to triumph science and democracy over (Confucian) morality and the monarch often scapegoated by Confucianism.. As time progressed, it became evident that the true impediment to China’s modernization lay not in Confucianism itself, but rather in the prevalent misinterpretation of Confucianism as mere superstition. Nonetheless, with adequate time, science will inevitably navigate towards her rightful path to success, just like the Qing Han learning. Hu’s commentary on the contributions of Qing scholars in 1924 suggests that “(they) may be shown by a later age to be utterly useless.” However, he posits that “the attitude and method of seeking and testing evidence will live long and may furnish us the only valuable heritage with which modern China may feel a little more at home in this wonderful world of modern science.”

    Reply

    1. This article provides an amazing understanding into the philosophies driving the US-China tech war. Professor Tariq clearly explain every important aspect very critically. The article is very helpful for the future research scholar and policy makers. Congratulations to prof for bringing very important aspect.

       Reply

17. Summary how I see it!

    The LSE Business Review article by Tariq H. Malik highlights the fundamental dualities between Chinese and American technological philosophies, framing them through contrasting intellectual traditions, strategic practices, and competitive narratives. At the core, China’s approach is rooted in Confucian ideals, emphasizing harmony, gradual progress, and collective advancement, while the U.S. model aligns with Machiavellian realism, where power, control, and immediate advantage shape decision-making. These “articles of faith” define how each nation perceives technological progress—China sees it as an inclusive, evolving ecosystem, whereas the U.S. treats it as a zero-sum competition that demands strategic dominance.

    Beyond philosophical underpinnings, the “pillars of practice” further distinguish the two approaches. China follows Sun Tzu’s strategic wisdom, which advocates for deception, adaptability, and long-term positioning to outmaneuver opponents without direct confrontation. Meanwhile, the U.S. adheres to Clausewitzian military doctrine, which emphasizes decisive, high-intensity engagements that establish clear victories. This divide manifests in how both nations deploy technology: China focuses on economic and diplomatic entrenchment through initiatives like the Belt and Road, while the U.S. imposes restrictions and sanctions to maintain its technological supremacy. These differing operational logics shape global tech policy, influencing how nations align themselves in the evolving landscape.

    At the narrative level, Malik illustrates how China operates through “negotiation,” seeking to integrate global partners and create mutual dependencies, while the U.S. prefers “negation,” restricting rivals’ access to key resources and markets. This is reflected in the broader metaphor of a “marathon versus a sprint”—China’s long-term investments in chip production, supply chain resilience, and diplomatic influence contrast with America’s short-term efforts to disrupt and reassert its dominance through sanctions and export controls. Understanding these dualities not only provides insight into the current tech rivalry but also suggests that future conflicts will be shaped by whether the world aligns with negotiation-based or negation-based technological ecosystems.

    Reply

18. Title: A Critical Examination of the “Sprint vs. Marathon” Narrative in US–China Technological Competition

    By H. M. Salleh, Deputy Director, National University of Singapore

    Introduction
    The recent essay in LSE Business Review offers a compelling narrative by contrasting the US and China’s approaches to technological supremacy—portraying American strategy as a “sprint” marked by short-term victories, and Chinese strategy as a “marathon” built on long-term, inclusive planning. While this dichotomy is rhetorically powerful, a closer inspection reveals several oversimplifications and underlying assumptions that merit critical review.

    Deconstructing the Dichotomy: At the heart of the essay is a binary framework: America’s Clausewitz-inspired sprint versus China’s Sun Tzu-inspired marathon. This framing is attractive for its clarity but raises several concerns:

    Oversimplification of Strategic Complexity: The essay implies that the US strategy is uniformly short-term and reactive, while China’s approach is inherently long-term and measured. In reality, both nations blend immediate tactical maneuvers with long-range planning. For example, the United States has historically invested in public–private partnerships and R&D programs that underscore a commitment to sustained innovation, suggesting that its strategy cannot be pigeonholed as merely sprint-like.

    Cultural Determinism and Essentialism: By attributing American and Chinese policies to the philosophical legacies of Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Confucius, and Sun Tzu, the essay risks reducing complex geopolitical strategies to predetermined cultural traits. This essentialist view may ignore the dynamic nature of policy-making, where pragmatism often trumps ideological consistency, particularly in the fluid realm of global technological competition.

    Implications for Policy and Practice: From a policy perspective, the essay’s binary narrative does little to account for the nuanced realities faced by nations today:

    Global Interdependence and Multipolarity:
    The framing of competition as a zero-sum game neglects the growing importance of multilateral cooperation and the roles played by non-state actors. In an era where supply chains and innovation ecosystems are globally interconnected, both sprint and marathon strategies may be employed simultaneously, even by a single state.

    Impact on Talent and Innovation Ecosystems:
    The discussion on human capital—where American short-term policies once benefited from Chinese talent—is indicative of a broader trend: talent mobility is increasingly bidirectional. This shift underscores that rigid categorizations of strategic approach might overlook adaptive measures that nations employ to retain and cultivate innovation ecosystems.

    A Call for a More Nuanced Discourse: While the essay succeeds in stimulating debate, it would benefit from a more nuanced analysis that incorporates empirical evidence and acknowledges the strategic overlaps between the two paradigms. As policymakers and academics in a global hub like Singapore, we must recognize that the challenges of technological competition are multifaceted. Rather than adopting a binary lens, a more effective strategy might involve synthesizing the best elements of both approaches—balancing agile, short-term actions with resilient, long-term investments.

    In sum, the essay’s portrayal of the US–China rivalry as a contest between sprint and marathon mentalities is an oversimplification that, while evocative, does not fully capture the complexities of contemporary global competition. A deeper, more critical analysis is required—one that moves beyond binary distinctions to explore the interplay of immediate tactical gains and sustained strategic investments. Such an approach would not only provide a richer understanding of international technological dynamics but also inform more balanced and effective policymaking in an interconnected world.

    Reply

19. The US-China tech war, as Prof. Malik highlights, is shaped by two fundamentally different philosophies, which are America’s sprint-driven strategy, focused on immediate victories through control and restriction, versus China’s marathon approach, emphasising long-term resilience, cooperation, and resource dominance. Prof. Malik rightly points out that America’s binary, high-speed tactics have yielded short-term gains but risk long-term sustainability, whereas China’s patient, strategic investments position it for enduring influence. This contrast shows the importance of aligning immediate tactics with broader, future-oriented goals, right?
    Prof. Malik’s analysis offers valuable insights into how these competing philosophies shape global power dynamics. Think of this: while America’s sprint victories provide rapid technological advancements, they often come at the cost of overreach and diminishing returns. In the meantime… China’s inclusive and adaptive strategies allow it to navigate uncertainties with greater stability. If they understand the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, policymakers can craft strategies that ensure long-term competitiveness without sacrificing short-term necessities. I believe we really need such policies!

    Reply

20. I very much agree with the views of the author. The US-China tech rivalry showcases two stark strategies: the US’s sprint for quick dominance through control, and China’s marathon focus on long-term resilience and adaptability. This contrast underscores the importance of balancing short-term gains with long-term vision. In a rapidly changing world, adaptability and foresight are crucial. It reminds us that true strength lies not just in immediate victories, but in building a sustainable foundation for the future.

    Reply

21. The two technological development trends of the US and China reflect two opposing approaches but each has its own advantages. As a scholar from Vietnam, I think it is important that after reading Professor Tariq Malik’s article “The philosophies behind the US-China tech war”, we realize which path is suitable for us, especially developing countries like Vietnam, in studying and selecting inevitable technological development paths.
    The US strategy of focusing on exclusivity and quick wins has produced revolutionary breakthroughs such as AI, semiconductors and software. However, this approach has also left US companies vulnerable to constant cycles of innovation and fierce competition. If they fail to maintain their leading position, they can quickly be replaced.
    China, by contrast, pursues sustainability and balanced negotiations, focusing on self-sufficiency in supply chains, developing core technologies, and expanding its influence through international cooperation. The Chinese government provides strong support for domestic companies, helping them maintain long-term growth even in the face of US pressure. However, this approach can slow the pace of innovation and limit their ability to integrate with global technology standards.
    Vietnam is pursuing a “flexible balance” strategy between the two technology development models of the US and China, and in my opinion, this is the right path for a country with a developing economy. Instead of choosing a single direction, Vietnam takes advantage of both sides to build a sustainable technology ecosystem. It is a combination of rapid innovation and long-term autonomy. To compete globally, Vietnam needs to promote technology research, build a semiconductor industry and improve the capacity of domestic enterprises. At the same time, there needs to be flexible policies to both attract foreign investment and develop a domestic technology ecosystem, ensuring stability and initiative in the long term.

    Reply

22. The blog by Tariq Malik offers a profound and thought-provoking exploration of the US-China tech war through the lens of “sprint” and “marathon” strategies. This analysis not only vividly captures the essence of the two countries’ approaches but also invites us to delve deeper into the underlying philosophies that shape their actions.

    China’s long – term “marathon” strategy aligns seamlessly with its traditional philosophical values. The concept of “己立立人，己达达人” (help others achieve as one seeks self – achievement) and “己所不欲勿施于人” (do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you) permeates China’s approach to technological development and international cooperation. In the tech realm, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a prime example. Through BRI, China invests in infrastructure and technological development in partner countries. It’s not just about China’s own progress but also about enabling these countries to build their technological capabilities. By sharing technology, building digital infrastructure such as fiber – optic networks and data centers, China is helping other nations “stand” and “reach” in the technological field, much like the principle of “己立立人，己达达人”.

    China also adheres to “己所不欲勿施于人”. While the US restricts access to critical technologies, China has never imposed such one – sided restrictions on others. Instead, China promotes open – source technology and collaborative research in many areas. For example, in the field of 5G technology, China has been open to sharing its technology and experience with the international community, aiming for common technological progress rather than monopolistic control.

    China’s political philosophy of “继绝世 举废国 柔远人 来百工” (revive extinct states, restore fallen states, treat distant people with kindness, and attract artisans from afar) and the ideal of “世界大同” (universal harmony) further illustrate its long – term and inclusive approach. In the context of the tech war, China is committed to building a global technological community. It welcomes international talent, just as the concept of “来百工” implies. China’s large – scale investment in research and development, along with its inclusive policies, creates an attractive environment for global tech talents. This not only enriches China’s technological innovation ecosystem but also promotes global technological exchanges and cooperation.

    The ideal of “世界大同” reflects China’s long – term goal of creating a harmonious global technological landscape. China believes that through cooperation and mutual assistance, all countries can benefit from technological development. This is in sharp contrast to the US’s “sprint” – based approach, which often divides the world into “us” and “them” in the tech field. China’s approach is more likely to lead to sustainable technological development on a global scale, as it takes into account the interests of all parties and aims for long – term, stable cooperation.

    In conclusion, China’s “marathon” – style tech strategy, deeply rooted in its traditional and political philosophies, offers a more sustainable and far – reaching model for technological development in the globalized era. It serves as a positive example for other countries, showing that in the race for technological supremacy, long – term vision, inclusivity, and cooperation are the keys to true and lasting success.

    Reply

    1. Reply to Professor Justin (Yifu) Lin,
       Peking University, China.

       Dear Justin,

       Thank you so much for your thoughtful and generous comment on my article. I am deeply honored that you, a renowned economist and influential academic, took the time to engage with my work and offer such a profound and insightful analysis. Your reflections not only add considerable depth to the discussion but also shed light on the rich philosophical underpinnings that guide China’s approach to technological development in the global context.

       As one of the foremost economists in the world, your work, particularly during your tenure as Chief Economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank, has shaped global development thinking for decades. Your contributions to understanding the dynamics of development economics, especially the intersection of technology, growth, and institutional frameworks, have been invaluable. Your influential research on the role of institutions in development and the importance of inclusive growth has set a foundation for policymakers worldwide.

       I am particularly appreciative of the way you have connected the philosophical traditions of China with its long-term “marathon” strategy. Your mention of key principles such as “己立立人，己达达人” and “己所不欲勿施于人” offers a compelling lens through which to view China’s technological ambitions and its ethos of mutual benefit. I wholeheartedly agree that China’s approach to fostering global partnerships and sharing technology stands in contrast to the more exclusionary practices sometimes observed in other parts of the world.

       Your insights into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a testament to China’s inclusive and long-term vision, as well as the promotion of open-source technologies like 5G, are particularly enlightening. I am grateful for your perspective on how these actions align with the broader goals of global technological cooperation and harmony, which adds a richer layer of understanding to the framework I’ve presented in my article.

       The way you tied China’s technological strategy to its broader political philosophy and ideals such as “世界大同” (universal harmony) is a truly powerful contribution. It reinforces the idea that sustainable, globally inclusive technological development requires more than just economic power—it requires a vision of cooperation that transcends national interests and fosters shared progress.

       As the Dean of the National School of Development and Professor of Economics at Peking University, as well as a co-director of the China Center for Economic Research, your ongoing research continues to inspire new generations of economists and thinkers. Your leadership in academic circles, particularly at Peking University, has contributed immeasurably to China’s economic transformation and to the global discourse on development economics.

       It is a privilege to have your perspective on my work, and I look forward to continued dialogue on these important issues. Once again, I truly appreciate your engagement and the valuable context you’ve provided. Your comment not only enriches the discussion but also encourages a more nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding the US-China tech war. Thank you again for your generosity and for your ongoing contributions to the field.

       Warm regards,
       Tariq H. Malik

       Reply

23. Philosophy is manifested in multiple aspects in the economic field:

    – Methodological aspect: Concepts such as connection and development in dialectics prompt economists to analyze economic phenomena from a dynamic and comprehensive perspective, and recognize that various economic elements are interconnected and constantly changing. For example, when studying industrial upgrading, the interactions among factors like technology, policies, and market demand are taken into account.

    – Value – oriented aspect: Different philosophical values influence the direction of economic policies and the business concepts of enterprises. Utilitarianism emphasizes maximizing efficiency, which may lead economic decisions to focus on short – term interests. In contrast, the Confucian view of the relationship between righteousness and profit makes enterprises pay attention to social responsibilities while pursuing profits.

    – Epistemological aspect: Philosophical thinking helps economists better understand economic laws. For instance, Kant’s transcendental epistemology reminds people that when studying economic data and models, they should be aware of the limitations of cognition and avoid over – reliance on quantitative analysis.

    Reply

24. Profressor Tariq explores the differences between China and the United States through the technology of the past，his work is admirable

    Reply

25. This article is very enlightening. It is a very interesting angle to compare the economic strategy of China and the United States to “marathon” and “sprint” respectively. In fact, I think this difference is not just embodied on the economic strategy. To a certain extent, this phenomenon is due to the consequences of the different political frameworks of the two countries.
    The political system of the two parties in the United States makes it difficult to guarantee the continuity of its policies. It is difficult to make long-term economic planning. For the ruling party, they are eager to win a remarkable victory when they are in office to win re-election or the public’s support for themselves in the next general election. So they have to make short-term visible results at any cost. For the opposition party, they must attack the ruling party’s policies and pick out loopholes in the policy, so that they can gain an advantage. This tit-for-tat competition has its merits, but it has also become the source of the United States insisting on binary opposition in international exchanges and pursuing short-term benefits.

    Reply

26. I agree with the point mentioned above that the United States develops technology in a sprint way, while China adopts a marathon way, which is rooted in their traditional cultural differences.

    Reply

27. This is an interesting and insightful argument that offers a more balanced and constructive view of Sino-American confluct. History informs us in tackling contemporary challenges. The rise of China in technological and economic terms cannot be pushed down by force. As Malik suggests, weshould find more collaborative and constructive means to harness the increasing power of China.

    Reply

28. Tariq H Malik’s article provides a profound and insightful analysis of the US-China technological rivalry. His exploration of the contrasting philosophies driving the competition is both enlightening and meaningful. The way he contrasts the American approach, which views competition as a sprint with a focus on short-term victories, against the Chinese marathon approach that emphasizes long-term outcomes, offers a fascinating perspective. Malik skillfully ties these differing views to their philosophical and operational underpinnings, presenting them as “traffic lights” that guide each nation’s path. His argument that policymakers can learn valuable lessons from both approaches adds depth to the discussion. This article is not only timely but also offers a crucial understanding of one of the most important global issues today.

    Reply

29. Dr. Suad AL-Dukhaykh, Associate Professor at King Saud University, Riyad, Saudi Arabia.

    Dear Professor AL-Dukhaykh,

    I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful engagement with my article on the LSE Business Review. Your insights and reflections added a valuable perspective to the discourse, enriching the conversation around [mention key theme of the post, e.g., “the role of narratives in business strategy and innovation”.

    Your expertise and keen analytical approach to the subject matter are truly commendable. I particularly appreciate the depth of your observations and how you connected the discussion to broader contexts, shedding light on aspects that may not have been fully explored in the original piece. Such scholarly engagement is essential in advancing meaningful dialogue, and I am honored to have had your thoughtful contributions to this discussion.

    It is always a pleasure to connect with like-minded scholars who share an interest in the interplay of narratives, business, and economic dynamics. I hope we can continue exchanging ideas and collaborating in ways that foster deeper insights into this evolving field.

    Once again, thank you for your time, engagement, and intellectual generosity. I greatly appreciate your support and look forward to future interactions.

    Reply

30. I am Senior Professor, an Associate Dean and a scholar of human capital at Kedge Business School, France and India. I have known Tariq as a collaborator, a friend and a scholar for a long time. Below is my take on the article.

    Tariq H. Malik’s analysis of the US-China tech war can be understood through the lens of two iconic military strategists: Niccolò Machiavelli and Sun Tzu. By juxtaposing their strategic philosophies, we can better appreciate the dynamics at play in this high-stakes technological rivalry, particularly as other global players—Europe, India, and the Middle East—seek to find their own positions in this expanding conflict.

    Machiavelli’s Realpolitik: Power, Alliances, and Strategic Maneuvering
    Machiavelli’s approach to power politics, as articulated in The Prince, revolves around pragmatism, realpolitik, and the pursuit of strategic advantage at any cost. His ideas of power consolidation and the importance of alliances in the face of greater threats resonate strongly with Malik’s portrayal of Europe and India’s growing interest in the tech competition.

    In a Machiavellian context, the US and its allies—such as the UK and the EU—are engaged in a classic balancing act, leveraging strategic partnerships to maintain their dominance over China’s growing influence. Malik’s observation that Europe and the UK are willing to align with the US against China’s perceived tech dominance reflects Machiavelli’s advice on alliances as a means of counteracting a rising power. The US and Europe, mindful of China’s advances in fields like 5G, AI, and semiconductors, are acting in the spirit of Machiavellian statecraft by forming strategic alliances and economic pacts to safeguard their own technological futures and counterbalance China’s influence.

    Machiavelli’s emphasis on adaptability and shifting alliances also mirrors the dynamic between the Middle East and the two tech giants. Middle Eastern countries, according to Malik, are increasingly seeking strategic alliances either with the US or China based on their economic and geopolitical interests. This aligns with Machiavelli’s pragmatic view of alliances—always in flux, with a keen eye on self-interest. Countries in the Middle East are making calculated decisions, not driven by ideology but by the immediate need to leverage the competition between China and the US to secure their economic and technological futures.

    Sun Tzu’s Strategic Deception and the Art of War
    On the other hand, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War offers a complementary perspective, particularly regarding the concept of indirect strategy and strategic deception. In the context of the US-China tech war, the focus on innovation and the race for technological supremacy reflects Sun Tzu’s notion that “all warfare is based on deception.” The technology battle isn’t just about direct confrontation (such as sanctions or tariffs) but about outmaneuvering one’s adversary through innovation, subterfuge, and psychological warfare. Malik’s discussion on the broader shift in the tech ecosystem, where regions like Europe and India are investing heavily in their own tech infrastructure, underscores Sun Tzu’s assertion that the best victory is one that is achieved without fighting—through influence and indirect competition.

    China, in particular, exemplifies Sun Tzu’s teachings on the importance of patience and timing. The Chinese government’s long-term investments in AI and 5G, along with its Belt and Road Initiative, show a calculated effort to expand influence over time, gradually creating dependencies while avoiding direct confrontation with the US and its allies. Malik’s argument that China’s technological rise has sparked both fear and admiration fits perfectly within the Sun Tzu framework of psychological manipulation. China is slowly gaining ground, leveraging technological prowess as a form of indirect power.

    For the US, the tech war also exemplifies Sun Tzu’s focus on knowing the terrain, or shi—the opportunity to strike at the most advantageous moment. The US, with its historically dominant tech companies, has been in the position of the “defender” thus far, but it must also constantly adapt, using its network of global allies (in Europe, India, and beyond) to maintain its upper hand. The US isn’t solely relying on its own strength; instead, it is strategically positioning itself and its allies to limit China’s dominance, both technologically and geopolitically.

    Who Gains and Who Loses? The Strategic Implications
    From a Machiavellian and Sun Tzu-inspired perspective, the winners in this unfolding tech war are likely to be those who can best navigate the complex web of alliances and indirect competition. The US, by leveraging its alliances with Europe and India, is positioning itself to maintain dominance, but not through direct military confrontation—rather, through economic influence, technological innovation, and diplomatic maneuvering. Europe and India, both investing in homegrown technological capacities, stand to gain as they avoid becoming dependent on either the US or China, carving out their own strategic autonomy.

    However, smaller countries, particularly in the developing world, may find themselves at a disadvantage. These nations lack the resources or infrastructure to compete in the tech race and may become pawns in the larger geopolitical struggle between the US and China. The Middle East, with its potential for strategic realignment, is another region that could experience significant shifts in its position based on its choice of alliance. However, as Malik suggests, the Middle East’s role may be a double-edged sword—it could gain access to advanced technologies from either China or the US but risk becoming overly reliant on one side.

    Conclusion
    In the context of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu’s teachings, Malik’s article provides an insightful look at how global players are positioning themselves in the broader tech war between the US and China. This battle is not just about technological superiority—it’s a contest of strategic maneuvering, alliances, and long-term influence. Europe and India’s entrance into the fray, along with the Middle East’s shifting allegiances, reflect both Machiavellian power politics and Sun Tzu’s strategic indirect warfare. As Malik points out, the true cost of this battle will be borne by the smaller players caught in the middle, as they navigate a world increasingly divided along technological and geopolitical lines.

    Reply

31. The article “The Philosophies Behind the US-China Tech War” provides a profound analysis of the ideological underpinnings driving the technological rivalry between the United States and China. It is quite an interesting and unique angle to explore the different cultures behind the US-China teachings modes, and through this way we can gain more insight into the topic. It highlights how differing philosophies on innovation, governance, and global influence shape this conflict. The US emphasizes free-market principles and individual entrepreneurship, while China prioritizes state-led strategies and collective advancement. This divergence not only fuels competition but also raises questions about the future of global technological governance. The article underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of these philosophies to navigate the complexities of the tech war, suggesting that mutual respect and dialogue are essential for sustainable coexistence in the digital age.

    Reply

32. I remember the author of this article talking about a research paper in Academy of Management in the late 1980 by an American scholar. The author conducted studies on American and Chinese managers. He discovered that Americans tend to show more than what they know, and Chinese tend to show less than what they know. Neither side does it intentionally but through their impulsive systems. It is the cultural background between two types of construal: construals of being confident in the American case and construals of being humble in the Chinese case. Can they be complementary or supplementary–it is up to them. One thing is clear–The American and Chinese have different goal posts, and when they change those goal posts in response to each other, it affects all of us.

    Note: I asked for Professor Malik’s input for correction of my writing!

    Reply

33. The article highlights how cultural heritage shapes modern tech strategies. It’s interesting how long-term thinking can offer stability in global politics.Well done !

    Reply

34. This piece offers a compelling view into how historical philosophies continue to inform modern-day technological competition. By highlighting Sun Tzu’s strategy of winning without fighting, the article shows how China’s emphasis on cooperation and ambiguity can quietly shift the global balance of power—much as the Belt and Road Initiative has done by binding multiple countries to China’s long-term development plans. Meanwhile, America’s reliance on rapid victories and binary threat assessments may yield quick gains but can undermine its own influence over time. The parallels to Clausewitz and Machiavelli suggest that U.S. policymakers prioritize immediate force projection and control, possibly overlooking how gradual, inclusive initiatives can foster sustained leadership.

    Moreover, the reversal of talent flows—where Chinese graduates no longer stay in the U.S. at the same rate—reflects a deeper structural challenge to America’s innovation ecosystem. While sprint-based strategies might create a sense of urgency, they risk draining intellectual capital and alienating allies who may seek more collaborative relationships elsewhere. The real question is whether either side can incorporate elements of the other’s strategic approach to achieve a balance between decisive action and patient, inclusive planning. Such a synthesis could reshape the global tech landscape into something more stable and mutually beneficial than the often zero-sum view we see today.

    Reply

35. For the first time, I understood some of the historical differences in collective assumptions, conceptions, behavioural calibration and action-reaction of nations in the world.

    Thank you

    Reply

36. The article astutely frames the US-China tech rivalry as a clash between short-term “sprint” tactics and long-term “marathon” strategies. From an AI research lens, this dichotomy is amplified by divergent approaches to innovation ecosystems. The US, leveraging Silicon Valley’s agile, venture-driven model, excels in rapid breakthroughs like generative AI (e.g., GPT-4) and quantum computing. However, its exclusionary policies—such as semiconductor export restrictions—risk fragmenting global collaboration, stifling open-source progress critical to AI’s evolution.

    Conversely, China’s marathon strategy, rooted in systemic resource control (e.g., rare earths, silicon) and state-backed AI megaprojects (e.g., national AI labs, smart cities), prioritizes infrastructural dominance. Initiatives like the Belt and Road Digital Corridor export AI-driven surveillance and fintech, embedding Chinese standards globally. Yet, this approach faces challenges in originality, as evidenced by reliance on Western foundational models.

    The future may hinge on hybrid models: integrating America’s sprint-like agility with China’s patient capital. For instance, federated learning and ethical AI frameworks could bridge divides, ensuring competition coexists with shared progress. Policymakers must balance containment with cooperation, as AI’s transformative potential transcends unilateral dominance.

    Reply

37. The article’s author in LSE Business Review writes two different philosophies, assuming that China is still the same as it was 3000 years ago. While civilisations do have such a long timeline, changes are inevitable. I want to argue that China has changed, and it has changed in visible as well as subtle ways. My viewpoint is from the business perspective, with some key differences:

    Globalization and Technology:

    Sun Tzu’s teachings were framed in a context where warfare and strategy were key to survival, often involving physical conflict, surprise tactics, and deception. His principles of strategy were about outsmarting the opponent, managing resources, and mastering timing.

    Today, China’s business approach is deeply influenced by globalization, technology, and market dynamics. Modern businesses focus on innovation, digital transformation, and leveraging global networks for expansion. The use of big data, AI, and e-commerce platforms like Alibaba or Tencent has replaced traditional strategic confrontations.
    Innovation vs. Military Tactics:

    Sun Tzu’s approach emphasized the importance of preparation, flexibility, and psychological warfare to outsmart opponents, with a focus on military strategy that could apply to business competition.

    Modern China: Innovation and intellectual property are central in China’s business world. Chinese companies have shifted from merely imitating foreign products to creating groundbreaking technologies and driving industries like green energy, electric vehicles, and tech platforms. The focus is on rapid growth, adaptability, and conquering new markets, especially in Asia, Africa, and Europe.
    Competition and Collaboration:

    Sun Tzu’s teachings advocate for defeating an enemy swiftly, often through indirect or indirect confrontation, using spies or alliances. It’s more about individual supremacy and tactical maneuvers.

    Modern China: While competition is fierce, there’s also a growing trend towards collaboration and partnerships, particularly within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and China’s push for global leadership in tech. Businesses today increasingly prioritize mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances to strengthen their global positions.
    State Influence:

    In Sun Tzu’s era, the state had control over military actions, but businesses were often left to navigate on their own, with less centralized economic planning.

    Modern China: The Chinese government plays a very active role in business strategy today. Companies like Huawei, BYD, and even tech giants are often tightly aligned with government policies, such as the push for “Made in China 2025.” The government influences market dynamics, from encouraging innovation in technology to strategically positioning China on the global stage.
    Cultural Shifts:

    The strategic mindset in Sun Tzu’s time was largely based on preserving resources and gaining tactical advantage with minimal direct conflict. It emphasized patience and long-term strategy.

    Modern China: Contemporary business culture in China still respects patience and long-term vision (like in the 100-year plan for development), but the fast-paced, competitive environment is focused on execution and scale. There’s an emphasis on speed, market dominance, and adaptability, particularly in the tech sector.

    In essence, today’s China has moved from a focus on military-style maneuvering and psychological tactics to one that integrates innovation, global networking, and government-backed initiatives. The strategic emphasis now is on competing in the global market with cutting-edge technology, large-scale production, and international partnerships, rather than relying solely on Sun Tzu’s methods of deception and surprise.

    Reply

38. An awesome professor and humors

    Reply

39. As a student in Liaoning University, I am very happy to participate in the professor’s course, and the views of this article have given me a lot of inspiration.

    Reply

40. Tariq Malik is my teacher. I am a postgraduate student from Liaoning University. My name is Yu Liqing(Nicole). Tariq Malik is very familiar with the underlying logic of the Sino-American tech-war. American narratives revolve around control, exclusivity, and a binary worldview.In contrast, China’s narratives emphasise cooperation, coexistence, and inclusivity. The article is insightful and thorough, great!!!

    Reply

41. Long-term partnership rooted in traditional Chinese philosophy

    China’s economic and trade philosophy has been deeply inspired by traditional philosophy, so strategic frameworks such as the Belt and Road Initiative pay more attention to the construction of long-term win-win relations. We can trace the philosophical origins rooted in traditional Chinese culture.

    1. Giving is taking
    The philosophical principle of “giving taking” from the phenomenon of energy and material exchange in the universe. There is a saying in the Dao De Jing: “If you want to take something from it, you must give something to it.” This means that in order to benefit from the partnership, you should first give out benefits to your partner. The principle of giving as a reward is the most fundamental principle in commercial transactions, without which there can be no commercial negotiations and transactions. The first step in commercial activities is to establish rules for distributing profits. China’s long-term cooperation framework emphasizes the distribution of benefits between upstream and downstream enterprises in the industrial and value chain.

    2. To be humble and benevolent
    Traditional Chinese philosophy emphasizes the philosophy of benevolence. There is a saying: “The reason why the sea can be the king of the hundred valleys is because it is good at benevolence. ” When others encounter difficulties, do not be arrogant and domineering, but be good at helping others, so as to get help from others and achieve success later. However, the philosophy of benevolence does not mean blindly compromise without principles, so it is said: “Those who are trusted by others are benevolent. Those who cannot be deceived are wise. Those who are both wise and benevolent are called winners. ”

    3. Seek common ground while reserving differences
    Differences and complementarity between things means that they can come together. There are differences between heaven and earth, but they can coexist to create all things. Only when there are differences between corporations can they coexist. The essence of business is to have transactions based on differences, and to specialize in division of labor, capital and technology based on transactions, as emphasized by Adam Smith as well.

    4. Law originates from consensus
    Ancient Chinese philosophy emphasizes the fairness and justice of laws. Law originates from unity, which also means that law is a part of the social contract. For the common interests of everyone, it is necessary to gather their common opinions and follow their common customs in order to formulate laws. Only such a method has the minimum cost. It is extremely difficult to formulate laws, and they must meet the common will of everyone before they can be promulgated. Therefore, China’s long-term strategy aims to maintain and not easily change rules, and to stimulate stable cooperation and development expectations for enterprises.

    ————————————————————————

    Lifang Hu
    Lifang Hu is an associate professor of applied economics at Business School, China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL). She received her Ph.D. degree from Renmin University of China, and she has been a visiting scholar at University of Connecticut. She has been recognized as a top young talent from CUPL. She focuses mainly on policy study and regional development, and her research has been published in international and Chinese leading academic journals. She is the leader of various projects supported by the National Social Science Fund of China, the Ministry of Education of China, and the Ministry of Finance of China, etc., and the research topics involves China’s urban-rural development and multiple reforms.

    Reply

42. This article brilliantly contrasts the US-China technological rivalry through the lens of a “sprint vs. marathon” metaphor, offering profound insights into their strategic philosophies. The analysis of cultural roots—Confucian patience versus Machiavellian urgency—is both compelling and enlightening. By highlighting China’s long-term, inclusive approach and America’s short-term, exclusive tactics, the piece underscores the strengths and pitfalls of each strategy. The discussion on narratives and soft power is particularly insightful, revealing how China’s cooperative rhetoric contrasts with America’s binary worldview. A masterful blend of theory and practical examples, this article is a must-read for understanding the complexities of global technological competition.

    Reply

43. As a Duke academic critiquing Tariq H. Malik’s article on the two philosophies in the LSE Business Review, I would begin by acknowledging the article’s intellectual merit in examining the intersection of narrative and decision-making in business contexts. Malik’s exploration of contrasting philosophical approaches—one rooted in the concreteness of objective reality and the other emphasizing the abstract nature of subjective interpretation—offers valuable insights into the complexities of managerial thought. However, while the article adeptly highlights the practical applications of these philosophies in business strategy and organizational behavior, I believe there could be a deeper exploration of the limitations and potential contradictions between these approaches, particularly in cross-cultural contexts. Furthermore, while the theoretical frameworks are robust, a more explicit linkage to empirical case studies or real-world applications would enhance the practical utility of the argument for business practitioners and academics alike.

    Reply

44. Long-term orientation is not unique to China; however, China has achieved better outcomes than other Asian countries with similar philosophical foundations. Several factors contribute to this success. One key factor is the country’s political system, which enables the state to sustain policies and industry guidance over extended periods. A persistent and resourceful state can gradually reshape the course of innovation. Another critical element is the resilience and ambition of Chinese entrepreneurs. Their determination to succeed—despite internal and external challenges—has been instrumental in driving the growth of the tech sector. Without these entrepreneurs, even the state’s raw power would struggle to foster such innovation.

    Reply

45. China is deeply influenced by its 5,000-year history of civilization and tends to adopt a long-term and holistic perspective. The concept of harmony of Confucianism, the natural laws of Taoism and the art of governance of Legalism have together shaped China’s mindset that emphasizes stability, harmony and co-development in games. The United States, on the other hand, as a relatively young country, has been deeply influenced by Enlightenment thinking, pragmatism and free market capitalism. In the game, it tends to emphasize individualism, free competition and short-term goal achievement. Specifically in the international economic game, the U.S. advocates free trade agreements and often uses its financial system as a tool to exert economic pressure. In contrast China promotes the Belt and Road Initiative and seeks mutually beneficial and win-win partnerships. In the long run, replacing confrontation with dialog and replacing zero-sum games with cooperation is the right track for the relationship between China and the United States, and even between countries.

    Reply

46. My name is =Mia, I am postgraduate student; I am working on this topic: =Study on the influence of technical trade barriers on China’s electronic industry export. Tariq is my professor, teaching us philosophy of science, research and dissemination methods.

    Reply

47. My name is nora , I am postgraduate student.. Tariq is my professor, teaching us philosophy of science, research and dissemination methods. The teacher is responsible for teaching, diligent and enthusiastic.

    Reply

48. My name is Mia, I am postgraduate student; I am working on this topic: Study on the influence of technical trade barriers on China’s electronic industry export. Tariq is my professor, teaching us philosophy of science, research and dissemination methods. Tariq is very sincere and professional

    Reply

49. My name is Yu Liging, and l am a research student at Liaoning University, China. Tarik is my professor. l am the class coordinator, and l we are enjoying this class so far. Tarik told us about this and ask us to comment on the LSE Business Review article he wrote. Because the class is about philosophy of science and the related research methods, this essay is relevant to us. We will be posting our progress more often on this site.
    The topic title is “The integration of the global supply chain affects on the innovation performance of the multinational enterprises” There are three concepts in the following.

    1. The first one is Innovation, it is the process of creating and implementing new ideas, new methods, new products, or new services within an organization to improve sales performance, competitiveness, and create value for your customers.
    2. The second one is Global supply chain integration, it refers to the systematic management and optimization of all links of the supply chain in a global scope, so as to realize the efficient allocation of resources, cost reduction and the improvement of competitiveness. It involves the coordination and integration of procurement, production, logistics, sales and other links on a global scale to meet the market demand and achieve the strategic goals of the enterprise. For example, suppliers and buyers.
    3. The third one is MNEs, it refers to an international large enterprise composed of economic entities from two or more countries and engaged in production, sales and other business activities among many countries, such as Huawei and Xiaomi.

    Reply

50. My name is Wang Yushu ,and I am a research student at Liaoning University,China.Tariq is my professor.My topic title is ” Research on the Impact of Digital Transformation on the Depth of Enterprise Internationalization”
    There are two concepts in the following:
    a)The first one is the depth of enterprise internationalization, it refers to the extent of its resource investment and business penetration in international markets. It is typically measured through financial data, such as the proportion of overseas sales revenue to the company’s total sales revenue, or the proportion of overseas assets to the company’s total assets.
    b)The second one is digital transformation, The process by which a company breaks through the limitations of its domestic market, expands its business activities to other countries and regions through various means, and thereby obtains broader market space, resources, and competitive advantages.

    Reply

51. My name is Xie jiaying, and l am a research student at Liaoning University, China. Tarik is my professor. Tarik told us about this and ask us to comment on the LSE Business Review article he wrote. Because the class is about philosophy of science and the related research methods, this essay is relevant to us. We will be posting our progress more often on this site.
    The topic title is “The impact of digital transformation to export complexity”. There are two concepts in the following
    1、 The first one is digital transformation, it is the integration of digital technologies into all areas of a business or organization ,completely changing how it operates and delivers value to customers. Such as AI, robot
    2、 The second one is export complexity.it measures products ‘s sophistication、diversity and technology intensity. And export complexity is related to high export cost .

    Reply

52. My name is Cao Xiaoling , and l am a research student at Liaoning University, China. Tarik is my professor. The topic title is “The impact of high standard trade agreements on industrial chain
    Resilience”.
    The first one is high standard trade agreements.it covers not only trade barriers between customs territories, such as tariffs and market access, but also the policy environment that goods or investments face after entering a country’s customs territory. For example, when it comes to trade between China and the United States, traditional trade agreements focus on the tariffs imposed on Chinese products exported to the United States. In contrast, high standard trade agreements pay attention to the marketing environment that products face after entering the U.S. market, such as competition with similar products and loan policies.
    The second one is Industrial chain resilience, it refers to the ability of a production and supply network to withstand, recover from and adapt to disruptions or shocks.

    Reply

53. My name is Xiejiaying,and I am a research student of Liaoning University,China.
    The topic title is “The impact of digital transformation to export complexity”. There are two concepts in the following
    1、 The first one is digital transformation, it is the integration of digital technologies into all areas of a business or organization ,completely changing how it operates and delivers value to customers. Such as AI, robot
    2、 The second one is export complexity.it measures products ‘s sophistication、diversity and technology intensity. And export complexity is related to high export cost .

    Reply

54. My name is Pan tingting , and I am a research student at Liaoning University,China.Tariq is my professor. I am the class coordinator, and we are enjoying this class so far.Tariq told us about this and asked us to
    comment on the LSE Business Review article he wrote. Because the class is about philosophy of science and the related research methods, this essay is relevant to us. We will be posting our progress more often on this site.

    Reply

    1. A great article.I’m Professor Tariq’s student.I think Tariq’s every article is excellent!

       Reply

55. My name is Wang herong, and l am a research student at Liaoning University, China. Tarik is my professor. I am the class coordinator,and we are enjoying this class so far.Tarik told us about this and ask us to comment on the LSE Business Review article he wrote. Because the class is about philosophy of science and the related research methods, this essay is relevant to us. We will be posting our progress more often on this site.
    The topic title is ” The Impact of University-Industry-Research Collaboration Intensity on the International Market Share of Chinese High-Tech Export-Oriented Firms“.There are three concepts in the following:
    1. The first is the intensity of university-industry-research cooperation. It refers to the comprehensive level of achievement output in technological innovation activities of enterprises, universities and scientific research institutions, reflecting the closeness of collaborative innovation among the three.
    2.The second is Chinese high-tech export-oriented firms, which are registered in China, have core independent intellectual property rights and whose exports of products account for more than 50% of the total revenue, such as Huawei, DJI.
    3.The third one is international market share, through it, we can know the performance of university-industry-research cooperation for high-tech export-oriented firms in the international market.

    Reply

56. My name is SuJiahao,and I am a research student of Liaoning University,China.
    The topic title is “Analysis of the Impact of ESG Rating on the International Financing Cost of Enterprises”. There are three concepts in the following
    1. ESG Rating
    ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance. An ESG rating is a measure of a company’s performance and risk exposure in these three areas. It is typically assessed by third-party rating agencies (e.g., MSCI, Sustainalytics, or S&P Global) and provides investors with insights into how well a company manages its environmental impact, social responsibilities, and corporate governance practices.
    2. International Financing Cost
    International financing cost refers to the expenses a company incurs when raising capital from global markets. This includes interest rates on loans, bond yields, or equity costs in international financial markets. It is influenced by factors such as credit risk, market conditions, and investor perceptions.
    3.Enterprises
    Enterprises refer to businesses or organizations engaged in commercial, industrial, or professional activities. In the context of your paper, the focus is on multinational corporations or firms that operate across borders and rely on international financing.

    Reply

57. My name is Wu Weike, and I am a research student at Liaoning University, China. We are enjoying this class. Tariq told us about this and ask us to comment on the LSE Business Review article he wrote. Because the class is about philosophy of science and the related research methods, this essay is relevant to us. We will be posting our progress more often on this site.

    The topic title is “The Impact of a National Unified Market on Supply Chain Resilience of Manufacturing Firms: Based on the Perspective of Listed Companies in China”
    There are three concepts in the following：
    1.A unified national market refers to the construction of a large market with fair and uniform rules of market systems, factor resources and market regulation throughout the country, forming an open, competitive and orderly market system.
    2.The supply chain of a manufacturing company refers to all the links involved in the entire process, from purchasing and production to the delivery of the product to the final consumer.
    3.Resilience is the ability to maintain normal operations and recover from sudden risks or disruptions.

    Reply

58. This paper’s insightful analysis of the US-China tech rivalry underscores a critical tension—and opportunity—at the heart of global innovation: the potential for a third philosophical framework beyond “sprint” versus “marathon” strategies. While the US prioritizes exclusivity and short-term dominance and China emphasizes inclusive, long-term resilience, the paper implicitly suggests that collaborative competition could emerge as the next frontier. Consider semiconductor supply chains: America’s chip design leadership and China’s raw material control create an interdependent system where shared risks could yield mutual gains through strategic partnerships. Similarly, the EU’s “sovereign tech” model—balancing regional autonomy with global collaboration—exemplifies how competition and cooperation can coexist. As climate challenges and AI ethics demand transnational solutions, the rivalry’s evolution may see nations fiercely competing in market applications (e.g., electric vehicles, quantum computing) while pooling resources in foundational research. This isn’t idealism—it’s pragmatism. In an era where technological breakthroughs unfold at lightning speed yet existential threats require generational planning, the future belongs to those who can sprint and marathon—without losing sight of shared human progress.

    Reply

59. ​In a recent interview, the USA’s Vice President JD Vance remarked:​

    “We borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.” ​

    This statement has elicited diverse reactions. Critics argue that referring to Chinese citizens as “peasants” is outdated and pejorative, suggesting a lack of sophistication in China’s workforce. Additionally, they point out that the majority of U.S. debt held by China is owned by government entities, not individual citizens. Furthermore, many Chinese manufacturers are urban, skilled workers, not rural peasants. ​

    Supporters of Vice President Vance’s perspective highlight concerns over U.S. economic policies that have led to significant debt accumulation and reliance on foreign manufacturing. They argue that this dynamic has contributed to the decline of domestic manufacturing and has had adverse effects on American workers. ​The debate underscores the complexities of international trade, economic policy, and cultural perceptions in global relations.

    INTER-NARRATIVE DISTANCE:

    The narrative presented by JD Vance differs significantly from the Chinese narrative, especially in the context of the philosophies behind the U.S.-China tech war, as discussed in Tariq H. Malik’s LSE Business Review article. Vance’s statement—“We borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture”—reflects a critical view of the economic dependence the U.S. has developed on China.

    It suggests that the U.S. is in a subservient, borrowing position, reliant on Chinese financial support (via borrowing) to sustain its consumption habits, which are fueled by Chinese-manufactured goods.

    Vance’s choice of the term “peasants” implies a condescending view of China’s labor force, underscoring a perception of China as a manufacturing powerhouse that remains subordinate or less advanced compared to the U.S. in terms of economic power.

    Short-Term Focus:

    Vance’s narrative aligns with the U.S. “sprint” strategy, which, according to Malik, is about short-term victories, exclusivity, and rapid dominance. This viewpoint sees China as a competitor that the U.S. must challenge for immediate gains.

    Vance’s rhetoric reflects frustration over the U.S. economy’s reliance on Chinese goods, emphasizing that it has become an unsustainable cycle that needs to be broken.

    Chinese Narrative (as Implied in Malik’s Article):
    Long-Term Strategic Planning (Marathon Approach):

    The Chinese narrative, in contrast, follows a long-term strategic vision. As per Malik’s “marathon” approach, China focuses on sustainable growth, technological self-reliance, and gradual advancement.

    China’s strategy aims to build its technological and economic strength over time through strategic alliances, flexibility, and a focus on soft power. This approach is about patience, incremental development, and leveraging global partnerships for mutual growth.

    Pride in Manufacturing and Technological Advancement:

    The Chinese narrative celebrates its manufacturing capabilities as part of a larger strategy to evolve into a global technological leader. It presents China not as a “peasant” economy but as a dynamic, evolving player in the global tech landscape, making strides in areas like artificial intelligence, telecommunications, and green energy.

    China sees itself as increasingly independent and resilient, moving towards self-reliance in critical technologies and reducing dependence on foreign technology.

    Long-Term Economic Autonomy:

    Unlike the U.S. focus on short-term dominance, China emphasizes a sustainable, autonomous future where it leads in global technological innovation. This is not only about immediate results but also about positioning itself as a central player in shaping future economic and technological orders.

    Key Differences:
    Perception of China’s Role: Vance’s narrative views China as a competitor to the U.S., characterized by its “peasants” making low-cost goods. In contrast, the Chinese narrative positions China as an emerging leader, with a proud history of manufacturing that now focuses on innovation and technology.

    Economic Philosophy: Vance criticizes the U.S.’s reliance on borrowing from China for short-term consumption. The Chinese narrative, on the other hand, is focused on long-term economic autonomy, sustainable growth, and the gradual buildup of technological prowess.

    Focus on the Future: While Vance’s narrative is rooted in the immediate economic impact of the U.S.-China relationship, the Chinese narrative looks towards future self-sufficiency and leadership in global innovation.

    In essence, Vance’s narrative expresses a sense of grievance and frustration with U.S. dependence on China, while the Chinese narrative embraces long-term, strategic growth, focusing on technological leadership and economic autonomy. These divergent viewpoints reflect the broader philosophical divide between the U.S. “sprint” approach and China’s “marathon” strategy.

    China has its own fair share of problems as any economies can have, but it does not talks in terms that are blew the belt! Only American discordant behaviour does so!

    Reply

60. This article provides a profound analysis of the philosophical differences underpinning the U.S.-China tech competition, offering unique and insightful perspectives. The author astutely highlights that the U.S. tends to view competition as a sprint, focusing on short-term victories, whereas China approaches it as a marathon, emphasizing long-term strategic planning. This contrast not only illustrates the differing strategies in the technological arena but also reflects the deep-rooted cultural and philosophical traditions of each nation. By referencing Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and Clausewitz’s theories, the article adeptly elucidates the distinct mindsets in the tech rivalry. This interdisciplinary approach provides readers with a more comprehensive understanding of global technological competition.

    Reply

61. An essay in the LSE Business Review indeed captured some prescient insights about what was going to happen between the USA and China in these tens economic issues. The cultural-operational divide and the asymmetry in knowledge — are proving especially relevant.

    1. Cultural gap and differing operations

    The essay pointed out how firms and institutions from the U.S. and China function within distinct narrative environments. This isn’t just about language or etiquette — it touches on how innovation is structured, how trust is built, and how decisions are justified. Western firms often expect linear, performance-based storytelling; Chinese firms, on the other hand, embed more implicit meanings and historical continuity into their business narratives.

    The prediction that “they operate differently” becomes apparent when we see breakdowns in joint ventures, diplomatic misreadings, or even misinterpreted market signals — all stemming from fundamental differences in what is valued and how it’s expressed.

    2. Knowledge asymmetry: China knows more about the U.S.

    This imbalance has also become clearer over time. Chinese academia, business media, and policy actors closely monitor and study the U.S., while American counterparts often lack nuanced understanding of Chinese systems beyond surface-level metrics. Malik’s observation was that China has spent decades “listening” and adapting, whereas the U.S. has been comparatively selective and reactive in its knowledge gathering.

    Recent geopolitical tensions, tech rivalry, and strategic missteps continue to validate this asymmetry — especially when U.S. policies underestimate how interconnected and information-rich Chinese networks have become.

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.