Nanotechnology as Industrial Policy: China and the United States

Richard P. Appelbaum, Cong Cao, Rachel Parker, Yasuyuki Motoyama

Research output: Chapter in Book/Conference proceedingBook Chapterpeer-review


Johnson’s tripartite distinction of policymaking was based on two interacting dimensions: the principal type of economic governance (market driven vs. state planning) and the principal type of decision making (ideologically driven vs. what might be today called “evidence based”). In addition to the crudeness of the resulting binary distinctions, Johnson’s framework is missing a logical fourth category: “market-ideological.” As Henderson and Appelbaum (1992) reformulate Johnson’s original typology, [In] market-ideological political economies… public policy is oriented above all toward assuring free market operations. Like plan ideological political economies, market ideological regimes arise from ideological dogma: in the case of the former, the wisdom and benevolence of state managers in a command economy; in the case of the latter, the wisdom and benevolence of an invisible hand in a supposedly unfettered market.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationThe Social Life of Nanotechnology
PublisherTaylor and Francis
Number of pages23
ISBN (Electronic)9781136258114
ISBN (Print)9780415899055
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2013
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
  • Engineering (all)
  • Social Sciences (all)


Dive into the research topics of 'Nanotechnology as Industrial Policy: China and the United States'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this