The development economics of meritocracy and talent allocation : evidence from book writing in historical China

Abstract

What led to the decline of science in preindustrial China? This dissertation engages with this classic question by leveraging original data to quantify human capital and technology with unprecedented granularity over the long term. Guided by patterns in our data, we focus on a central hypothesis: Did the Imperial Examination hinder scientific progress, as widely believed? If so, through what mechanisms? To address these questions, we apply causal inference to test the proposed relationships.

This thesis consists of three substantive chapters. In the first chapter, I study the historical trajectory of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) knowledge production in China, addressing the foundational question of whether a measurable decline in Chinese science occurred. To investigate this, the chapter constructs a long-run time series dataset on books published from 202 BCE to 1912 CE, along with a panel dataset on both STEM books and technological inventions between 960 and 1912 CE. It begins by analyzing STEM book production and its changing proportion within overall knowledge output. My collaborator, Zhiwu Chen, and I find a significant decline in STEM book writings from medieval to late imperial China, a period leading up to the Europe-China divergence in technology. To reinforce confidence in our findings, we corroborate patterns in book data with invention data, which similarly show a decline in inventions per capita.

In the second chapter, I seek to uncover the most likely causal factor behind the decline of Chinese science. The chapter begins by examining trends in book writing across other thematic areas to identify key competitors of STEM knowledge in the marketplace for ideas. My collaborator, Zhiwu Chen, and I observe a growing emphasis on Statecraft and subjects within the Imperial Examination curriculum, suggesting that the Examination system's incentive structure diverted intellectual efforts away from STEM fields. The remainder of the chapter explores the potential causal relationship between the Imperial Examination and shifts in Chinese knowledge production. To examine this, we introduce another key dataset—the complete roster and biographies of Jinshi degree holders—as a proxy for the Examination’s impact. We construct a panel dataset spanning 960 to 1910 CE, covering nearly the entire duration of the Examination. Our empirical analysis reveals that a higher concentration of Jinshi degree holders led to a decline in STEM book writing and a rise in Statecraft-related works. Strengthening the causal interpretation, we employ an instrumental variable approach and a regression discontinuity design.

In the third chapter, I focus on a specific period in the history of the Examination to better understand its impact on talent allocation. This chapter examines the years 1840 to 1904, the final decades of the Examination, and explores heterogeneous career choices among different echelons of Chinese intellectuals in a dynamic setting where the Examination faced challenges from globalization. To investigate this, the chapter constructs a panel dataset and employs a staggered difference-in-differences model, using the opening of treaty ports as exogenous shocks. My collaborator, Xiaoming Zhang, and I first establish the baseline finding that a substantial portion of Chinese human capital was reallocated toward the establishment of modern firms following the opening of treaty ports. We then further decompose human capital into different segments of intellectuals, each positioned differently within the Examination hierarchy. Our analysis reveals that exposure to Western influence primarily mobilized individuals at the lower end or outside the Examination system into modern business, where they acted as indigenous agents in promoting new ideas and knowledge.

This thesis contributes to the literature in two key ways. First, the construction of a bibliometric dataset enables, for the first time, both a long-run perspective and granular causal inference on this topic, offering significant potential for future research. Second, the systematic investigation of the Imperial Examination enhances our understanding of how meritocracy shaped talent allocation and, in turn, influenced long-term economic development.