Short-term politics, media puppets, and the death of innovation.
Frans Vandenbosch 方腾波 07.06.2025
The short term vision
Western political and economic systems are collapsing under the weight of short-termism, media dependency, and the marginalisation of engineering expertise. Political leaders serve electoral calendars and public opinion polls, not national strategy or technical advancement. Corporate executives, beholden to shareholders and obsessed with quarterly results, have sacrificed long-term innovation for financial gain. This essay examines how the absence of STEM-trained leadership in both politics and business has led to systemic decay. Drawing from academic research and real-world corporate failures, it contrasts this trajectory with China’s technically grounded governance and long-term economic planning and outlines the consequences of the West’s neglect.
The failure of western politics
The failure of Western politics is primarily due to the exclusion of STEM graduates and the absence of long-term vision. This topic is elaborated in detail in our previous analyses: The STEM–sociology clash and The level of intelligence of Chinese and Western politicians [1] [2] Western politicians are trapped in short-term thinking driven by electoral cycles, with their entire careers dependent on the next vote. Moreover, they are media-dependent figures: like actors and other celebrities, they rely on exposure to remain relevant.
The failure of western economy
The structural failure of the Western economy lies not only in its obsession with short-term profit but also in the exclusion of technical expertise from strategic decision-making. Leadership in most major firms is dominated by individuals trained in finance, law, or management consultancy, while engineers (the true enablers of technological innovation) are systematically side-lined. This distortion elevates return on investment (ROI), share price, and quarterly performance over technological depth, resilience, or sustainability.
Academic literature strongly supports this analysis. Companies led by STEM-trained executives consistently perform better in innovation output, R&D efficiency, and long-term value creation. [3] [4] [5] Western firms, however, have increasingly subordinated innovation to financialization; a trend first critiqued by Lazonick and O’Sullivan, who demonstrated how shareholder primacy eroded industrial capacity through buybacks and executive bonuses.[6] Mariana Mazzucato further showed how the shift away from mission-driven investment in technological capability hollowed out Western manufacturing.[7]
China has taken the opposite approach. In its top technology and infrastructure firms, engineers frequently lead the organisation and long-term state-aligned strategic goals are given precedence over speculative shareholder returns. Research from Tsinghua University confirms that engineer-led enterprises in China’s manufacturing sector are significantly more adaptive and innovative than their Western counterparts.[8] The same findings emerge from studies of companies such as Huawei, BYD, and CATL — where leadership is drawn from technical backgrounds, and policy alignment ensures sustainable investment over decades.[9] [10]
Textbook examples
Three textbook examples demonstrate the extent of this economic and managerial malaise:
The first is Boeing. The cascade of Boeing’s failures, including the CST-100 Starliner, the 737 MAX 8 and multiple safety incidents, highlights a systemic problem: profit-driven decision-making undermining engineering integrity. Once the gold standard of American aerospace engineering, Boeing’s trajectory shifted dramatically after the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas. Power moved from engineers to accountants. The resulting culture placed ROI and shareholder satisfaction above flight safety and product integrity. The 737 MAX tragedies, the CST-100 Starliner’s persistent delays, and recurring safety failures are direct consequences of engineering being overruled by cost-cutting imperatives.[11] [12] [13]
Second is General Electric. For much of the twentieth century, GE stood at the forefront of American innovation. That changed with the rise of financialization under CEO Jack Welch. The company increasingly focused on shareholder returns, shifting capital into GE Capital and away from its engineering base. By the late 2010s, GE’s once-dominant position in turbines, healthcare, and lighting had collapsed. It was delisted from the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 2018. [14] [15]
The third case is MAGNA International, my own former employer, where I have experienced the decline myself. MAGNA was long admired for its decentralised structure and engineering-led philosophy under Frank Stronach. Over time, however, MAGNA too has succumbed to pressures from North American shareholders. Key engineering divisions were outsourced or downsized, and lean-management frameworks prioritised margins over innovation. Comparative studies of global automotive supply chains reveal a distinct decline in Western firms’ ability to manage transitions to electric drivetrains, digital architecture, and intelligent mobility, fields where Chinese suppliers such as BYD and CATL have surged ahead due to their technically led, long-term strategies. [16] [17]
In all three cases, mainstream business media compounded the problem. Financial news coverage focuses obsessively on quarterly earnings, share price, and market rankings, metrics of immediate perception, not structural capability. The public is fed constant data on valuation and growth while being kept largely ignorant of a firm’s long-term technical viability. When the media act as cheerleaders for financiers and not critics of executive drift, corporate decay becomes not a failure of competence, but the system’s default outcome.
The decline of Western power is not accidental
The decay is engineered by its own refusal to value engineers. By prioritising media appeal over merit, and ROI over resilience, Western elites have stripped politics and industry of the skills necessary for long-term survival. The consequences are visible: political stagnation, corporate collapse, technological lag. Boeing, GE, and MAGNA are not isolated failures; they are symptoms of a culture that rewards appearances and punishes substance. In contrast, China’s rise has been built on technical expertise, strategic patience, and state-guided innovation. Where the West sees engineers as technicians, China sees them as leaders. The lesson is clear: no civilisation can endure when it marginalises the minds that build its infrastructure, power its industry, and innovate its future. Reversing the decline demands a radical revaluation of expertise, time horizons, and the purpose of leadership itself. Without it, more wreckage lies ahead.
Thank you for reading! We’d love to hear your thoughts. Please share your comments here below and join the conversation with our community!
本文英文：
Dit artikel in het Nederlands:
This article was also published at The China Academy
Endnotes
[1] Frans Vandenbosch 方腾波 The STEM-sociology clash 09.05.2025 https://yellowlion.org/the-stem-sociology-clash/
[2] Frans Vandenbosch 方腾波 The level of intelligence of Chinese and Western politicians, 29.06.2022
https://yellowlion.org/a-comparative-study-on-the-level-of-intelligence-of-chinese-and-western-politicians/
[3] Li, J., & Chen, W. “Leadership backgrounds and innovation: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms.” Journal of Technology Transfer, 2019.
[4] Zhang, Y., & Liu, M. “STEM leadership and firm innovation in China: Evidence from Tsinghua University affiliates.” Management Science, 2020.
[5] Jones, C. I. “The burden of knowledge and the ‘death of the Renaissance man’: Is innovation getting harder?” The Review of Economic Studies, 2009.
[6] Lazonick, W., & O’Sullivan, M. “Maximizing shareholder value: A new ideology for corporate governance.” Economy and Society, 2000.
[7] Mazzucato, M. The Entrepreneurial State. Anthem Press, 2013.
[8] Liu, H., & Tang, Z. “Engineering management and innovation in Chinese firms.” Science and Public Policy, 2018
[9] Wu, X., & Wang, L. “Corporate governance and innovation performance: Evidence from China.” China Economic Review, 2017.
[10] Lin, C., & Wang, M. “Policy alignment and technical leadership in Chinese high-tech firms.” Asian Business & Management, 2021
[11] Gelles, D., & Kitroeff, N. “Boeing’s 737 Max Crisis: The Root Causes.” The New York Times, 2019..
[12] David, R., & Thomas, J. “Safety versus profit: Boeing’s engineering culture under pressure.” Aerospace Engineering Review, 2021.
[13] Miller, C. “The Boeing 737 Max disasters: Engineering, management, and regulatory failures.” Journal of Air Transport Management, 2020.
[14] Hiltzik, M. “How General Electric lost its way.” Los Angeles Times, 2017.
[15] Carter, D. “Financialization and decline in American industrial giants: The case of GE.” Business History Review, 2019.
[16] Johnson, P., & Smith, R. “Engineering leadership and shareholder influence: The decline of MAGNA International.” International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 2018.
[17] Zhang, F., & Hu, D. “Transitioning to new automotive technologies: A comparative study of Western and Chinese supply chains.” Transportation Research Part A, 2022.
