World Leader In Technology Research Articles

″STEM-education of teachers in the countries of the Eastern world and Australia

There are a number of Eastern states, in which there is a significant economic growth and thestrengthening of the position of world leaders in technology. According to the results of the internationalassessment of PISA students, these countries also lead the ranking of educational system ratings. Therefore,the education systems of such states are of interest for research. A critical study of existing solutions for theimplementation and popularization of STEM-education can be useful for building our own STEM-educationsystem. It will also offer an opportunity to identify various options for improving the competitiveness of our state. The article provides an overview of the existing educational research in China, Japan, Taiwan,Singapore, and Australia. An overview of the existing regulatory framework and the system of teachereducation in these countries has also been made. Although each country defines in its own way a set ofSTEM-objects and their combinations, in most cases mathematics, science (physics, biology, chemistry) andICT (digital technologies) take the basis. Emphasis is placed on the system of teacher education (graduateand postgraduate) in mathematical and natural disciplines. There are also examples of initiatives launched bynon-state institutions involved in teacher development.

Patriotism Without Bad Faith

2. It is the world leader in technology, producing ... airplanes and tanks, which, being the best in the world, are going to win the war. They are certainly better than anything the Germans or the Japs can make. (Only the brightest and boldest of the troops perceived that American tanks were seriously outgunned by the German ones). Among the troops only the finely tuned noted the superiority of the German machine guns. Discovery of any of these facts was demoralizing, and a problem confronting the brighter US infantryman was rationalizing away the sorry truths when among dumber people.

WHY CHINA INDUSTRIALIZED AFTER ENGLAND

Although industrialization first occurred in England, it is thought that China, not England, may have been the world leader in technology at the time. Yet, China did not industrialize until 150 yr after England and nearly a century after less advanced European countries. This represents a puzzle because two-sector neoclassical growth models, such as Hansen and Prescott (2002), that accurately match industrialization, require that more technologically advanced countries industrialize at an earlier date. I find that a model that accounts for cross-country heterogeneities in population density accurately predicts the timing of industrialization in China. (JEL F43, N10, N30, O11, O14, O41)

New Technology, Subsidies, and Competitive Advantage

In the history of world economic development, it is not uncommon that from time to time the role of technological leadership shifted from one country to another; a lagging country seized the opportunity of a major technological innovation and overtook the leading country. The postwar experience of the U.S. and Japanese steel industries is an example of such leapfrogging. In 1950s, the U.S. steel industry was the world leader in technology, plant scale and productivity [2, 71]. The Japanese steel industry, on the other hand, was in its infancy. At that time two basic technologies were available for steel producers: the established open-hearth furnace and the new and more efficient basic oxygen-furnace process. The U.S. steel producers invested heavily in the open-hearth technology immediately after the World War II. Hence in the late fifties and early sixties they resisted the shift from the open-hearth furnace to the basic oxygen-furnace. The Japanese steel producers, on the other hand, had little sunk investment in the old technology. They expanded their production capacity by building brand-new plants using the oxygen-furnace technology. As a result, the U.S. steel industry gradually lost its position of world dominance after 1960s. The American share of world steel production fell from 40 percent in 1955 to 18 percent in the early 1970s [2, 69]. It is also interesting to note the different policies pursued by the U.S. government and the Japanese government towards their steel industries during that period. The Japanese government actively promoted the growth of its steel industry by providing tax and depreciation incentives as well as low interest loans. The U.S. government, on the other hand, adopted a more or less laissez-faire approach and did not play an active role in encouraging the U.S. steel producers to switch to the new technology. The U.S. government started to intervene only after the U.S. industry had already lost its competitive advantage to Japan at the end of 1960s. Why did the U.S. steel industry lose its competitive advantage to Japan? Some might argue that the U.S. steel producers and the U.S. government simply made a mistake. Resisting the new technology was a strategic error on the part of the U.S. steel producers. The U.S. government also erred in not intervening earlier. This explanation, however, is not satisfactory if one believes in the fundamental assumption of economics that agents are rational.