The modern power of the state is defined not only by military or economical force, but increasingly by the ability to synergize both spheres. China, striving for the position of a global power, has made Civil-military merger (军民融合, jūn-mín rónghé) a central component of its national strategy. This is simply a comprehensive approach to bridge conventional barriers between the defence and civilian sectors to maximise the country's technological and industrial potential. Analyzing this model, it is impossible to avoid comparisons with the American Agency for Advanced defence investigation Projects (DARPA), which has been the engine of innovation for the United States for decades. Although both approaches prosecute a akin nonsubjective – technological supremacy – their philosophy, structure and scale disagree significantly.
What is simply a civil-military merger?
Civil-military merger is simply a state strategy that involves integrating and coordinating the improvement of the civilian economy with the construction of modern defence. The aim is to make a unified national innovation strategy in which resources, technologies, talents and capital can flow freely between the military and civilian sectors. In practice, this means that Chinese armed forces are to draw on the achievements of dynamically developing technology companies, and military technologies are to be transferred to the economy, creating fresh industries.
This strategy was raised to national precedence by president Xi Jinping, and in 2017 it was established Central Commission for Integrated Military and civilian DevelopmentHe's the 1 he's chairing. This shows the highest political rank of this project. The main assumptions of the merger include:
- “Min can jun” (民参军) – “civils support army”: Encouraging and facilitating private companies, universities and investigation institutes to participate in defence projects, deliver components and make technology for the military.
- “Jun zhuan min” (军转民) – “arm transfers to civilian”: Commercialisation of technologies and standards originally developed for military purposes to stimulate economical development.
- Sharing of resources: Integration of infrastructure, databases, logistics and education systems to destruct duplication and cost reduction.
Key areas on which the strategy focuses include artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, biotechnology, space industry, aviation, fresh materials and cybersecurity.
DARPA: American innovation model “high risk”
Created in 1958 in consequence to Sputnik's launch by the USSR, DARPA had a simple mission: “to prevent strategical surprise, causing it.” The agency acts as a small, flexible unit within the U.S. Department of Defense, which aims to fund radical, breakthrough R & D projects with a advanced hazard of failure, but besides a immense possible impact.
The DARPA model is based on respective pillars:
- Small, flexible structure: The Agency employs comparatively fewer task managers who are experts in their fields and work on temporary contracts.
- Focus on breakthrough targets: DARPA does not deal with the gradual improvement of existing technologies, but strives for revolutionary technological leaps.
- Network of economical operators: The Agency does not run its own laboratories. Instead, he commissions investigation to universities, private companies (both start-ups and technological giants) and investigation institutes.
- Tolerance for failure: The awareness that striving for a breakthrough involves hazard is included in the culture of the organization.
Thanks to this approach, DARPA contributed to the emergence of technologies that revolutionized not only the battlefield but besides civilian life. These include the net (ARPANET), GPS, stealth technology, drones, voice interfaces or advanced materials.
Comparison: Civil-military merger vs. DARPA
| Characteristics | Civil-military merger (China) | DARPA (USA) |
| Scale and Philosophy | A national, top-down strategy to integrate the economy and defence system. | A specialized agency within the defence Department, focused on R & D projects. |
| Structure | A multi-level strategy managed by a central commission, ministries and government agencies. | Flat, flexible structure based on task managers hired for a fixed period of time. |
| Mechanism of action | Creating regulation, standardisation and promoting technology transfer between civilian and military sectors. | Funding circumstantial risky investigation projects with clearly defined objectives and timetables. |
| Role of the private sector | Private companies are included in the state R & D strategy for defence purposes. | Private companies and universities act as independent investigation contractors. |
| Main direction of technology flow | Two-way: civilian technologies are adapted to military needs and military technologies are commercialised. | Mainly one-way: the improvement of defence technologies, which can secondaryly find civilian applications (so-called spin-offs). |
| Information availability | Information on the links between civilian and military entities is regulated by the State. | The existence of projects is public, but their method and operational details are classified. |
Similarities and differences in practice
Similarity Both models are fundamental to the belief that technological advantage is key to national safety and global competitiveness. Both China and the US realize that innovation in the civilian sector, driven by marketplace forces, is besides valuable to ignore in the defence context. Both countries usage their systems to stimulate improvement in strategical areas specified as artificial intelligence and space technologies.
However, fundamental difference is in a state-economy approach. Chinese civil-military merger is simply a national strategy whose direction is determined by central state leadership. This model is based on the creation of conditions and incentive systems by the state, which guide the innovative possible of companies and investigation institutions to meet strategical national objectives. In turn, US DARPA, although financed by the government, acts as a catalyst within a decentralised ecosystem. The State initiates and finances research, but their implementation is carried out with advanced operational autonomy in the private and academic sectors.
The Chinese approach, though possibly effective in mobilising resources on a massive scale, faces challenges specified as bureaucracy and the request to continuously improve the cooperation mechanisms between state arms giants and the dynamic private sector. In turn, the DARPA model, although highly effective in generating breakthrough ideas, is inherently limited in scale and is not a comprehensive industrial policy.
Which model will win?
The Chinese strategy for civil-military merger is an ambitious and comprehensive effort to make synergies between economical and military power on an unprecedented scale. This is simply a consequence to the challenges of the 21st century, implemented utilizing tools that characterise a highly centralised state. The comparison with DARPA shows that although the goal – gaining technological advantage – is the same, the ways to accomplish it can be radically different.
DARPA represents a model of “surgical precision” – a tiny intervention with possibly immense effects, embedded in a liberal economical ecosystem. Civil-military merger is in turn a strategy of “total mobilization”, where the full state and economical device is active in the accomplishment of centrally appointed objectives.
Which of these models will prove to be more effective in the long word remains 1 of the key questions defining geopolitical and technological competition in the coming decades.
Source:
- 2022年军民融合行业研究报告 – 21财经
- 党的十八大以来军民融合发展战略的深化与拓展*
- 方德信军民融合系列——综述篇:军民市场双轮驱动,资本助力军民融合
- The DARPA Model for Transformative Technologies – William Bonvillian
- The DARPA Model for Transformative Technologies: Perspectives on the U.S. defence Advanced investigation Projects Agency | Open Book Publishers
- “是与非’:外国眼中的中国军民融合
Leszek B. Glass
Email: [email protected]
© www.chiny24.com
