The present author thinks a country's military power is a combination of morale, spending, intelligence and logistics, training and coordination. The CASS report on China's military standing reflected traditional metrics such as expenditure and weapons performance, leaving out of the equation crucial factors such as intelligence gathering and command-and-control capabilities. On the other hand, the report did not cover China's growing military presence in outer space.

As for the report on China's modernization, it lacks a definition of what constitutes modernization, and has not come to grips with the fact that the modernization experienced by the man in the street, may not correspond to that visualized in the academy. It is easy to quote figures, but more difficult to square them with the real experience of the public. Once again, how do we define modernization? Do tall buildings equal modernization? Should ecology be included as a criterion? The public is obviously more concerned about blue skies and clean drinking water than record-breaking skyscrapers.

A modern ideology and social system is an even more important factor. One is attempted to ask: what weight was given to technological innovation in the report's modernization index? Will expanding education coverage raise the overall quality of the nation? Is the social consciousness of the population advanced enough to recognize the importance of democracy and a sound legal system?

One thing in common between the two reports is that both are based on figures. Evaluating military capability and comprehensive national power using data and numbers is an approach that has much strength. But a number of factors may lead to results obtained clashing with the experience of the public – including the validity of data and research methods. What is even more fundamental is that public needs to be clear in its own mind work what modernization is, and what it means for them.

It is in the nature of social science that the results of its research are approximate. What is more, Chinese scholars need to optimize their research methods and improve the quality of their data. We have to acknowledge that we still have a lot to learn from Western think tanks, including their independent spirit and pursuit of originality.

Nevertheless, as China develops, more information will become available to the public, which will facilitate the development of Chinese think tanks, and the production of better, more accurate reports.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.ccgp-fushun.com/opinion/node_7082361.htm

(This article was translated by Maverick Chen)