圖書標籤: 曆史 海外中國研究 統計學 政治學 中國研究 中國 Ghosh_Arunabh CHINA
发表于2024-11-22
Making It Count pdf epub mobi txt 電子書 下載 2024
In 1949, at the end of a long period of wars, one of the biggest challenges facing leaders of the new People’s Republic of China was how much they did not know. The government of one of the world’s largest nations was committed to fundamentally reengineering its society and economy via socialist planning while having almost no reliable statistical data about their own country. Making It Count is the history of efforts to resolve this “crisis in counting.” Drawing on a wealth of sources culled from China, India, and the United States, Arunabh Ghosh explores the choices made by political leaders, statisticians, academics, statistical workers, and even literary figures in attempts to know the nation through numbers.
Ghosh shows that early reliance on Soviet-inspired methods of exhaustive enumeration became increasingly untenable in China by the mid-1950s. Unprecedented and unexpected exchanges with Indian statisticians followed, as the Chinese sought to learn about the then-exciting new technology of random sampling. These developments were overtaken by the tumult of the Great Leap Forward (1958–61), when probabilistic and exhaustive methods were rejected and statistics was refashioned into an ethnographic enterprise. By acknowledging Soviet and Indian influences, Ghosh not only revises existing models of Cold War science but also globalizes wider developments in the history of statistics and data.
Anchored in debates about statistics and its relationship to state building, Making It Count offers fresh perspectives on China’s transition to socialism.
Arunabh Ghosh is associate professor of history at Harvard University.
從統計的角度看state capacity/incapacity。全方麵書寫毛時代的統計史,成功建立起瞭一套非常自圓其說的narrative: 從1950s的exhaustive enumeration + periodic reporting system, 到1957年嚮印度藉鑒random sample survey的經驗,再到反右+大躍進期間的typical survey主導。推動綫性敘事的深層動力是冷戰下三種意識形態和政治力量的角逐: 排除數學和自然科學的社會主義統計(exhaustive) vs.建立在概率論上“馴服”偶然的資本主義的統計(stochastic) vs. Maoist的民族誌-群眾路綫式“調查報告.”(Ethnographic)
評分重讀瞭一下第八章。有個細節上的錯誤。把劉的調查方法當做毛的調查方法的一種並不妥。兩者可能都是典型調查,但它們其實是相互競爭的,畢竟工作隊和調查會的調查展開模式不一樣。
評分從統計的角度看state capacity/incapacity。全方麵書寫毛時代的統計史,成功建立起瞭一套非常自圓其說的narrative: 從1950s的exhaustive enumeration + periodic reporting system, 到1957年嚮印度藉鑒random sample survey的經驗,再到反右+大躍進期間的typical survey主導。推動綫性敘事的深層動力是冷戰下三種意識形態和政治力量的角逐: 排除數學和自然科學的社會主義統計(exhaustive) vs.建立在概率論上“馴服”偶然的資本主義的統計(stochastic) vs. Maoist的民族誌-群眾路綫式“調查報告.”(Ethnographic)
評分期待已久
評分從統計的角度看state capacity/incapacity。全方麵書寫毛時代的統計史,成功建立起瞭一套非常自圓其說的narrative: 從1950s的exhaustive enumeration + periodic reporting system, 到1957年嚮印度藉鑒random sample survey的經驗,再到反右+大躍進期間的typical survey主導。推動綫性敘事的深層動力是冷戰下三種意識形態和政治力量的角逐: 排除數學和自然科學的社會主義統計(exhaustive) vs.建立在概率論上“馴服”偶然的資本主義的統計(stochastic) vs. Maoist的民族誌-群眾路綫式“調查報告.”(Ethnographic)
評分
評分
評分
評分
Making It Count pdf epub mobi txt 電子書 下載 2024