The problem exists in Western academia as well, but not to the same magnitude as in much of Asia.
In Western and especially American academia, there are private sector grants and commercialization avenues for research. Outside of top tier programs (think Peking tier programs in China or AIIMS tier programs in India), that's nonexistent in most Asian countries, so your department's funding is at the whim of government bureaucrats who tend to be recruited via civil service exams and promoted based on political loyalty, not based on domain experience.
Furthermore, Folk Medicine programs are heavily sponsored in a number of Asian countries as a misguided attempt at building an MLP pipeline plus as a cash grab by local or provincial governments who often treat these kinds of programs as businesses.
> Outside of top tier programs (think Peking tier programs in China or AIIMS tier programs in India), that's nonexistent in most Asian countries, so your department's funding is at the whim of government bureaucrats
That's a bit surprising, after seeing so many people I know in academia who are basically being used as private sector R&D on the cheap (see all the formal methods work being funded by cryptocurrency outfits...), I would have assumed that most large corporations even outside of "innovation" sectors would take advantage of this.
But maybe this effect in places like the US are just downstream of the wild wage arbitrage you get by doing this.
Because the gap between tier 1 programs and those that aren't is massive in countries like China and India.
Generally, those institutions managed by the central government of both countries are better managed than those under local and provincial governments.
R&D output, calibre of student base, and access to research equipment is also reflected by that trend. And any private sector funding goes to those programs.
And it's hard to describe the mismanagement that happens in lower tier programs in countries like China and India compared to the US - corruption remains a massive issue in both countries.
> In Western and especially American academia, there are private sector grants and commercialization avenues for research. Outside of top tier programs, that's nonexistent in most Asian countries, so your department's funding is at the whim of government bureaucrats who tend to be recruited via civil service exams and promoted based on political loyalty, not based on domain experience.
This is sad, and misinformed.
Multiple countries fund their academic research through the state. Adding the misinformation about being "promoted based on political loyalty" is a strong sign of your bias.
Funding can only come through one of three routes:
1. State - which is where people are supposed to be working for the betterment of their country, but is vulnerable to the bias of the politics of the day.
2. Private - which is where people are motivated by a profit, but is vulnerable to the bias of the politics of the company.
3. Voluntary/Charity - which is where people are motivated by whatever wakes them up in the morning, but is vulnerable to the donors.
ALL funding models are vulnerable to the bias of whoever is in control of the funding.
I'm not saying state funding is bad or private funding is good.
I'm saying that having a mixture of both provides checks and balances to moderate the influence of both.
> Adding the misinformation about being "promoted based on political loyalty" is a strong sign of your bias
I'm talking about countries like China and India, where folk medicines have been politicized, lateral movement into the bureaucracy is non-existent, and criticism against TCM and Aryuveda is being slowly suffocated.
In Western and especially American academia, there are private sector grants and commercialization avenues for research. Outside of top tier programs (think Peking tier programs in China or AIIMS tier programs in India), that's nonexistent in most Asian countries, so your department's funding is at the whim of government bureaucrats who tend to be recruited via civil service exams and promoted based on political loyalty, not based on domain experience.
Furthermore, Folk Medicine programs are heavily sponsored in a number of Asian countries as a misguided attempt at building an MLP pipeline plus as a cash grab by local or provincial governments who often treat these kinds of programs as businesses.