Abstract

<jats:p>Professor Nathan's pungent essay raises important issues for the politics of development in general and for drawing comparative conclusions from the Chinese case in particular. His cleansing scepticism demolishes some positions which may be held by authors in the China field and reminds others that the unstated assumptions in their models need better articulation. However he goes too far. What needs to be re-established is that clear and modest formulations of short-term recurrence, interdependence among policies, and two-sided policy disagreement are not avoidable errors but indispensable heuristic devices in the conceptual repertoire of China watchers. In fact it would be a great disservice to stùdies of contemporary China and to comparative study of the Chinese case if Professor Nathan were allowed to succeed in his attempt to identify all such analyses with his <jats:italic>reductio ad absurdum</jats:italic> of some of them. Let us try to rescue the possibility of constructive social science modelling of the three principal issues Professor Nathan raises.</jats:p>