This paper examines the intricate relationship between China’s First Five-Year Plan (1953–1957) and the extensive Soviet aid that played a pivotal role in shaping early industrialization and economic policy in New China. Drawing upon both Chinese and Western literature, the study reviews the evolution of planned economy practices and Soviet economic assistance, analyzes the process of plan formulation and the formulation of key industrial targets, and assesses the quantitative and qualitative impact of Soviet aid on the successful implementation of the plan. By employing a multi-perspective literature review, archival research, and statistical data analysis, the paper identifies that Soviet technology, machinery, and planning expertise contributed significantly, estimates suggest that Soviet aid accounted for 30-40% of the capital inputs in key sectors and that this collaboration was instrumental in achieving heavy industry targets before the advent of reform and opening-up policies. Furthermore, the paper explores the subsequent divergence in the economic models of China and the Soviet Union, offering lessons on dependency, technology transfer, and the political dimensions of foreign aid. The findings not only contribute to our understanding of the early stages of China’s economic development but also shed light on the broader dynamics of Cold War-era international economic cooperation.

This study examines the enduring effects of China’s planned economy on contemporary social attitudes. By leveraging spatial disparities in the historical distribution of state-owned enterprises and external shocks such as the First Five-Year Plan and the Third Front Construction movement, we find that a one percentage point increase in the historical SOE proportion of industrial output corresponds with a 0.57% to 0.89% increase in the contemporary preference for state-owned sectors. The results are robust after controlling the contemporary SOE employment share, and this effect does not apply to the younger generation born after the marketization reform. Furthermore, we provide evidence that city-level state ownership preferences significantly impact the likelihood of SOEs receiving subsidies, with this effect notably amplified in cities governed by locally-born leaders, but the share of locally-born leaders has been trending down.