An Evaluative Essay on Mark Elvin's "High Level Equilibrium Trap" - Chinese Economy

[BananaLee]

Because I can't be bothered converting to BBCode, I'll just attach my own essay here.

 

[innonimatu]

Thank you, that was interesting. So the theory is that the chinese economy grew considerably in the quantitative sense (agriculture toke more land) but not qualitatively (only small, incremental, technological improvements) until it eventually fell into a malthusian trap by the 18th century?

A similar thing (increasing population, use of marginal lands, changes in crops, and technological improvements) happened in Europe between the 11th and 14th centuries. Western Europe was by then entering the malthusian trap, but that was broken by the Black Plague.
Then the dramatic reduction of the population both relived scarcity among the survivors, and led to the concentration of land ownership. Still, population went on to increase again and Europe would again fall into a malthusian trap after the 16th century. The important question is why that one was broken by industrialization. Political factors were likely important (landowners were powerful enough in Britain to carry out the enclosures, but not on most of continental Europe, for example). But the one technological breakthrough which allowed the Industrial Revolution was the use of fossil fuel - coal - for energy. The textile industry did develop on hydro power, but that was not new (Italy had it in the 14th century...) and the available power was limited.
China (and most of Europe and the world) was in disadvantages there, for as you mentioned the coal reserves it had were inconveniently located... some specific regions, which had the all-important raw materials for the new industry, would inevitably take the lead.

 

[BananaLee]

Pretty much. I don't fully recall the details of my research (wrote this about 6 months ago) but Elvin essentially argued the technological changes done in China were not conducive to creating the "jump" which occured in the West. It sounds slightly Diamond-esque but essentially, it was just luck which enabled the West to achieve industrialisation the way it did - a series of (un)fortunate events, if you will.

 

[LDiCesare]

Political unity of China didn't help, and the lack of seas to perform cheap trade through hurt China too.
Excerpts from your document:

fuel crisis due to official discouragement of the mining industry

Europe wasn't unified, partly due to lots of natural borders (English Channel, Alps, Pyreneans...), so official policies couldn't hurt as much as in China. If France had a stupid policy for instance, England wouldn't necessarily, and would benefit from it.

The ample coal reserves in the Northwest were unusable due to the great distance from the Yangzi and inadequate transport infrastructure.

The seas helped Europe a lot. The areas with better sea access (Greece in antiquity, Italy, England, France, Portugal and Spain later) were the most prosperous and advanced.

 

[BananaLee]

One has to remember that official or not, China was a very physiocratic (beware: slightly anachronistic term to use) state. Almost all of China 'proper' (namely the bits that stayed more or less the same from the Qin to Ming) was agricultural - partially due to the necessity of growing food and the fact that the area was just so awesome at growing food.
The next thing that would happen is to speculate on how far official *encouragement* of mining would have helped. I don't know enough on the politics to make a stand.

Water access was available in many areas of China 'proper' with the epic canals. However, the Northwest was too far away for canals to be built - so yes, that point probably stands.

EDIT: It seems Sharwood can't read the pdf - so if anyone wants to waste contribute their time by converting that to BBCode, I wouldn't mind too much.

 

[Teeninvestor]

One has to remember that official or not, China was a very physiocratic (beware: slightly anachronistic term to use) state. Almost all of China 'proper' (namely the bits that stayed more or less the same from the Qin to Ming) was agricultural - partially due to the necessity of growing food and the fact that the area was just so awesome at growing food.
The next thing that would happen is to speculate on how far official *encouragement* of mining would have helped. I don't know enough on the politics to make a stand.

Water access was available in many areas of China 'proper' with the epic canals. However, the Northwest was too far away for canals to be built - so yes, that point probably stands.

EDIT: It seems Sharwood can't read the pdf - so if anyone wants to waste contribute their time by converting that to BBCode, I wouldn't mind too much.

I remember that Song and Ming dynasties in China were quite "industrial" as in their manufacturing was quite developed. In wikipedia articles Economy of the Song and Economy of the Ming, references are made to up to 30% of population working in manufacturing. In addition, China had a very vibrant trade before the Manchu takeover. The exact amount was about 300 million taels in 80 years(note that is 12 times Chinese government's income for 1600, and China had 40% of world's GDP then). Not exactly isolationist.

 

[BananaLee]

I would not trust the Wikipedia articles unless there is further backing with academic sources. My own notes say 80% is the often-quoted percentage for China's peasant population. The peasant population were also involved in manufacturing their own clothes, etc. because that was how life was in a Chinese village. Specialisation was not a concept known to the 农民 of Ming and Qing. So you might want to find out what that 30% means before throwing a Wiki stat at me.

Vibrant trade with what? I already said in my essay (if you bothered reading it) that there was a good amount of trade between provinces. But China was effectively a little world in itself. Coastal trade was bannned (and therefore untaxed) between 1371 and 1567 (partial lift of ban), then from the late Ming to 1685 (when open coast policy was done), then again in 1717. Trade was only done with the Mongols up north and as proven many times, the Chinese could just cut trade off as they liked (sparking Mongol raids). All trade in China was internal trade. Again, you are throwing the term isolationist around when the only time I used that in my essay was regarding the relative isolation of each province from each other.

Try reading the essay properly.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Vibrant trade with what? I already said in my essay (if you bothered reading it) that there was a good amount of trade between provinces. But China was effectively a little world in itself. Coastal trade was bannned (and therefore untaxed) between 1371 and 1567 (partial lift of ban), then from the late Ming to 1685 (when open coast policy was done), then again in 1717. Trade was only done with the Mongols up north and as proven many times, the Chinese could just cut trade off as they liked (sparking Mongol raids). All trade in China was internal trade. Again, you are throwing the term isolationist around when the only time I used that in my essay was regarding the relative isolation of each province from each other.

If you read some of Joseph Needham's books, you will notice Ming economy was a very vibrant trade. Also check wikipedia. Ming engaged in a gigantic trade involving importing huge amounts of silver in exchange for Chinese products such as Tea. Check Ming dynasty and Economy of the Ming dynasty. It was a very vibrant trade. Of course, the Manchu Qing changed this and virtually shut down this trade in 1685. The Zheng clan for example(a merchant clan) could dispose of 100 million taels, four times the revenue of the MIng government. That's impressive in any case.

Also, Ming manufacturing was quite advanced. At Jingde, hundreds of THOUSANDS of workers were employed to work the pottery shops.

From China the major exports were silk and porcelain. The Dutch East India Company alone handled the trade of 6 million porcelain items from China to Europe between the years 1602 to 1682.[126] Antonio de Morga (1559–1636), a Spanish official in Manila, listed an extensive inventory of goods that were traded by Ming China at the turn of the 17th century, noting there were "rarities which, did I refer to them all, I would never finish, nor have sufficient paper for it".[127] After noting the variety of silk goods traded to Europeans, Ebrey writes of the considerable size of commercial transactions:


Map of East Asia by the Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci in 1602; Ricci (1552–1610) was the first European allowed into the Forbidden City, taught the Chinese how to construct and play the spinet, translated Chinese texts into Latin and vice versa, and worked closely with his Chinese associate Xu Guangqi (1562–1633) on mathematical work.In one case a galleon to the Spanish territories in the New World carried over 50,000 pairs of silk stockings. In return China imported mostly silver from Peruvian and Mexican mines, transported via Manila. Chinese merchants were active in these trading ventures, and many emigrated to such places as the Philippines and Borneo to take advantage of the new commercial opportunities.[117]

After the Chinese had banned direct trade by Chinese merchants with Japan, the Portuguese filled this commercial vacuum as intermediaries between China and Japan.[128] The Portuguese bought Chinese silk and sold it to the Japanese in return for Japanese-mined silver; since silver was more highly valued in China, the Portuguese could then use Japanese silver to buy even larger stocks of Chinese silk.[128] However, by 1573—after the Spanish established a trading base in Manila—the Portuguese intermediary trade was trumped by the prime source of incoming silver to China from the Spanish Americas.[129][130]

I agree with your essay with its description of Qing dynasty China though. Manchu China did only increase quantatively and not qualitatively.

 

[BananaLee]

*sigh*
Do.
Not.
Use.
Wikipedia.


Now, Needham's work is on Science and Technology - NOT economics. I already said, there was a significant amount of inter-provincial trade. Ever considered that the Zheng clan got that from said interprovincial trade?
Where is this Zheng clan based? Jiangnan? I need a source on this Zheng clan because there is a very limited number of Chinese surnames and I have no idea of which Zheng clan you were talking about.

Have you even read what I wrote in the essay?

 

[Teeninvestor]

Now, Needham's work is on Science and Technology - NOT economics. I already said, there was a significant amount of inter-provincial trade. Ever considered that the Zheng clan got that from said interprovincial trade?
Where is this Zheng clan based? Jiangnan? I need a source on this Zheng clan because there is a very limited number of Chinese surnames and I have no idea of which Zheng clan you were talking about.

Have you even read what I wrote in the essay?

Yes I have. The wikipedia article I used happened to be written by a history major from George Mason University- an excellent historian, in my view.

Zheng clan refers to the clan whihc established the Tungning kingdom. They were specialized completely in foreign trade. The head married a Japanese woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_Zhilong

This guy bought up 60% of the land in a province. Pretty wealth if you ask me.

The Ming engaged in much overseas trade. A respected sinologist, Joseph Needham believed that the amount of silver flowing into Ming China through trade amounted upwards to 300 million taels of silver. To put this into perspective, the Ming government's entire annual revenues were only 27 million taels, and the Ming had 31% of the world's GDP.[1]

Initially, the Ming engaged in state-sanctioned overseas trade. This was best exemplified by the expeditions of Zheng He, the eunuch admiral, who visited India, East Africa, and Indonesia seven times in massive fleets. However, like many other industries, the trade gave way to the merchants. By the 15th Century, the Ming had abolished the restriction on private overseas trade and Ming merchants prospered. One evidence of this prosperity was the wealth of the Zheng Clan,(Chinese:郑芝龍集&#22296 an influential group of overseas traders who had their own navy and set up their own overseas outposts. The Zheng clan drove the East India company out of Taiwan and virtually out of business in East Asia. [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Ming_Dynasty#Introduction_of_American_crops

 

[Dachs]

Yes I have. The wikipedia article I used happened to be written by a history major from George Mason University- an excellent historian, in my view.

FWIW, who is that? I'm actually there right now.

 

[Teeninvestor]

PericlesOfAthens. I'm sure you've heard of him on wikipedia????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PericlesofAthens

 

[Dachs]

Oh, he goes to GMU? That's lulzy. Perhaps I should seek him out. Anyway, enough hijacking by me.

 

[BananaLee]

Okay.
After reading and rereading and rerereading, I finally concluded that you're trying to argue that my thesis does not apply for the Ming Dynasty.

The points you put forward were : -
1. A manufacturing economy by "30%" of the population
2. A "vibrant" trade during the Ming

I've already refuted point 1 in one of the posts above because your numbers don't seem to match up with the sources I have.

Regarding point 2, I argued that the significant proportion of Chinese trade was still inter-provincial and not maritime. I still stand by that statement. Apart from those in the trade provinces (Fujian and Guangdong), the others do not feel the effects of maritime trade.
Your numbers for silver imports sound correct BUT: -
a) The exchange was not for tea, it was mostly for silk and other non-perishable commodities. The tea trade only got to a flying start with the British
b) Silver is and was NOT a currency in the Ming. It is, like gold or silk a mere commodity to be traded at a profit.
Try these for a bit of knowledge on how the Chinese currency system worked (can't be bothered to change citation styles, copied straight from journals)

• King, F.H.H. Monetary Policy in China 1845-1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965
• Myth and Reality of China's Seventeenth-Century Monetary Crisis
  Author(s): Richard von Glahn
  Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 56, No. 2, Papers Presented at the Fifty-Fifth
  Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association (Jun., 1996), pp. 429-454

Therefore, you can't use the taels of silver to indicate on the "vibrancy" of foreign trade - particularly when figures of domestic trade are much harder to obtain (the govt. didn't care about market trade)

Now with regards to my thesis statement, my conclusion was that there WAS quantitative and qualitative growth throughout the Ming-Qing Dynasties. So I don't see where the argument really is.

From the evidence laid out, it can be easily seen in hindsight that the Chinese economy was headed towards stagnation. However, it would be inaccurate to call the entire Ming-Qing period one of economic standstill. Heading towards stagnation is not the same as being there. ... Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population. The term ‘quantitative growth, qualitative standstill’ would therefore only be accurate for a small sliver of the 1368-1799 period.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Regarding point 2, I argued that the significant proportion of Chinese trade was still inter-provincial and not maritime. I still stand by that statement. Apart from those in the trade provinces (Fujian and Guangdong), the others do not feel the effects of maritime trade.
Your numbers for silver imports sound correct BUT: -
a) The exchange was not for tea, it was mostly for silk and other non-perishable commodities. The tea trade only got to a flying start with the British
b) Silver is and was NOT a currency in the Ming. It is, like gold or silk a mere commodity to be traded at a profit.
Try these for a bit of knowledge on how the Chinese currency system worked (can't be bothered to change citation styles, copied straight from journals)

Actually, for my point, the Ming based their currency on silver after the mid-1500's, after silver imports became so large fiat currency was outcompeted.
Also in regard to the trade, if we put Ming GDP at roughly 10 times that of the Ming government revenues(sounds like a correct figure to me) the total GDP would only be about 270 million taels. The Ming trade over a roughly 50 year period was 300 million taels, or about 6 million taels per year. Thus, foreign trade made up about 3-5% of the Ming GDP and was significant in providing a key source of silver. In addition, this trade in modern money would be be about 1.2-3% of world GDP(Ming GDP was 40% of World GDP) or about 1.8 TRILLION per year! That is by no means an insignificant amount.

See Economy of the Ming dynasty for details.

Also, as to "specialization" I argue that Ming industry was much more vibrant than Qing or earlier Song, due to a gigantic privatization programme. During Ming, state monopolies were disestablished. By specialization, I meant that many farmers became workers and became an urban class of workers; that is pretty specialized, in my view. Ming went farther than Song in going towards capitalism.

Also, the Ming merchant class was very vibrant. As I have mentioned above, Zheng Zhilong and many other merchants were extremely wealthy and influential. In addition, if you read some asian history, many CHinese merchants fleeing the Manchu conquest were able to set up "kingdoms" and "republics" in Southeast Asia such as the Lanfang Republic.

Also, remember we did not account for the trade between 1400 and 1570. Ming trade was "banned" but the ban was not enforced anywhere correctly. Needham has documented this as well as Pericles, so I won't need to debate on this.
See this source for details(You seem to be able to understand Chinese) http://gz-hanfu.cn/doc/The-Truth-of-History.pdf

 

[BananaLee]

Read my sources regarding the Chinese currency system. Silver was NOT a currency - it was a convenient commodity. Day to day transactions were still conducted in copper cash, and taxes could be paid in either produce or silver - it being just another commodity.

And if you stop repeating the Wikipedia article and look at my other sources, perhaps you might stop going like a broken record.

Your other points do not refute my thesis conclusion either.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Silver is not a currency?????

That is contradicted by every source I know. Silver WAS the standard for Ming currency after the 1500's. And my other points refute your thesis quite well. The fact that such a high percentage of the population was urbanized, and there was such a large trade, show that the Ming is nowhere near what you described. Check Ming dynasty and Economy of the Ming dynasty. As well as any source on currency. Ming emperors TRIED to instate paper currency. THEY FAILED.

Your other points do not refute my thesis conclusion either.

How is the Ming qualitatively stagnatory when large-scale private enterprise is popping up everywhere and China is having one of its most intellectually free and cultured times????
The economy of Ming is not more dependant on agriculture than Europe. Trade and manufacturing were a major part of the economy. However, Ming entrepreneurs were able to resist taxation better.
in 1598, when the Wanli Emperor tried to increase the tax, his tax collectors were stoned to death.

 

[Masada]

Ming emperors TRIED to instate paper currency. THEY FAILED.

They were out-competed by private issuers of bills. Paper was still well used in the Ming dynasty, just not state paper.

The fact that such a high percentage of the population was urbanized, and there was such a large trade, show that the Ming is nowhere near what you described.

High percentage of the population urbanized =/ to large amounts of trade beyond the transfer of food from peripheral regions to the core urban centers. Ask Rome at its height about that.

How is the Ming qualitatively stagnatory when large-scale private enterprise is popping up everywhere and China is having one of its most intellectually free and cultured times????

Private Enterprise /= Economic Growth, especially if it is merely re-privatized industry that was formerly government.

Intellectual pursuits and culture /= Economic Growth.

The economy of Ming is not more dependant on agriculture than Europe. Trade and manufacturing were a major part of the economy. However, Ming entrepreneurs were able to resist taxation better.

Proof for the not more dependent on agriculture than Europe (and what you actually mean).

Proof for the trade and manufacturing being a major part of the economy, and what it is they produced, traded in and to whom. [The to whom is the most important bit].

What was the actual taxation rate between the two and how was it levied? You should also note that the ability to resist taxes is also a show of a weak central authority, more so than the actual or percieved strength of capitalists [word used with trepidation].

in 1598, when the Wanli Emperor tried to increase the tax, his tax collectors were stoned to death.

Who stoned him to death? Pre-capitalist interests or irate peasants?

*

You haven't proved anything... you've strung together a bunch of tangentially unverifiable facts to try and create a narrative. You also haven't really addressed any on Bananalee's points to boot. You also need to understand the central premise of Malthus and Elvin before you can comment since that seems to have gone over your head.

 

[BananaLee]

Silver is not a currency????? That is contradicted by every source I know.

Since *every* source you know is Wikipedia, I can see why. I already told you to read the sources I suggested to understand the monetary system.

How is the Ming qualitatively stagnatory when large-scale private enterprise is popping up everywhere and China is having one of its most intellectually free and cultured times????

I shall write down my concluding paragraph again.

From the evidence laid out, it can be easily seen in hindsight that the Chinese economy was headed towards stagnation. However, it would be inaccurate to call the entire Ming-Qing period one of economic standstill. Heading towards stagnation is not the same as being there. ... Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population. The term ‘quantitative growth, qualitative standstill’ would therefore only be accurate for a small sliver of the 1368-1799 period.

EDIT: The most important bit of my thesis conclusion is the bit in red, in case you didn't realise.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Since *every* source you know is Wikipedia, I can see why. I already told you to read the sources I suggested to understand the monetary system.

Cambridge, histories of China, published essays in Chinese, a ton of stuff contradicts. Yes paper money was issued. But you have to realize a crucial difference. ALL THINGS WERE MEASURED IN SILVER. Therefore, the paper issued was representative money, rather than fiat currency(whose value depends on government authority). Also, if you think the Ming didn't have a vibrant trade, how come a country who is so lacking in silver, uses the silver standard for its currency????

Sources;
Cambridge history of China, The Ming dynasty,
Jia Qing. "On the reasons why China fell behind the west". http://gz-hanfu.cn/doc/The-Truth-of-History.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-02-01.
^ Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , 2001, ISBN 7-204-04420-7, page 994-997
^ ^ Du Zhebie, "The seeds of capitalism and Chinese history."

And that's just after a few minutes of researching.

As to your argument, what do you think is the crucial difference between Ming China and the later 18th century Europe????
Intellectual ferment?? check
Large amounts of investement?? check
Emphasis on technological improvement?? check
Huge overseas trade?? check

In fact, Ming economy was not more "agarian-based" than Europe later. Ming population as a percentage working in manufacturing was just as large, if not larger for one instance.

Also, as far as I know, Song and Ming were both dynasties that had relatively little peasant revolts(with exception for end of Ming, due to Little Ice Age), so they did not come up against "Malthusian restraints".

The Ming government abolished the mandatory forced labor by peasants used in early dynasties and replaced it with wage labor. A new class of wage laborers sprung up where none had existed before.

A key feature of an "agarian-based" economy is self-sufficiency. By Ming, wage labor was replacing other types at a fast speed.

Who stoned him to death?

Irate copper merchants. Throughout the Ming merchants were able to successfully resist taxation. The tax on commerce was only 0.5% compared to 1.5% on agriculture.

What I think is the problem here is that Ming and Qing were two very different periods. You shouldn't confuse them into one. Ming rulers were much less powerful and there were more capitalistic developments there. Even if Ming did not have industrial revolution, it would have copied it rather quickly(similar to how Ming armies reequiped themselves rapidly when they discovered their muskets had less range than European-made muskets).
Qing, on the other hand, stifled capitalistic development by discouraging commerce, especially foreign commerce. Its rulers were also non-Chinese, and fearful of any innovation the Chinese might come up with to overthrow their rule.