|
山南翻译公司关键字：First Chinese-American scholar Mr. Huang Zongzhi put forward to explain the economic development of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan "involution" theory. This theory holds that, although the south of the farm family labor input by increasing the total to obtain a higher income, but due to population pressure led to diminishing returns of labor, per capita per day is declining. Decline in labor productivity have led to society, while "growth" but not development, that is a "no development of the growth." He put the economy of the south is called "involution" or "involution."
Tsinghua University Professor Li Bozhong in its "" too dense type of growth theory "is not suitable for study of the history of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan rural economy" [2] an article on the "involution" theory was criticized. He believes that the way of modern economic growth, "Smith-based growth" and the "Kuznets-type growth," two, the former refers to the division of labor and specialization arising from economies of scale; the latter refers to the technological progress led economic development. Between two kinds of growth mode and are not necessarily linked. Ming-Qing Jiangnan rural economy does not appear Kuznets type of economic growth, where economic growth is the economic benefits from the division of labor, which is Smith's type of economic growth. Simply because there is no denial of the Kuznets-type growth on the economic development of south does not make sense.
American scholar Kenneth Pomeranz think Ming and Qing dynasties of the southern economy is not higher than the UK's economic backwardness. In 2000 he published "The Great Divergence," a book, through southern England and China's social and economic comparison of several important factors that, 1800 years ago, the European economy is not already available within the "decisive advantage", then when the European With coal as well as trade with the New World to ease pressure on land and energy, it was embarked on with China, "diversion" of the road. Pomeranz concluded, "the Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain is entirely the role of several causal factors."
Here are a few scholars on the history of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan economic debate.Second, Huang's "involution" Bo-weight theory and criticismHuang in "Yangtze River Delta peasant family and rural development ,1368-1988 year", a book, put forward to explain the economic situation of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan "in volume" theory to explain why Chinese society did not develop spontaneously. He believes that the Ming and Qing Dynasties, southern population pressures lead to resource constraints, one can only rely on increasing labor, capital, technology and other factors (mainly labor) inputs to increase production, factors of production is the result of over-investment in labor-intensive, diminishing marginal returns of labor, labor productivity declined. Thus, in terms of annual family labor, even though there may be more "employment" and income, but on weekdays it is labor remuneration reduced, a "growth without development," Huang of "involution oriented "or" involution "to represent this growth.
Huang believes that the real "development" means that unit labor by increasing capital investment to improve labor productivity, just as in 18th-century British agriculture, and modern mechanized agriculture display case. However, the Ming and Qing Dynasties of China's Yangtze River Delta region is a "involution" as the "growth without development" a typical representative. Then actually be able to save the family farm labor "capital" and there is a realistic agricultural scale resistance, similar to the handicraft production of family farms is also on the "proto-industrial" and the modern industrial capital of labor-saving in the boycott, which there can not be British economic growth. As the "involution growth" when the labor productivity actually declined, of course, it is impossible to develop a modern, modern society.
Has written a "too dense type of growth theory - a study of southern key economic history," a paper on the yellow "involution" theoretical evaluation is higher. But after a few years, through study and reflection he changed his views, but also wrote "" too dense type of growth theory "is not suitable for study of the history of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan rural economy" [2] a text,
Shortly after Huang's theory, Mr. Li Bozhong Chinese scholars on the author of "too dense type of growth theory - a study of southern key economic history," a paper on the "involution" theory Pingjiapogao. But after a few years, Li Bozhong has changed his views, he is "" too dense type of growth theory "is not suitable for study of the history of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan rural economy" [2] an article on the "involution" theory was criticized. Lipper heavy that "involution" theory there are three main deficiencies:
|