Re: The Qing state

["brian turner" <bkt90@hotmail.com>]

Thanks for the references.  I should have mentioned Pomeranz, since his 
highly critical review of Hill Gates _China's Motor: A Thousand Years of 
Petty Capitalism_ in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian scholars (1998?), 
followed by a brief rebuttal and reply to that by Pomeranz, was what 
prompted a curiousity about this issue on my part, of which I've just begun 
to dabble in.  Having read almost exclusively about the 20th century 
economy, I'm a neophyte at all this, so am glad to get the references.


>From: "cliver" <cliver@fulbrightweb.org>
>To: "brian turner" <bkt90@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: The Qing state
>Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:04:23 -0400
>
>Lillian Li's history of the Qing silk industry speaks to this debate. She 
>points out the dependence of private enterprise on state patronage, and 
>limited reliance on markets, even within the context of the Qing's more 
>liberal policies of freeing hereditary craftsmen and divesting from the 
>state-sponsored silk industry. But I think she goes to far in claiming that 
>this was not something quite close to capitalist enterprise, and perhaps 
>over-emphasizes the relationship between state and private silk production 
>in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As for foreign trade in silk 
>and its effects on domestic production, Alvin So's book presents a very 
>modern, capitalist filature industry, far more dependent on foreign markets 
>than government patronage.
>
>My own impression, having written on the textiles industry in Qing China, 
>is that the Kang Chao et al. thesis is quite reasonable. I also like 
>Pomeranz's Great Divergence and R. Bin Wong's work on this topic.
>
>Is anyone interested in reading a paper about silk production in Jiangnan 
>in the early 1950s?
>
>Rob
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/