Re: The Qing state
"brian turner" <email@example.com>
Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:00:16 +0000
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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "brian turner" <email@example.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?
Donít just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!