Between government and market: building blocks of a new economic history of China's industrial development during the Ming Dynasty (ca. 1368-1644)

Between government and market: building blocks of a new economic history of China's industrial development during the Ming Dynasty (ca. 1368-1644)
What happened to long-term economic development, especially from the perspective of industry, in Late Imperial China (960-1911)? When and why did China fall behind the West (i.e. the 'Great Divergence')? What was the role of government in this process, and what was the interaction between government and market?

These are the key questions addressed in this research. To answer them, we focused on the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) and employed the approach of historical reconstruction of national accounts to investigate selected industrial sectors. In addition, to understand the continuities and changes, we also explored several other dynastic periods before and after the Ming, including the Song (960-1279), the Yuan (1271-1368), and the Qing (1644-1911), and occasionally even the Republican period (1911-1949). This is, however, a large challenge, as ready-to-hand historical data on China is extremely scarce.

Therefore, in this study, we first focused on the craftsmen system, established by the Chinese state to control craftsmen, whose skills were indispensable to the development of the handicrafts industry. Then, we limit our scope by selecting four strategic industrial sectors—namely, tea, iron, arms, and shipbuilding industries—as the examples to measure the development of Ming industry. The resulting estimates allowed us to compare the Ming with the other Chinese dynastic periods and also compare China with several other major powers from a global perspective. Thus, we have several fresh reflections on the central questions.

All these findings challenge the long-standing views of both state monopoly in the Ming and stagnation (or decline) in the Ming-Qing. China’s industrial development has been significantly underestimated by the view of Ming-Qing stagnation (or decline). And the reason for the Great Divergence was not China’s stagnation or decline, but Europe’s faster growth after circa 1750. These are this study’s contributions to two major debates—namely, the Great Divergence, and the boundary between government and market in China.

Author

Zipeng ZHANG

Defended in

1 Jan 2022 – 30 Nov 2022

PhD defended at

Department of History and Art History, Faculty of Humanities, Utrecht University

Specialisation

Humanities

Region

Global Asia (Asia and other parts of the World)
East Asia
China

Theme

History
Globalisation
Economy