|
保山翻譯公司關(guān)鍵字：First, the "involution" In fact, the theoretical basis of the theory is still "modern economic growth path is a single" view, but the way of modern economic growth, at least Adam Smith-type growth (the Smithian Growth) and Kuznets-type growth (the Kuznetzian Growth) in two forms. The former refers to the division of labor and specialization arising from economies of scale; the latter is driven by technological progress, economic development. He believes that between the two kinds of growth mode and are not necessarily linked. Although the Ming-Qing Jiangnan rural economy does not appear Kuznets type of economic growth, but it is entirely possible Smith-based economic growth. Simply because there is no denial of the Kuznets-type growth on the economic development of south does not make sense.
Second, that "involution" theory is based on the fact that very weak, and some even wrong. Li Bozhong originally used to think that "labor input in the southern rice production increased significantly, but did not increase yields," Huang in the demonstration on the use of heavy Lipper these views. Have been proved wrong view, but Li Bozhong Later, found that "both in southern agriculture or handicrafts aspects substantial progress", so Huang that "involution" of the factual basis of the theory is not reliable.
Third, the "involution" Another important theoretical foundation upon which to build the population pressure. However, Ge Jianxiong, James Lee, R. Bin Wong, William Davis in (William Lavely) and others studies have shown ,1700-1850 years, China's population growth rate and north-western Europe and the United Kingdom or less [5] (P85-86). Bingdi to population studies have shown: one hundred years in the 1850-1959 year, the most populated province of Jiangsu's population increased by only 7.5%, and this does not include this as an important city of Shanghai during the formation of such an important factor, including ; the same period, the population declined by 23.8%, Zhejiang, Anhui, down 19.3%, Jiangxi fell by 31.4% [6] (P289-290). It seems that the Ming-Qing Jiangnan is not really there, or a so-called population pressure problem is far from conclusive.
However, while people are out of date for the answers to the question why in modern China struggle to find the time, but American scholar Kenneth Pomeranz in his English book "The Great Divergence: Europe, China and the economic development of the modern world" (hereinafter referred to as "Great Divergence") in proposed, 18 century, China is not only behind the United Kingdom south, down a bit more than even the development of British superiority. Let's take a look at Kenneth Pomeranz's point of view.
Third, Kenneth Pomeranz's "Great Divergence" in a comparative perspective on WesternIn the "Great Divergence," a book and subsequent articles published, Pomeranz of Huang's "involution" theory was criticized. His criticism can be roughly summarized as two points:
1, Kenneth Pomeranz that the "involution" is a phenomenon common to most societies, can not be used to describe the South China behind the United Kingdom. Pomeranz suggested that population pressure led to a decline in wages is common. 18th century England, the growth of per capita income is quite small, most of the 18th century, when most countries, real wages (probably) are declining. China's rural residents did not happen in a world of rapid technological change, like their contemporaries around the world, experienced a decline in marginal returns to labor the fact. If there is a southern Chinese behavior within the volume, then the British industrial workers in most industries caught in a similar degree of involution. So with the "theory of involution" to not convincing.
|