|
怒江翻譯公司關(guān)鍵字：Also on the southern economy is not growing criticism of the thesis put forward. He believes that, although the Ming-Qing Jiangnan rural economy does not appear Kuznets type of economic growth, but it does appear possible, and Smith-based economic growth. He criticized Huang said, just because South Kuznets-type growth does not appear to deny their (possible Smith type) economic development is not justified.
Yu think that Li Bozhong and Huang Ming-Qing Jiangnan economy on no growth debate, is not of great significance. First, the southern region of hundreds of thousands of square kilometers, the Ming and Qing period, the time span of four or five hundred years. Several hundred years, this lack of complete information, so we only use local materials and even the individual to draw conclusions. The use of local materials to draw general conclusions or individual is certainly not reliable. Moreover, in such a vast area and so a long time span, the situation must be different and conflicting theoretical perspectives can be identified in which the individual "basis." Do not say that Huang Bo-weight and different understanding on this issue is Mr. Lee himself, before and after the understanding has important differences. Li Bozhong originally thought, "Southern labor input in rice production significantly increased, yields have not improved." This assessment should be a reasonable inference of diminishing returns of labor led to the "involution", it's entirely in line with Huang's theory. However, he later thought that South a "Smithian growth", "whether in agriculture or handicrafts aspects substantial progress", so for Huang criticized. Because there's "substantial progress" has not been strictly defined, so we is not good to judge whether it meets reality. In our view, Mr. Lee's view of this inconsistency, illustrates the economic history of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan material can not prove a definite conclusion can not be used to overthrow the opposite point of view. Because complicated things can provide any insight conflicting individual basis in fact.
Li Bozhong cited demographic conclusions of the study, population pressure on Huang's thesis on the south criticism is entirely discursive. Of course, the lack of reliable data, Huang Ming-Qing Jiangnan impossible to give accurate calculation of population pressure (population pressure itself is not to mention a change in volume), but only draw conclusions about trends in the population in general. If you do not agree with Huang Li Bozhong of "population pressure" of the judge, the specific material can be directly criticize or refute it would be best to clarify they do not agree with this conclusion might also be an indirect reason. However, Li Bozhong is cited Ge Jianxiong, James Lee, R. Bin Wong, William Ralph Lane (William Lavely), who study concluded, "1700-1850 years, China's population growth rate and the north-western Europe and the United Kingdom or less" [5 ] (P85-86); and give Bingdi study concluded that a 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 period of Shanghai as an important city ??to form such an important factor included), and the same time, Zhejiang population has declined 23.8%, down 19.3%, Anhui, Jiangxi fell by 31.4%. Li Bozhong tried to explain these findings, "Ming-Qing Jiangnan so-called population pressure is not really far there is still a moot question."
|