|
普洱翻譯公司關(guān)鍵字：In the past, most historians regard the innovation as occasional in the production process, therefore, regard technological innovation as the economic theory of economic growth caused by the "exogenous variables." "The new system economists' discovery and stated that technological innovation is the" endogenous "in the process of Western Europe's economy, so as to historical research opens up new roads. Economic and technological rise in Western Europe and gradually spread around the world after the rest of the world (technology acceptance to), the technology of course is no longer "inside students" but "exogenous" in. But the large number of facts have shown that exogenous technology can play in how much the local role in the final analysis will depend on local market conditions. Western Europe after the textile technology spread to China, China has established a number of textile factories, but the "calico" has failed to hand textile squeeze Chinese farmers until the 1980s with "Dacron" as a symbol of new chemical products has become widespread, textile machinery was completely replaced by the rural weaving hand-spun line.
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.
|