It's on the basis of these data that Shuang Chen, an assistant professor of history now currently at Iowa University, wrote her dissertation on land distribution in Shuangcheng from to1870 to 1906. So, in Shuangcheng all land was tenured/g. There are two major types of land, government-allocated land and self-cultivated land. I think what's important for us to recognize is not these details about the land categories or the names or the taxation or the rules, but it's rather the two important patterns that these data documents. One is between-category inequality, and the other is within-category equality. So, in other words, the Metropolitan banner men had about twice the wealth of rural banner men, and this inequality between Metropolitan and rural banner men persisted during the half-century that our study covers. At the same time, within-category, most metropolitan households, you add up their land together. Whether it is government allocated land or self cultivated land. It's roughly, it's roughly equal. So, in other words if we were to take HKUST, the illustration would be business school professors make more than humanities professor. But within the business school, business school professors make roughly the same amount each, while the humanities humanity professors make roughly the same amount each. So, within-category equality, between-category inequality. And indeed, if we look at the overall distribution of land in Shuangcheng in 1876, we see a pattern which is very different from the distribution of wealth in the United States in 2004. So, while you also have a group of have a lots, but in this case it's 10% rather than 1%, having 30% of all the land. We don't have that 40% of households with 0% of wealth. Instead, the bottom 10%. it's only 10% instead of 40%, the, and that bottom 10% largely consists of widows, of young children, people who in terms of the rules at the time were not legally allowed to own land. In between next 10%, the next 10%, the next 20%, the next 40%, the amount of wealth is roughly equal. So, although you do find have-a-lots, haves and have-nots, you'll find overall in distribution, which is far more equal than in England and Wales in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century and the United States in the 20th and early 21st century. So, that's the first overall and most important finding. Even before modern economic growth, even when China was still a more feudal society, the distribution of wealth in China wa, was relatively equal within category with some inequality between category. Over time of course, there was some mobility. And you do see here for example, some metropolitan banner men, the sort of lavender histograms having ultimately less land than moving from the top half to the bottom 10%. And you see even more striking that some of the red households, the rural banner households are able to move from the bottom half to the top half in terms of land ownership. But overall, you can also still see that in spite of this mobility, you do see relative equality within-category, with over 55% of the households, the lar, highest histogram being in the top half. And almost half of the rural banner households being in the bottom half. So, within-category equality, between-category inequality. And this high level of persistence pretty much stayed the same. Here, we're comparing 1870, 1876, 1889, there's really very little change over time. So, in that sense, we can see a yes mobility, yes growth, but overall equality. and in that sense, a distribution of wealth which is quite strikingly different from the historical distribution of wealth that we saw for England and Wales, and for the United States. So, the state policy in other words succeeded in maintaining between-category inequality and within-category equality. So, the ca, these are patterns which have been identified by some well known distinguish sociologist for contemporary China. But what's less recognized and very important to note is that this kind of within-category equality and between-category inequality, in fact, is a, is a pattern that with long historical roots. It is not a recent creation of the Chinese communist state. and in fact despite the existence of land accumulation, the pattern of land distribution created by the state policy persisted even after the removal of these institutions in the early 20th century with the Republican Revolution in 1911 - 1912. So, I don't want to go through all the details because there is a lot of historical details in this study, and I recommend the thesis and the subsequent book to you. But the main point to remember is that, a pattern which we'll find, and we'll discuss in a moment for contemporary China, which is within-category equality. Between-category inequality, in fact, has deep historical roots, which probably goes back to China's political economy.