3.3: Land Distribution in Shuangcheng, 1870-1906

Loading...

Del curso dictado por The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Understanding China, 1700-2000: A Data Analytic Approach, Part 1

36 calificaciones

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Understanding China, 1700-2000: A Data Analytic Approach, Part 1

36 calificaciones

The purpose of this course is to summarize new directions in Chinese history and social science produced by the creation and analysis of big historical datasets based on newly opened Chinese archival holdings, and to organize this knowledge in a framework that encourages learning about China in comparative perspective. Our course demonstrates how a new scholarship of discovery is redefining what is singular about modern China and modern Chinese history. Current understandings of human history and social theory are based largely on Western experience or on non-Western experience seen through a Western lens. This course offers alternative perspectives derived from Chinese experience over the last three centuries. We present specific case studies of this new scholarship of discovery divided into two stand-alone parts, which means that students can take any part without prior or subsequent attendance of the other part. Part 1 (this course) focuses on comparative inequality and opportunity and addresses two related questions ‘Who rises to the top?’ and ‘Who gets what?’. Part 2 (https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-china-history-part-2) turns to an arguably even more important question ‘Who are we?’ as seen through the framework of comparative population behavior - mortality, marriage, and reproduction – and their interaction with economic conditions and human values. We do so because mortality and reproduction are fundamental and universal, because they differ historically just as radically between China and the West as patterns of inequality and opportunity, and because these differences demonstrate the mutability of human behavior and values. Course Overview video: https://youtu.be/dzUPRyJ4ETk

De la lección

Module 3: Social Mobility and Wealth Distribution in Late Imperial and Contemporary China

3.1: Wealth Distribution in the UK and US, 1700-20007:49

3.2: Population Categories and Wealth Entitlements in China13:29

3.3: Land Distribution in Shuangcheng, 1870-19066:12

3.4: Property Distribution in Contemporary China11:52

3.5: Comparative Wealth Distribution: Past/Present and East/West6:41

Conoce a los instructores

James Z. Lee
Dean and Chair Professor of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences

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.

Explora nuestro catálogo

Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.

Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

Descargar en la App Store

Consíguelo en Google Play