This was a main topic of my Chinese Economics course last semester. There were several theories presented. Was a great course with a very open minded and competent professor who had spent almost a decade over there in the late 80’s to late 90’s. Fun class.
I just returned from a rockin party though and my alcohol addled brain is not even up for watching the video, much less recalling and presenting the competing theories.
China’s economic history is a fascinating topic. I hope to check in tomorrow (and actually watch the video).
Probably because China has been unified for most of its history, with only intermittent decentralization period, just to keep the economy thriving above the world average.
Very interesting video!
Interesting indeed!
Can’t find much on this, although this article argues about why a later chance for an industrial revolution was missed, and it mostly points to strong conservative tendencies of their society and the large role of the government, both acting against innovations and capital accumulation, the uncertainty killing off further advances. Sounds like pretty much like the background of this particular episode.
The answer is very clear at the end of the video and I totally agree with it: China has never had had a proper “private property” culture. There are many competing theories why this came about, all equally intriguing, but the fact is that China, not even today, ever enjoyed the conditions which allowed the XVIII century Industrial Revolution in England and The Netherlands. As bad kings and staatholders were they never ever dreamed impounding and disposing of private property in same way the Celestial Empire did.
A reason for this may lie in the culture. For example the Dutch refused to yield to the Imperial armies, be them led by brilliant strategists like the Duke of Parma or bloodthirsty tyrants like the Duke of Alva. The Chinese, as divided as they were, fell prey to the Mongols, who could not muster neither their numbers nor their economical power. For all Temughin’s ferocity and military acumen they should have been able to hold their own just like the Dutch. The Hapsburg could not best the much inferior Dutch, who in the end under the brilliant leadership of Maurice of Nassau were even capable of defeating the dreaded tercios in open battle. The Mongols in about sixty years defeated all the ruling houses of China. Surely there must be more than simple military supremacy.
I believe the most commonly accepted story for China’s failure to industrialize sooner is the “High Level Equilibrium Trap” theory.
This, coupled with the fact that during the 19th century foreign powers started having a huge (and negative, though it didn’t have to be that way) political, military, and economic impact on China makes for a fairly credible explanation. Certainly not the only credible explanation though.