重新审视“大分流”:厘清中西方两大农业模式

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES
Philip C. C. Huang
{"title":"重新审视“大分流”:厘清中西方两大农业模式","authors":"Philip C. C. Huang","doi":"10.1177/00977004231164778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Kenneth Pomeranz and Li Bozhong have recently conceded that they had been wrong that “the great divergence” between China and the West occurred only after 1800, but they continue to insist that when it came to agriculture and its labor productivity, their earlier argument still holds. This article summarizes the broad differences between eighteenth-century England’s crops cum animal husbandry agriculture and China’s crops-only agriculture to demonstrate the fundamental differences between the two. It is time we recognize fully how very different the two were and are, and how and why each follows an entirely different pattern to modern development. It is simply wrong to continue to obscure those basic differences by insisting on equivalence between them.","PeriodicalId":47030,"journal":{"name":"Modern China","volume":"49 1","pages":"519 - 531"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting “the Great Divergence”: Clarifying the Two Major Modes of Agriculture in China and the West\",\"authors\":\"Philip C. C. Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00977004231164778\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Kenneth Pomeranz and Li Bozhong have recently conceded that they had been wrong that “the great divergence” between China and the West occurred only after 1800, but they continue to insist that when it came to agriculture and its labor productivity, their earlier argument still holds. This article summarizes the broad differences between eighteenth-century England’s crops cum animal husbandry agriculture and China’s crops-only agriculture to demonstrate the fundamental differences between the two. It is time we recognize fully how very different the two were and are, and how and why each follows an entirely different pattern to modern development. It is simply wrong to continue to obscure those basic differences by insisting on equivalence between them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern China\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"519 - 531\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern China\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00977004231164778\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern China","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00977004231164778","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

Kenneth Pomeranz和李伯仲最近承认,他们错误地认为中国和西方之间的“大分歧”发生在1800年之后,但他们仍然坚持认为,在农业和劳动生产率方面,他们以前的论点仍然成立。本文总结了18世纪英国的作物兼畜牧业农业与中国的纯作物农业之间的广泛差异,以说明两者之间的根本差异。现在是我们充分认识到两者过去和现在有多么不同的时候了,以及它们是如何以及为什么遵循完全不同的现代发展模式的。通过坚持这些基本差异之间的对等来继续掩盖这些基本差异是完全错误的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting “the Great Divergence”: Clarifying the Two Major Modes of Agriculture in China and the West
Kenneth Pomeranz and Li Bozhong have recently conceded that they had been wrong that “the great divergence” between China and the West occurred only after 1800, but they continue to insist that when it came to agriculture and its labor productivity, their earlier argument still holds. This article summarizes the broad differences between eighteenth-century England’s crops cum animal husbandry agriculture and China’s crops-only agriculture to demonstrate the fundamental differences between the two. It is time we recognize fully how very different the two were and are, and how and why each follows an entirely different pattern to modern development. It is simply wrong to continue to obscure those basic differences by insisting on equivalence between them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Modern China
Modern China AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Published for over thirty years, Modern China has been an indispensable source of scholarship in history and the social sciences on late-imperial, twentieth-century, and present-day China. Modern China presents scholarship based on new research or research that is devoted to new interpretations, new questions, and new answers to old questions. Spanning the full sweep of Chinese studies of six centuries, Modern China encourages scholarship that crosses over the old "premodern/modern" and "modern/contemporary" divides.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信