NOTES

For recent evidence of this decline, see Maddison (1998: ch. I, IΓ). Using his PPP method, Maddison estimated that in China the GDP per capita was US $450 (in 1990 US$) in 960, rose to US $600 in 1280, stagnated during the following centuries until 1820, then declined to US $537 in 1952.

See WangJiafan (1988), Bozhong Li (1996a), Fang Xing (1996, 1999: 2175-92), and especially James Lee and Wang Feng (1999: 29-31).

The prefectures include Jiangning (Yingtian), Zhenjiang, Suzhou (including the department of Taicang), Songjiang, Jiaxing, Huzhou and Hangzhou, see Bozhong Li (1990).

From the nation-wide discussions of the ‘Sprouts of Chinese Capitalism' in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1980s and of the ‘Long Persistence of Feudalism' in the early 1980s, it is apparent that the majority of mainland Chinese scholars have tended to agree that farm labour productivity declined in late Imperial China. Outside the mainland, some scholars have suggested that farm labour productivity remained constant in late Imperial China on the whole, or even rose a bit in some areas within ‘developing' and ‘undeveloped' parts of China (Perkins 1969: 18-19; Wang Yejian and Huang Guoshu 1989). But nobody has so far explicitly claimed that such was the case in ‘developed' parts of China, which was the homeland of the majority of the Chinese people.

For example, Mark Elvin's theory of ‘high-level equilibrium trap', which is apparently based on the experience of Ming-Qing Jiangnan, is roughly identical with the view that farm labour productivity declined in late Imperial China (Elvin 1973: ch. 16). Chen Hengli made it clear that in Huzhou and Jiaxing of central Jiangnan, the level of farm labour productivity achieved in the late seventeenth century is obviously higher than in the 1930s and 1950s (Chen Hengli 1961: ch.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

cultivated land. In the case of Jiangnan, however, according to Perkins as well as most scholars of Ming-Qing Jiangnan history, no new land was available and yields increased little during the period, while population grew considerably and most of that growing population still depended on farming for their livelihood. One would have to infer that farm labour productivity must have been falling.

6.

A mu is 0.0667 hectares.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

For demographic changes in major parts of the world—China, India, Europe, Japan, and so on—in ‘early modern times', see Maddison (1998: 20) and Frank (1998: 167-9). From their updated works, we can see that the Jiangnan population grew even more slowly than Europe during the period between 1700 and 1820 (Maddison) or between 1650 and 1850 (Frank). The annual growth rate of Jiangnan population is also much lower than that of the Chinese national rate which is estimated 0.6% a year between 1650 and 1850, and far less than the 3% or more in many developing countries since World War II (Perkins 1969: 24).

A wide range of methods to control population growth was employed, including infanticide, delayed marriage, lower proportion of ever married, abortion, contraception, sterilization, and the like. See Bozhong Li (1994⅛ 2000a).

It is the shortage that was a principal barrier to double-cropping of rice (two crops of rice within a year) and some farming methods of rice such as the pit cultivation (qughongfa). All of these cropping methods are more labour­intensive than double-cropping of rice and winter crops.

The increase in short-term hired labour after the mid-Ming period is one of the main research topics within the ‘sprouts of capitalism' literature of mainland Chinese historians. A representative discussion can be found in Li Wenzhi (1983: especially part 3).

Though double-cropping of rice and wheat appeared much earlier (I dated its first appearance back to the Tang times, see Bozhong Li 1982), great differences can be found between pre-Ming and Ming double-cropping. That is why Kitada has referred to them as the old and the new double-cropping (Kitada 1988: ch. 2, 3). For further discussions, see Bozhong Li (1994a, 1998: 50-1).

^12. Mark Elvin has argued that when studying technological progress one must distinguish between invention (the earliest appearance), innovation (the application of invention to production), and dissemination (the spread of an innovation), see Bozhong Li (1994a). These distinctions are important for evaluating QingJiangnan agricultural technology.

¹³ Perkins called the discovery of the fertilizer potential of bean cakes a significant exception to the more general picture of a stagnant technology in late Imperial China (Perkins 1969: 71). As has already been pointed out above, however, for economic growth, the widespread use of a new technique may be even more important than the discovery of it. It is during the early and mid-Qing that the use of bean cakes became widespread in Jiangnan, because of a sharply expanding import of beans and bean cakes (Bozhong Li 1998: ch. 6). Therefore, considering the importance of it in the agricultural history of Jiangnan, it is not an exaggeration to call the widespread use of bean cakes a ‘fertilizer revolution'.

¹⁴ A catty is equal to around 0.5 kg.

¹⁵' The method I use is as follows: first, I seek the total rice output of Jiangnan by subtracting import from total consumption, then find the yield per mu by dividing the output by acreage under rice cultivation, and finally examine the result against yield records available from different sources.

16.

17.

A shi is 100 litres.

In contrast, the old double-cropping can be applied only in limited places, mainly in ‘high fields’ in western Jiangnan, but not in ‘low fields’ in eastern Jiangnan which is much more important agriculturally, see Bozhong Li (1994a, 1998: 50—1). As for double-cropping of rice, it has never spread widely. In the mid-Qing, in spite of encouragement from local officials such as Governor Lin Zexu and free instruction from local gentry-agriculturists like Pan Zenyi, few Jiangnan peasants responded. In the 1960s and 1970s, to increase grain production from each piece of land, great efforts were made to advocate double-cropping rice by the state. But it caused a series of problems. Thus after 1978 double-cropping rice was given up and there was a return to a rotation regime of rice and winter crops.

18.

In an agronomic analysis of modern Zhejiang cropping systems, Fang Zaihui has pointed out that double-cropping of rice with wheat, barley, rapeseed, and broad beans is the best cropping regime for most of Zhejiang. Because the soil can be turned over and sun dried after the rice is harvested and will not be waterlogged when these winter crops are planted after rice, they are especially good for the soil of paddy fields. In contrast, alternative cropping regimes (single-cropping or double-cropping rice or combining rice with green manure crops) reduce the physical and chemical degradation of soil that results from long-term waterlogging of the paddy fields. If waterlogged for a long period of time, the structure and properties of the soil are degraded (Fang Zaihui et al. 1984: 40, 161—7, 309—10). For this reason, as early as in the late seventeenth century, Zhang Luxiang said that planting wheat on rice fields could dry and loosen the soil, ‘benefiting future planting of rice’ (Zhang Luxiang 1983: 106).

19.

20.

It is, of course, much less than double-cropping of rice. But as is pointed out above, double-cropping of rice has not spread in Jiangnan.

In contrast, as Guo Songyi has also pointed out, double-cropping of rice alone was not as worthwhile as double­cropping of rice and wheat (Guo Songyi 1994). But either labour input or capital input is much more in double­cropping of rice than in double-cropping of rice and wheat. As for the double-cropping of rice and beans or rapeseed, the inputs are even less.

21.

22.

Taking rice cultivation as an example, labour supply may be too much for some jobs (weeding in rice cultivation for instance), while it may be highly inefficient for other works (land preparation and seedling transplanting, for instance). See Bozhong Li (1986, 1998: 68-75).

That is one of the major reasons why double-cropping of rice cannot spread in Jiangnan. Perkins has suggested that in China, even into the 1950s, there was no labour surplus, but a shortage of labour during agricultural peak seasons (Perkins 1969: 59-60). The shortage was the major barrier of the spread of double-cropping of rice, because the labour requirements of double-cropping of rice are much heavier than in double-cropping of rice and wheat and the requirements are highly uneven for different seasons. ForJiangnan, Kenneth Walker has suggested that in the present-day province of Jiangsu where most of Jiangnan is located, the labour supply has been estimated to have been on average less than half that necessary for ideal double-cropping rice conditions (Walker 1968: Table III).

23.

To raise labour productivity in a farm, at least four methods can be adopted: (1) the acreage of cultivated land increases, but the number of the workers does not; (2) the number of the workers decreases, but the acreage of the farmland does not; (3) both the number of the workers and the acreage of farmland do not change, but the farmland

is more intensively cultivated; and (4) both the number of the workers and the acreage of farmland are unchanged, but land is multi-cropped (Bray 1986: 2—3).

24.

25.

Since the late Ming, total crop area in Jiangnan has not changed much; it has been roughly 45 million mu, while Jiangnan had about 3 million agricultural families in 1620 and 5 million in 1850, see Bozhong Li (1998: 19—23, 26-7, 2000b: ch. 9).

It is no wonder Zhang Luxiang, a late-seventeenth-century Jiangnan scholar and agriculturist, said that ‘a good peasant farmed no more than ten mu^, (Zhang Luxiang 1983: 148). Almost two centuries later, Tao Xi, a Jiangnan scholar and high-ranking official, noticed that a man cultivating 10 mu was still the norm; if a family had more than 10 mu, it needed to hire labour (Tao Xi 1927: 6a, 17a-b).

26.

In mainland Chinese scholarship, ‘man ploughs and woman weaves' has been seen as the normal division of labour for thousands of years. It has also been considered a major characteristic of the economic structure of Chinese ‘feudal' society (Bai Gang 1984: ch. 3.4, 3.5, 3.12-3.15, and 4.8). But as I argued in my 1996 article, in Jiangnan, the pattern did not prevail until the seventeenth century and it became predominant just in the eighteenth century.

27.

28.

Xu Xinwu (1992: 215), cf. Bozhong Li (2000b: ch. 8).

Philip Huang has argued that labour productivity was lower in non-grain cash cropping than in grain production. (Huang 1990: 78-84) We should note that this viewpoint relies mainly on studies of the cotton industry in Jiangnan during the nineteenth century and the first part of the twentieth century. As we know, however, economic conditions in China worsened in the nineteenth century. In the case of Jiangnan, the cotton handicraft industry suffered not only from the general economic contraction, but also from exposure to competition from cotton textile producers in the industrialized West. Therefore, conclusions drawn from this later period are not helpful to the discussion here.

29.

30.

For the definition see Perkins (1986: 87) and Crafts (1989).

The differences are: (1) modern industrial labour productivity is calculated on the basis of a day or hour, but traditional agricultural labour productivity is calculated mainly according to the year; (2) modern industrial labour productivity is per worker, but traditional agricultural labour usually takes the family as the unit; (3) modern industrial labour is basically of one kind, while peasant labour has more types; (4) modern labour's results are usually expressed in money, but in traditional agricultural societies we must use real goods in many cases, because a commercial economy is not sufficiently developed. In general, the four points apply to Jiangnan agriculture in the period under discussion, see BozhongLi (1998: 134-5, 1999: 492-3).

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

The wheat is converted into 4.2 shi of rice according to the common rate of conversion in Ming-Qing Jiangnan which is 1:0.7, see Bozhong Li (1998: 208).

On production costs of rice and wheat, see Bozhong Li (1998: 139-40, 1999: 502).

Rice cultivation in Ming-QingJiangnan, from preparing the soil through harvesting, required about 10 workdays/ mu. If we add the labour for pumping water and collecting and transporting fertilizer the total is 15 workdays/mu (BozhongLi 1984, 1998: 139, 1999: 504).

According to the calculations on labour expenses in Pumao nonggi each mu of wheat, barley, or rye required 3 workdays (Jiang Gao 1963: 9b).

One dou is 10 litres.

It takes 2 workdays to prepare 1 mu of rice (Jiang Gao 1963: 11a). In a single-cropping regime, a peasant can prepare 25 mu during the period of land preparation. Preparing the land is very hard; normally it is only a man's responsibility.

37.

38.

A family plants 25 mu; each mu produced 2.5 shi for 62.5 shi. Men do the job of husking the rice at the rate of 1 shi/ day (Jiang Gao 1963: 11a). When speaking of wheat, because it is not clear how much labour it takes to bran, I have to use the rate for rice.

In rural societies, peasants do not work every day. This maximum number of workdays of a Jiangnan peasant within a year is derived from modern field investigations, see Xu Xinwu (1992: 469) and Bozhong Li (1999: 504). This number does not contradict the calculation of wages of a long-term farm hand on the basis of 360 days a year, because he still had to eat and be clothed even if he did not have work to do in the slack seasons.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

A bolt of cloth was 3.63 square yards.

As pointed out earlier, the maximum number of workdays per year is 300 days.

In fact, the example given by He Liangjun is the only record I have ever seen.

For example, Zhang Haishan (1992) says, ‘Now [1804] the land is limited and the people are many in Suzhou and Songjiang. A man cannot work 10 mu’. Paddy productivity in this period reached 3 shi/mu in both Suzhou and Songjiang (Bao Shichen 2001: 58; Jiang Gao 1963: 3b). For more evidence, see Bozhong Li (1996^, 1999). According to Gu Yanwu, a mid-seventeenth-century Jiangnan scholar. See Bozhong Li (1998: 126—7).

On the output in western Songjiang, see Li Bozhong (1998: 139—40, 1999: 506—8).

If we consider labour productivity the key factor in deciding whether growth is ‘extensive' or ‘intensive', then this would be a case of intensive growth. For a more detailed discussion, see Feuerwerker (1992).

It is a common opinion that peasants' living standards declined over time in late Imperial China. Most mainland Chinese historians of the older generation believe that the ‘feudal exploitation' (rents, taxes, usury, and the like) became so severe that most peasant families could not have survived if they had relied only on farming. Even when they found new sources of income from sericulture and textile handicrafts, it is thought that they still lived at a minimum level of living (Chen Zhenhan 1955; Fu Zhufu and Gu Shutang 1956; Xu Xinwu 1981: 40—4, 105—6; Bai Gang 1984: 221; Fu Yiling 1991: 91, 95; Wang Tingyuan 1993). In the west, some scholars see ‘population pressure' as the chief culprit behind the pauperization of peasants. They argue that the pressure created a growing surplus of labour and drove peasants' living standards to a ‘minimum subsistence’ level, for example, Quan Hansheng (1958) and Philip Huang (1990: ch. 5). This view has been accepted since the 1980s by many mainland Chinese historians such as Hong Huanchun (1988: 91—2). Most of their attention, Chinese and western, has concentrated on Jiangnan.

47.

48.

49.

During this period, silk and cotton cloth, Jiangnan's major exports, and rice, Jiangnan's major import and most important food, all rose in price. But generally, before the early nineteenth century, Jiangnan peasants benefited from the price markup (Bozhong Li 1998: ch. 6).

After the Qing dynasty was established, the tax burdens of the late Ming were equalized to a large degree so that the burdens for most peasants were reduced, at least in per capita terms.

The fact that Jiangnan peasants were unwilling to work in cities and towns cannot be attributed to their conservatism or their ‘home-attaching’ complex. As residents of the most commercialized area of China, they were unwilling to miss any chance to make money. Qi Yanhuai, an early nineteenth-century scholar and official, figuratively said: ‘Shanghai people see the inland travel to Nanjing or Qingjiang as long-distance trips, but they travel by boat between Shanghai and Guandong four or five times a year and never

mind the distance' (Qi Yanhuai 1826). In fact, Nanjing or Qingjiang are hundreds of miles from Shanghai, but Guandong (southern Manchuria) is thousands of miles away. The only reason why they preferred to risk the sea voyage is that they could make more money from the flourishing sea trade that existed between Shanghai and Guandong in the mid-Qing period.

⁵⁰ Jacque Gernet has confidently asserted that ‘the Chinese peasant of the Yongzheng (1723—35) and of the first half of Qianlong (1736—65) era was in general better nourished and more comfortable than his French counterpart in the reign of Louis XV' (cited by R. Bin Wong 1998: 25). Ping-ti Ho has also suggested that the peasants of eighteenth-century China lived better than their counterparts of eighteenth-century France, of early nineteenth­century Prussia, or of Tokugawa Japan (Ping-ti Ho 1959: 194). Even in the mid-nineteenth century, which is usually seen as a period of emerging general social crisis, Robert Fortune, a careful first-hand observer, wrote that the diet of tea-picking labourers in East China was clearly better than that of harvest labourers in Scotland, his motherland: ‘A Chinaman would starve upon such food (that Scotch labourers had)' (Fortune 1847/1987: 12).