China's Silk Trade: Traditional Industry in the Modern World, 1842–1934. By Lillian M. Li. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1981. Pp. xv + 288. $15.00
China's Silk Trade: Traditional Industry in the Modern World, 1842–1934. By Lillian M. Li. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1981. Pp. xv + 288. $15.00
复制标题
《中国的丝绸贸易：现代世界的传统产业，1842-1934 年》作者：Lillian M. Li，马萨诸塞州剑桥，哈佛大学出版社，1981 年。第 xv + 288 页。15.00 美元
DOI：
10.2307/3114345
复制
发表时间：
1982
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
R. Gardella
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Gardella
在这本关于中国商品的研究中，李丽莲描绘了一个明显的悖论，并解决了现代中国经济史上的重要问题。她对一个具有重要商业意义的行业进行了第一次全面分析，该行业是中国传统技术的先锋，尽管在鸦片战争后出口大幅扩张，但未能实现现代化。换句话说，数量的增长并没有在生产率上有实质性的提高。为了解释这种不一致性，李肇星追溯了前现代经济体系的优势和弱点，这种经济体系“能够对经济机会做出反应，但同样能够保护自己免受不必要的风险”（199）。这本书的大部分内容是基于对零碎的中文和日文原始和二手资料的细致研究。李的研究松散地组织在六个广泛而有些重叠的主题下，首先考察了丝绸生产技术以及该行业公共和私营部门之间的历史共生关系。在对外贸易方面，作者对1870年至1937年的出口贸易进行了快速考察，从而探讨了贸易扩张与丝绸生产增长之间的关系，以及贸易对中国农村经济的影响。李在她的结论中，将20世纪中国未能振兴衰落的丝绸业与日本的竞争成功进行了对比，并将中国的商业崩溃归因于本土而不是国际限制。在她的著作中最具启发性的部分，李嘉诚批判性地重新评估了中国经济现代化的问题，以及与之相关的中国对外贸易的反应问题。她指出，中国丝绸业在17世纪已经达到了一个高技术平台，因此进一步的现代化需要彻底的组织变革，而不是纯粹的技术创新。该行业的传统组织是高度分散和分割的，分散而不是集中风险和责任，与西方资本主义企业形成鲜明对比。出口贸易对中国农村经济产生了可衡量但不均衡的影响;丝绸产量在成熟的生产中心比在新的生产中心受到的刺激要小，后者也更容易对创新做出反应。国内纺织部门的需求强劲，农户养蚕的季节性、附属性和风险性，以及分散的国内销售机构等因素，最初限制了丝绸出口的增长，最终使该行业的零星改革努力受挫。在解释和文件方面的一些问题上，我与李的意见不同。虽然这本书表面上涵盖了整个中国丝绸业，但实际上是一个经过修改的区域研究，集中在江南（长江下游流域）。从某种意义上说，这是。由于江南是中国最大和最古老的丝绸生产中心，因此，研究传统生产方式和新的出口市场之间的相互作用是合乎逻辑的。但是，从另一个意义上说，这种集中妨碍了李鸿章的分析，因为在江南以外的整个新的生产地区，必然受到比较粗略的注意。例如，她指出，广东省广州三角洲的养蚕是一个相对较新的现象，成为一个全年，
In this study of a commodity synonymous with China, Lillian Li delineates an apparent paradox and addresses significant problems in modern China's economic history. She has fashioned the first general analysis of a commercially important industry that was in the vanguard of traditional Chinese technology, yet failed to modernize despite substantial expansion of exports in the postOpium War era. In other words, quantitative growth occurred without substantial increases in productivity. To account for such inconsistency, Li traces the strengths and weaknesses of a pre-modern economic system that "was quite capable of response to economic opportunity but was equally capable of protecting itself against unnecessary risk' (199). Much of the book is based upon meticulous examination of fragmentary Chinese and Japanese primary and secondary sources. Loosely organized under six broad and somewhat overlapping topical headings, Li's study first examines the technology of silk production and the historically symbiotic relationship between the industry's public and private sectors. Turning to foreign trade, the author rapidly surveys the export trade from 1870 to 1937, leading to an exploration of the relationship between trade expansion and the growth of silk production as well as the impact of the trade on China's rural economy. Li, in her conclusion, contrasts twentieth-century China's failure to revitalize a flagging silk industry with Japan's competitive success, and attributes China's commercial debacle to indigenous rather than international constraints. Li critically re-evaluates the problem of economic modernization in China and the related issue of China's response to foreign trade in the most stimulating sections of her work. She notes that the Chinese silk industry had already reached a high technological plateau by the seventeenth century, such that further modernization necessitated radical organizational changes rather than purely technical innovations. The industry's traditional organization was highly decentralized and segmented, diffusing instead of concentrating risks and accountability in striking contrast to Western capitalist enterprises. The export trade had a measurable but uneven effect on the Chinese rural economy; silk output was less stimulated in well-established than in newer centers of production, which were also more responsive to innovation. Factors such as the strength of demand from the domestic weaving sector, the seasonal, subsidiary and risk-laden character of peasant household sericulture, and fragmented internal marketing institutions initially limited the growth of silk exports and eventually frustrated piecemeal efforts to reform the industry. On a few matters of interpretation and documentation I would differ with Li. Although the book ostensibly covers the entire Chinese silk industry, it is in fact a modified regional study that concentrates on Kiangnan (the Lower Yangtze Valley). In one sense this is. justified, since Kiangnan was China's largest and oldest center of silk production, hence the logical place to study the interaction between traditional modes of production and new export markets. But in another sense this focus inhibits Li's analysis, since entire new regions of production outside of Kiangnan are perforce given more cursory attention. For example, she indicates that sericulture in the Canton Delta of Kwangtung Province was a relatively recent phenomenon, becoming a year-round, highly