Search

The future of Chinese agriculture lies not with large mechanized farms but with small capital-labor dual intensifying family farms for livestock-poultry-fish raising and vegetable-fruit cultivation. Chinese food consumption patterns have been changing from the old 8:1:1 pattern of 8 parts grain, 1 part meat, and 1 part vegetables to a 4:3:3 pattern, with a corresponding transformation in agricultural structure. Small family-farming is better suited for the new-age agriculture, including organic farming, than large-scale mechanized farming, because of the intensive, incremental, and variegated hand labor involved, not readily open to economies of scale, though compatible with economies of scope. It is also better suited to the realities of severe population pressure on land. But it requires vertical integration from cultivation to processing to marketing, albeit without horizontal integration for farming. It is against such a background that co-ops have arisen spontaneously for integrating small farms with processing and marketing. The Chinese government, however, has been supporting aggressively capitalistic agribusinesses as the preferred mode of vertical integration. At present, Chinese agriculture is poised at a crossroads, with the future organizational mode for vertical integration as yet uncertain.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 摘要 彭慕兰 (Kenneth Pomeranz) 和李伯重最近承认自己过去坚持中国和西方经济的"大分流"要到1800年之后方才出现是错误的，但他们仍然坚持，在农业和农业劳动生产率方面自己原来的论点是正确的。本文总结英格兰18世纪以来的农牧结合模式和中国的单一种植模式的根本不同。我们需要掌握两者的差异才能认识到其过去和未来发展出路的不同。坚持两者的相同和相等性只可能继续导致错误的认识和抉择。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article attempts to provide a broad overview response to the question: Whence and whither Chinese agriculture? The point of departure is a summary and discussion of the ten articles of this symposium, five empirical and theoretical discussions from economic historians, two from scholars doing solid and illuminating research on the "new agriculture," and finally three that explore the issue of what road Chinese agriculture should adopt for the future. The article places the agricultural and rural history of the People's Republic into the broad perspective of changes since the eighteenth century. It distinguishes between cooperativization, collectivization, and the people's communes, and between the open-field "old" grain agriculture and the high-value-added "new agriculture." It examines the differences between the New World's "lots of land and few people" and the East Asian "lots of people and little land" agricultures, and the former's land-and-capital-dual-intensifying and the latter's labor-andcapital-dual-intensifying paths of modern change. From that perspective, it examines the successes and failures of the people's communes vs. cooperativization-collectivization, of dragon-head enterprises vs. small peasants, and of the American specialty co-ops vs. the East Asian integrated co-ops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]