Search

Because the present-day Chinese academic system gives little value to monographic studies, and non-Chinese scholars are very, very rarely able to compose in Chinese, Chinese studies today severely lacks high quality monographic research in Chinese. At the same time, most Chinese scholars in China (distinguished from Chinese-origin scholars abroad) are generally only able to translate from English into their mother tongue Chinese, and seldom able to do the reverse of translating into their non-mother tongue English. As a result, quality English-language studies by mainland Chinese scholars are also rare. On a global level, therefore, high quality book-length scholarship on China is in fact largely limited to English language studies by non-Chinese foreign scholars and overseas Chinese scholars, and is severely lacking in studies by mainland Chinese scholars, whether in Chinese or English. This is a situation that cries out urgently for change. 摘要: 由于中国国内的学术体系相对轻视专著，而非华裔学者们则罕有能够用中文写作专著者，现有的中文中国研究文献中极少有优秀的专著。同时，中国大陆的学者（区别于海外华裔学者）多只能将外语翻成自己的中文母语，少有能够将中文翻成非自己母语的英文外语者，因此，现有英语文献也少有优秀的中国大陆学者的著作。在全球范围中，目前的中国研究实际上高度偏重外国学者和海外华裔学者的英文原作，严重缺乏高水平的中国学者的中文或英文原作。这是个亟须改进的局面。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Looking back at the past half-century since the founding of the journal Modern China in 1975, we can see that in the beginning non–Chinese American scholars accounted for fully 73 percent of all articles. That figure remained at a fairly high 64 percent at the end of the century, but has declined greatly since, first down to 26 percent by 2005-2009, and further to just 11 percent in 2020-2022. That decline has been partly countered by the increasing numbers of Chinese-origin scholars (US citizens or not) based in the United States. At the same time, the proportion of articles published by mainland China–based scholars has steadily increased in the past two decades, reaching the present 28 percent. If we add to that articles by Chinese-origin scholars both inside and outside the United States, citizens or not, the total proportion rises to 65 percent, nearly two-thirds of all our articles, a sea change for the journal. Alongside that change, there has been the rise and expansion also of non–Chinese-origin scholars in the rest of the English–language world outside the United States, who now account for 24 percent of all our articles. Together these changes tell about the dramatic transnationalization of English language–based China studies as a whole, from mainly non–Chinese-origin American scholars to an ever-increasing proportion of Chinese-origin scholars, and from mainly a US endeavor to an ever more transnational one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In socialist China today, neoliberal economics has actually come to wield institutionalized hegemonic power in academic evaluations of economic studies, while in neoliberal America, there is ironically considerably more pluralism in the practice of academic evaluations of economic studies. The origins of this state of affairs lie not in just a simple matter of ideology or policy choices, but rather in different tendencies in the operative practices of two different systems of governance. While China leans strongly toward centralized bureaucratism, along with scientism and numericism, the United States leans more toward multicentered pluralistic practices. Regardless, what scholarship needs is pluralistic contention for sustained long-term development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chayanov, outside of his theoretical analysis of how peasant households are distinctive for being at once a production and a consumption unit, and the multiple implications of that fact, has made two other major theoretical contributions, one making clear that peasant economies observe the logic of "differential optimums" rather than the simple logic of economies of scale, the other having to do with the need for co-operatives for "vertical integration" of small peasant economies, in order to preserve for the peasants more of the value of their products in the BIG MARKET. The former can be readily observed in the "new agriculture revolution" of the Chinese economy in the past few decades; the latter can be readily seen in the striking modernization of the "East Asian" (i.e. Japan, South Korea, and the Taiwan area) economies since 1945. China's annual "Number One Documents" about agriculture of the past two decades have shown how the country first mistakenly tried to imitate the simple scale-economy logic of the United States, and then shifted since 2018 toward a new emphasis on the peasants as the principal agents of agricultural development and of peasant villages as the basic unit for agricultural co-ops. Those have been the basis for new advances as well as for reinterpretations and modifications of Chayanov's two major theoretical visions. 摘要: 除了关于小农户作为一个既是生产也是消费的独特经济单位而形成的诸多特点的理论论析之外，恰亚诺夫的另外两大理论贡献，一是说明小农经济生产遵循的不是简单的规模经济效益，而是"差异化最优"的逻辑，二是提出小农户为了应对大市场，需要扎根于小农户自身组织的"纵向一体化"的合作社来维护其生产收益。前者可以充分见证于中国近几十年来的"新农业革命"，后者则特别清晰地展示于"东亚地区"（主要指日本、韩国及中国台湾地区）1945年以来非常突出的小农经济现代化经验。近二十年的中央一号文件充分见证了国家农政的重点之前在模仿美国模式和简单的规模经济效益理论，但在 2018 年以来则转向以小农经济为生产主体和以小农户为合作社主体的新趋向，既见证也推进和选择性地重新解读了上述恰亚诺夫的两大理论洞见。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chayanov, outside of his theoretical analysis of how peasant households are distinctive for being at once a production and a consumption unit and the multiple implications of that fact, has made two other major theoretical contributions, one making clear that peasant economies observe the logic of "differential optimums" rather than the simple logic of economies of scale and the other having to do with the need for co-operatives for "vertical integration" of small peasant economies in order to preserve for the peasants more of the value of their products in the BIG MARKET. The former can be readily observed in the "new agriculture revolution" of the Chinese economy in the past few decades; the latter can be readily seen in the striking modernization of the "East Asian" (i.e., Japan, South Korea, and the Taiwan area) economies since 1945. China's annual "Number One Documents" about agriculture of the past two decades have shown how the country first mistakenly tried to imitate the simple scale-economy logic of the United States and then shifted since 2018 toward a new emphasis on the peasants as the principal agents of agricultural development and peasant villages as the basic unit for agricultural co-ops. Those have been the basis for new advances as well as for reinterpretations and modifications of Chayanov's two major theoretical visions. [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]

In socialist China today, neoliberal economics has actually come to wield institutionalized hegemonic power in academic evaluations of economic studies, while in neoliberal America, there is actually considerably more pluralism in the practice of academic evaluations of economic studies. The origins of this state of affairs lie not in just a simple matter of ideology or policy choices, but rather in different tendencies in the actual practices of two different systems of governance. While China leans strongly toward centralized bureaucratism, along with scientism and numericalism, the U.S. leans more toward multi-centered pluralistic practices. What scholarship needs is pluralistic contentions for sustained long-term development. 摘要 在社会主义的中国，如今新自由主义经济学居然已经占到制度化了的学术霸权地位；而在自由主义的美国，反倒展示相当程度多元化的学术评估实践。究其根本，来源不在简单的意识形态或某种决策，而在强烈的体系化运作倾向。前者倾向集中的官僚主义、"科学主义"和数据化主义运作，后者则比较倾向多元化的实际运作。学术需要的是多元争鸣的实际运作才会具有长远的生命力。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]