上海織布局独占権の一考察(近代中国の経済と社会,共同研究)

概要

論文の詳細を見る
In recent years, many scholars in Chinese academic circles have emphasized the positive and progressive aspects of the Westernization Movement in the 19th century. I myself recognize that there were such aspects in the Westernization Movement; therefore I welcome these new attempts at reanalysis and reevaluations. Such pioneering efforts, however, need prudential evidence and explanations to deal with this complicated subject in which contradiction is rife. It is well known that the Shanghai Cotton Cloth Mill, the first Chinese spinning mill, enjoyed monopoly rights under the patronage of Li Hong-zhang (Li Hung-chang). In the People's Repudlic of China the role of monopoly rights has been evaluated negatively as impeding and restraining the growth of capital in the private sector of China. Recent interpretations, however, emphasize the fact that the monopoly rights were granted to meet the demands of the Upper stratum of the national capitalists class and that they hindered the advance of foreign capital into China. Another opinion argues that the regulations were not applied strictly to the Chinese capitalists. These affirmative interpretations of the monopoly rights of the Cotton Mill are serving as a basis for positive evaluation of the Westernization Movements positively. I have examined the aforementioned new academic development, comparing it with studies already initiated in Japan, Taiwan and Western countries. My conclusion is that though the new perception is partly persuading, it is basically incoherent. The monopoly rights were not the only impediment to the introduction of foreign capital, nor did they run against the interests of capitalists in cotton industries in the imperialist nations. Westernzation party placed great restrictions on the scale of the spinning industry in their own country because they wanted to retain the traditional society. This was the true nature of their economic thought and policy. The policy of restraining the construction of spinning plants in China in spite of an expanding market for machine-spun cotton goods resulted in the expansion of the market for foreign cotton goods. On the other hand, Westernization party adopted a policy of noninterference and tacit admission with respect to silk filatures plants built with foreign capital that did not conform to the treaty. Such a policy cannot be construed as promoting the industrialization and capitalization of China. It was quite natural, then, that the national capitalists who first demanded the monopoly rights later criticized the policy that impeded the industrialization of their country.
日本大学の論文
1989-03-20

上海織布局独占権の一考察(近代中国の経済と社会,共同研究)

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク