Economic Dualism: The Case of China 1840–1937*

Chi-Ming Hou

The Journal of Economic History, 1963, vol. 23, issue 3, 277-297

Abstract: A persistent argument in condemning foreign economic intrusion in China (1840–1937) is that the “traditional” or the “indigenous” sector of the economy was “hampered,” “disrupted,” or even “ruined.” It is maintained that the handicrafts, small mines, native banks, junks, and coolie carriers were all helplessly depressed because of competition from their counterparts in the modern sector of the economy, which was an outgrowth of external trade and foreign investment in China. Some have argued that the supposed decline in the traditional sector was a net loss to China, since the limited development in the modern sector was not large enough to offset losses in the traditional sector, or that gains in the modern sector were primarily reaped by countries which traded with or invested in China. Others have taken a more moderate view: that the net effect of foreign economic penetration in China cannot be ascertained, because gains and losses in the two sectors cannot be compared quantitatively. But in either case there is the assertion that there was a decline in the traditional sector.

Date: 1963
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:jechis:v:23:y:1963:i:03:p:277-297_10

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Economic History from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().