|
昆明翻譯公司關(guān)鍵字：In the understanding of the geographical conditions, the market rise, the division of labor, technological breakthroughs, the inherent principles of economic growth, let us scholars on the history of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan economy to give a brief analysis of the debate.
V. Huang, Li Bozhong, Pomeranz view assessmentNow, the general reader familiar with the economic growth mode is "extensive" and "intensive" two. Economic reform, the state's goal is to from the "extensive growth" to "intensive growth" change. The so-called "extensive growth" also known as epitaxial growth, is the input of various factors of production to increase in proportion to total output due to increased labor productivity but did not increase. "Intensive growth" also known as organic growth, without increasing the material means of production factors in the case, relying on improved technology and management due to the growth of economic output. In this mode of growth in labor productivity has increased.
However, both economic growth (division) although in line with the stringent requirements of modern economics, but they study the history of economic growth but not much of a role, because in history, a variety of factors of production strictly in proportion to increase investment is rare, caused by the improved technology and management of economic output growth is rare. History of a large number of cases is an increase in factor inputs and other factors of production into the same, in which case the total output will increase. You can see, this economic growth (if it can be regarded as a growth so) it is neither "extensive growth", not "intensive growth." In fact, this growth potential is very small. Generally speaking, the beginning of a growth factor of output growth will cause the result, but because of the role of the law of diminishing marginal returns, will eventually lead to production peaked or even started to decline, while the factors of production units, "productivity" is earlier began to decline. For most of history, agriculture is the case: With the natural population growth, an area of ??increased labor input in agriculture, but land investment is unchanged, so there is diminishing returns of labor, Huang put this amount may increase labor productivity decline, but is called "involution."
Chinese scholars often subject to limitations of the theory of Marx, focusing on research "productivity" of development. To determine the development of productive forces, trying to find out on a social (or regions) of the "labor productivity" situation. Generally believed that labor productivity mainly determined by the technological development and progress. As that technology always evolving, so the history of the "labor productivity" should be a gradual increase or at least not reduce a process. This is a serious mistake. I think, by the "Productivity" concept evolved out of the "labor productivity" issue-oriented, is to make China's economic history scholars an important reason for going astray. Because, strictly speaking, because the role of the law of diminishing marginal returns, even if the technology without any change in the history of the "labor productivity" is a process of ups and downs of volatility, especially in agriculture, "labor productivity" of the most obvious changes. If the "amount of output per capita labor" as a measure of "labor productivity" standard, even if other factors the same, in the sparsely populated and affluent areas of land, "Labor productivity" is high. With the natural population growth as well as degree of saturation (the maximum population capacity limits of the environment), "Labor productivity" is greatly reduced. Therefore, scholars have long attention to the "labor productivity" changes in the study of history is not important.
|