AHC: Stop State Monopoly

for a country like Korea in the 18th century, perhaps most East Asian nations in general, almost too many things were monopolised- porcelain production, gunpowder production, printing presses, so on and so forth. The list is endless.
The reasoning for such extensive monopolisation of the economy was for a "strong tax base". What sort of explanation would suffice, if so, to persuade the government to allow the markets for more private management? How could the government, in short, have a large tax revenue if it liberalises the economy?
 
A tightly controlled central government is served well by a monopoly. They get the tax revenue and control an industry which helps keeps local regions under their thumb. On the downside it means that local regions are paying more for that good than they might without a monopoly. If power is decentralized though local governments are able to have regional monopolies or promote free markets both of with increase competition and lower prices. This is going to reduce the National government's direct revenue from that industry but it will increase to overall nation's wealth. Monopolies are also important when the government is served by a lack of competition. Whether they're trying to prevent secrets from escaping like Venice and glass, or preventing groups gaining power like France and gunpowder manufacturing there are legitimate reason for a national monopoly.

Really its a question more economic theory and whether the effectiveness of free markets can make up for the drop in direct tax revenue. The government frees up the economy and increases taxes on imports or land.

A series of weak leaders leads to a collapse of the bureaucracy? It's hard to have a monopoly when you can't keep good records.
 
A tightly controlled central government is served well by a monopoly. They get the tax revenue and control an industry which helps keeps local regions under their thumb. On the downside it means that local regions are paying more for that good than they might without a monopoly. If power is decentralized though local governments are able to have regional monopolies or promote free markets both of with increase competition and lower prices. This is going to reduce the National government's direct revenue from that industry but it will increase to overall nation's wealth. Monopolies are also important when the government is served by a lack of competition. Whether they're trying to prevent secrets from escaping like Venice and glass, or preventing groups gaining power like France and gunpowder manufacturing there are legitimate reason for a national monopoly.

Really its a question more economic theory and whether the effectiveness of free markets can make up for the drop in direct tax revenue. The government frees up the economy and increases taxes on imports or land.

A series of weak leaders leads to a collapse of the bureaucracy? It's hard to have a monopoly when you can't keep good records.

Well that's not really the solution, you are just disabling the functions of a state and the monopolies will return if the state is back on its feet again.

And what's with you two guys' names :D
 
Well that's not really the solution, you are just disabling the functions of a state and the monopolies will return if the state is back on its feet again.

And what's with you two guys' names :D

We shall dub this the Thread of the Mighty Zeppelins. ;)


for a country like Korea in the 18th century, perhaps most East Asian nations in general, almost too many things were monopolised- porcelain production, gunpowder production, printing presses, so on and so forth. The list is endless.

Forget about the "almost." That level of monopolization would certainly have caused problems in the long term, even if western nations had not arrived to forcibly "open up" Asian nations. Monopolies aren't kept on their toes by competitors, leading to increasingly higher prices and lower quality.

And that, in itself, might be a cause for liberalization. The damaging effects of the state monopolies would cause an economic downturn, which can (rightly) be blamed on the centralist and economically interventionist government by more decentralist and economically liberal reformers. If they then seize power in a coup, you get your desired outcome.

Mind you, things would have to get pretty bad for that to happen, and intervention by western powers in the meantime would have to be forestalled. But without western intervention, I would have expected something like it to have eventually happened in several Asian nations.

Getting to the point where tensions boil over might take too long to fit into your timeframe, though. Possible option: increase the state monopolization. This would exacerbate the ill effects and speed up their emergence, thus leading to a sooner resistance by reformers.
 
We shall dub this the Thread of the Mighty Zeppelins. ;)
Forget about the "almost." That level of monopolization would certainly have caused problems in the long term, even if western nations had not arrived to forcibly "open up" Asian nations. Monopolies aren't kept on their toes by competitors, leading to increasingly higher prices and lower quality.

And that, in itself, might be a cause for liberalization. The damaging effects of the state monopolies would cause an economic downturn, which can (rightly) be blamed on the centralist and economically interventionist government by more decentralist and economically liberal reformers. If they then seize power in a coup, you get your desired outcome.

Mind you, things would have to get pretty bad for that to happen, and intervention by western powers in the meantime would have to be forestalled. But without western intervention, I would have expected something like it to have eventually happened in several Asian nations.

Getting to the point where tensions boil over might take too long to fit into your timeframe, though. Possible option: increase the state monopolization. This would exacerbate the ill effects and speed up their emergence, thus leading to a sooner resistance by reformers.

and the zeppelin talks continue! :D:D
anyway, stretching the system until it splinters is not on the cards, the moderniser is the king here ;); however, he needs some explanation to why he should liberalise the economy. He is a slightly disillusioned however faithful Confucian. now, what kind of explanation would suffice to find economic liberalisation necessary for the economy? would giving the Ming dynasty analogy work(strong export economy)?
 
Top