Why didn't china industrialize first?

[Accelerator/ Onewayroad]

Ok, China is a really large country. A continent. They were pretty good in metal working, first to find gunpowerder, had a massive bureaurcacy, was united quite a few times, had printing....

So why didn't they get the same technological advancements as the west?

Why weren't they setting up colonies using steamboats instead of the other way around?

 

[Clandango]

Steam boats didn't come until long after colonies had begun being set up by Europeans. And China DID colonize. They clonizes China. They had loads of dynasties and foreign invaders pushing down on independent cultures, and they had a syste of tributaries, where certain states had to go to the Chinese capital to ask for the okay on their new rulers when the previous died. China also wasn't quite as well placed for the colonialism of the sort you might be thinking. The Baltic, the English Channel, the Mediterranean.... Lots of places to bring use ships, meaning less distance on food or by barge to get goods to the coast for international trade. The Chinese (Of course this is dozens of governments over thousands of years, so their motives and rulers changed, but in general-) did not see others having things they wanted, outside of food and luxury goods. There is a reason the Europeans kept going to East Asia. They had a lot of nice stuff. The Europeans didn't have much they could bring over great distances besides precious metals and stones, which was why the Dutch made a lot of their money trading Asian goods between semi-isolated or hostile countries, then using some of the profits to send home spices, silks, porcelain, etc.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

There are lots of ideas but no definitive answers. Some point to the insular nature of China, an almost self contained world that didn't need outside resources or ideas to thrive. Many look at the idea that Chinese politics favored stability over innovation. Other's say the low cost of labor in China made investing in untested new technologies unprofitable compared to simply hiring more people. Other's again argue the government's many monopolies resulted in less personal investment and entrepreneurial enterprises in key industries. Maybe it's a combination of everything or maybe it was just bad luck.

 

[DominusNovus]

In some ways, they did. And then, Mongols.

In other ways, tue question isn't "Why didn't X industrialize?" But "Why did Britain?"

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

In other ways, the question isn't "Why didn't X industrialize?" But "Why did Britain?"

That's a good point. Today we view technological progress as a natural progression but that's really only something that's happened in the last 200-250 years. China is the norm for human history, it's Britain and western Europe that changed.

 

[Pentapolim]

Some of the key factor were, ironically enough, its size, centralization and abundance of resources. Though these attributes are generally used to explain the success or failure of early modern and industrial states in europe, they became a hinderance which would contribute to the Middle Kingdom's stagnation.

China had virtually no competitors in east asia. It was on a whole other level than the stateletes that surrounded it. This, of course was precisely the opposite in Europe, where inumerous states competed with each other, and there was no clear Topdog. Competition between these entities was a major factor for the development of better production techniques, discovery of new trading routes, superior weapons and even more efficient power structures.

 

[Accelerator/ Onewayroad]

In some ways, they did. And then, Mongols.

In other ways, tue question isn't "Why didn't X industrialize?" But "Why did Britain?"

Why so?

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

Why so?

Lots of competition but between businesses and nations with each hoping to get an edge over the other. Lots of individuals with money to invest and a market (and society) with very few restrictions on what they could actually invest in. The expansion of the corporation that reduced the risk of investing. Comparatively limited labor which made throwing more people at a problem less cost effective than increased automation. Very strong personal property laws. And an embracing of the idea that the "new" wasn't a bad thing or a destabilizing force in society (although some thought that) but an opportunity for personal gain.

 

[RousseauX]

There are lots of ideas but no definitive answers. Some point to the insular nature of China, an almost self contained world that didn't need outside resources or ideas to thrive. Many look at the idea that Chinese politics favored stability over innovation. Other's say the low cost of labor in China made investing in untested new technologies unprofitable compared to simply hiring more people. Other's again argue the government's many monopolies resulted in less personal investment and entrepreneurial enterprises in key industries. Maybe it's a combination of everything or maybe it was just bad luck.

The Song dynasty literally had as much industry in the 1100s or so as England did during the early phases if the industrial revolution

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

The Song dynasty literally had as much industry in the 1100s or so as England did during the early phases if the industrial revolution

Definitely. I certainly don't disagree that China had massive industry and a long long history of what we could probably call a proto-industrial economy but it seemed to almost stall at that level until the European powers started interfering in China. The question though is why wasn't China the area to implement the steam engine or the mechanical loom or any of the other major industrial technologies on a widespread scale. China had massive industry but didn't modernize at the same rate as Europe. China as a major power with plenty of brilliant minds was certainly capable of conceiving, developing, and implementing those things so there must have been an economic, political, or societal reason that they weren't.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

China as a major power with plenty of brilliant minds was certainly capable of conceiving, developing, and implementing those things so there must have been an economic, political, or societal reason that they weren't.

Where was the advantage in such things within a stratified society? That's the core issue here: there simply wasn't a big incentive to industrialize since that would destabilize the orderly stratification of society, thus "bringing chaos and disorder" against the Mandate of Heaven.

For Europe, it wasn't just about competition, but independence to move up the social ladder. You can get richer using new technology without some all powerful political entity crushing it to preserver social order. That means there is the incentive to pursue industrialization.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The Song dynasty literally had as much industry in the 1100s or so as England did during the early phases if the industrial revolution

The Song also had 5-20 times the population of England in that period, per capita England had them beat all hollow

One argument I have heard is that Europe had started pulling ahead of China in GDP per Capita even earlier than the Industrial Revolution (variously heard 100-300 years prior), and that by having a higher GDP per Capita were able to have the surplus to support industrialization. Why Europe has that higher GDP is IMO the real question, the Colombian Exchange is sometimes posited as an answer, the Black Death another, Geography a third, there are a couple of others, probably a combination of factors

 

[RousseauX]

Where was the advantage in such things within a stratified society? That's the core issue here: there simply wasn't a big incentive to industrialize since that would destabilize the orderly stratification of society, thus "bringing chaos and disorder" against the Mandate of Heaven.

For Europe, it wasn't just about competition, but independence to move up the social ladder. You can get richer using new technology without some all powerful political entity crushing it to preserver social order. That means there is the incentive to pursue industrialization.

why was china anymore stratified than europe

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Song dynasty literally had as much industry in the 1100s or so as England did during the early phases if the industrial revolution

If anything it's a point against China that the massive and populous Song Dynasty could only boast as many windmills and water wheels as little old England could in the mid-late 1700s.

 

[RousseauX]

If anything it's a point against China that the massive and populous Song Dynasty could only boast as many windmills and water wheels as little old England could in the mid-late 1700s.

we aren't talking about windmills or water wheels though, we are talking about coal burning steel plants

yeah it's not up to england 1820 levels but if china is so insular why did it have as much industry as it did

 

[Socrates]

I've studied this a lot and think there are two main reasons:

1) Population density meant the limiting factor in their economic production was land not labour. The more expensive rate of labour relative to land in Europe (specifically England) meant it made sense to invest in labour-saving devices, which in turn encouraged more technological understanding. When land is the limiting factor, you focus on squeezing more out of it by adding more workers per square foot, rather than technological change.
2) The political setup in Britain meant the government was one of the few (up to that time in history) that had limits on how much they could extract from individuals getting a windfall. That meant there was greater incentive to making money through private commerce, whereas in countries like China, the best way to do well was to go into the public sector and extract from others.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

we aren't talking about windmills or water wheels though, we are talking about coal burning steel plants

Well actually we are at least in part talking about windmills and water wheels as they are almost universally accepted to have been an integral part of the early industrial revolution. If we are specifically talking about coal burning steel plans then that is indeed much more impressive. Was China suffering from deforestation or were they knowingly and intentionally shifting to a fuel with significantly higher energy density?

yeah it's not up to england 1820 levels but if china is so insular why did it have as much industry as it did

I never mentioned its insular nature.

 

[RousseauX]

Well actually we are at least in part talking about windmills and water wheels as they are almost universally accepted to have been an integral part of the early industrial revolution. If we are specifically talking about coal burning steel plans then that is indeed much more impressive. Was China suffering from deforestation or were they knowingly and intentionally shifting to a fuel with significantly higher energy density?

that's indeed what happened: the deforestation was caused by industrialization and they switched to coal as an alternative, there's poetry about women in kaifeng having to prostitute themselves because the mountains are empty of trees to fuel the smelting plants and they couldn't afford fire wood otherwise

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

that's indeed what happened: the deforestation was caused by industrialization and they switched to coal as an alternative, there's poetry about women in kaifeng having to prostitute themselves because the mountains are empty of trees to fuel the smelting plants and they couldn't afford fire wood otherwise

That's interesting, and quite depressing...

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

why was china anymore stratified than europe

All those small cities with their bourgeoisie which virtually answered to no one but themselves allowed the extra room. In other words, the decentralized nature of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire planted the seed for future growth which could be put on turbocharge with centralization.