Search results

Aus US-amerikanischer Sicht

Maoist ideology and policy imposed on the realities of China's economic backwardness and the scarcities resulting therefrom have produced a peculiar and sharply contrasting pattern of development during the past two decades. The differences in economic performance were so marked – characterized by rapid expansion in the 1950s and stagnation in the 1960s – that it almost seems as though one were dealing with economies in two entirely different settings, perhaps even in two different countries.

Maoist ideology and economic policies imposed on the realities of China's economic backwardness and the scarcities resulting therefrom have produced a peculiar and sharply contrasting pattern of development during the past two decades. The differences in economic performance were so marked—characterized by rapid expansion in the fifties and stagnation in the sixties—that it almost seems as though one were dealing with economies in two entirely different settings, perhaps even in two different countries. The attempt at deliberate industrialization in China represents an unprecedented case in the history of modern economic growth, comparable only to India. Of the presently developed countries, only pre-industrial Japan was comparable to contemporary China in terms of per capita income, average productivity of labor, and intensity of population pressure on arable land resources. However, the dynamics of population growth was quite different, and there are of course vast differences in size and geographic configuration, all of which compound the problems of communication and diffusion of innovating influences in China as compared to Japan. In spite of these handicaps, China's economic growth since 1949 was of the same order as the long-term expansion in Japan since Meiji. However, the 4 percent aggregate and roughly 2 percent per capita rate in China represents an average of sharply fluctuating rates during these past two decades, based on markedly differing development strategies adapted by the Chinese leaders in the past two decades.

Maoist ideology & econ policies imposed on the realities of China's econ backwardness & the scarcities resulting therefrom have produced a peculiar & sharply contrasting pattern of development during the past 2 decades. The diff's of econ performance were so marked--characterized by rapid expansion in the 1950's & stagnation in the 1960's--that it almost seems as though one were dealing with economies in 2 entirely diff settings, perhaps even in 2 diff countries. The attempt at deliberate industr'ization in China represents an unprecedented case in the history of modern econ growth, comparable only to India. Of the presently developed countries, only preindustr Japan was comparable to contemporary China in terms of per capita income, average productivity of labor, & intensity of pop pressure on arable land resources. However, the dynamics of pop growth was quite diff, & there are of course vast diff's in size & geographic configuration, all of which compound the problems of COMM & diffusion of innovating influences in China as compared to Japan. In spite of these handicaps, China's econ growth since 1949 was of the same order as the long-term expansion in Japan since Meiji. However, the 4% aggregate & roughly 2% per capita rate in China represents an average of sharply fluctuating rates during these past 2 decades, based on markedly differing development strategies adapted by the Chinese leaders in the past 2 decades. Modified HA.

In the field of comparative Communist studies theory seems to have lagged behind reality. Until a few years ago we tended to think of Communist polities in terms of uniformities oriented around the concept of a totalitarian model that permeated all Communist systems more or less the same way and to the same degree. Although it was recognized that there were cultural differences and variations in the levels of development, these factors were not assigned great weight in modifying and transforming Communist polities. On the contrary, the very possibility of a transformation was assigned a low probability.