The Role of Collective Mobilization In
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE ROLE OF COLLECTIVE MOBILIZATION IN THE DIVERGENCE OF THE RURAL ECONOMIES OF CHINA AND INDIA (1950-1990) by Burak Gürel A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland February, 2015 @ 2015 Burak Gürel All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT The economic divergence of China and India in the post-1950 era has appeared as one of the most intriguing puzzles of comparative and historical social sciences in recent decades. In 1950, although both countries were very poor, China was much poorer, with a per capita GDP 38% less than that of India. This situation changed completely in the decades following Indian independence (1947) and the Chinese Revolution (1949). China’s economy caught up with India’s in 1978 and greatly surpassed it later on, making its per capita GDP 30% higher than India’s in 1990. The differential performance of their rural economies contributed significantly to this outcome. This study argues that this outcome was closely related to two countries’ differential performance in the development of physical infrastructure and human capital in the countryside. In China, the radical land reform of 1947-52 and the rural collectivization after 1952 eliminated the power of the rural elite, flattened the political economic terrain, and enabled the state to establish the rural collectives. By mobilizing unpaid labor and financial resources of the villagers through the mediation of the rural collectives, the Chinese state developed rural infrastructure, technology, and human capital at a pace and geographical scope that was far beyond its limited fiscal capacity. Rural collectives also enabled the state to tax the increasing agricultural surplus and utilize it for agricultural modernization and rural industrialization. I argue that efforts by the Indian state to establish rural organizations with similar mobilization capabilities failed due to the effective opposition of well-entrenched political and economic interests in the countryside. Unable to mobilize the unpaid labor and financial resources of the rural population, the Indian government relied primarily on its limited fiscal resources, which produced a much ii slower and geographically narrower development of physical infrastructure and human capital. It also failed to tax the agricultural surplus effectively, which constrained agricultural modernization and rural industrialization. As a result, China’s agriculture and rural economy developed much more rapidly than India’s, which contributed significantly to the divergence of their economies in the post-1950 era. Graduate Board Committee Members Advisor: Joel Andreas, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University. Second reader: Michael Levien, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University. Erin Chung, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University. Ho-fung Hung, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University. William T. Rowe, Professor, Department of History, Johns Hopkins University. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not be completed without the strong support provided by a large number of people. My deepest thanks go to my advisor, Joel Andreas. Taking his courses, reading his works, and exchanging ideas with him made a strong influence on my intellectual trajectory. He was one of the few people who wholeheartedly supported my decision to learn the Chinese language, stay in China for a long time, and concentrate on China’s rural economy in my dissertation. From the time of writing my proposal to the completion of my dissertation, Joel provided me the greatest support. He patiently read different versions of each chapter and provided very detailed critiques and suggestions in order to make my dissertation stronger. I consider myself very lucky for working with him. During this process I learned from Joel how to be a good advisor. Other members of my dissertation committee also made significant contributions to the progress of my study. I thank Michael Levien for his detailed critiques and suggestions on several chapters (especially the ones on India), which helped me to develop my arguments further. Ho-fung Hung’s critical feedback on my dissertation proposal helped me avoid several potential problems at the onset of the research process. His comments on a later version of the dissertation were helpful. I am also thankful to William Rowe. Attending his seminar on the modern Chinese history was a valuable experience, which increased my intellectual interest on China and helped me realize that understanding the experience of the People’s Republic of China requires a deeper knowledge of the imperial and Republican periods. This realization encouraged me to make a detailed iv inquiry on the pre-revolutionary China’s rural economy, whose results are presented in Appendix A of this dissertation. I also thank Bill for the critical comments that he provided on my paper presented in the East Asian Studies Student Symposium at Johns Hopkins University on 11 April 2014. Finally, I thank him for his detailed feedback on Appendix A. I would also like to thank Erin Chung for providing a lively intellectual atmosphere to me and other participants of her writing seminar at JHU in Fall 2014, giving detailed comments on Chapter 1 and a later version of the dissertation. I also thank Rina Agarwala, a former member of my dissertation committee, for her constructive criticism of my proposal, which helped me clarify my arguments further. Two distinguished scholars at JHU deserve special thanks. Giovanni Arrighi’s presence was the most important reason of my desire to come to Johns Hopkins for my PhD. He was one of the best intellectuals of the 20th and 21st centuries. I consider myself very lucky for attending Giovanni’s graduate seminars, which broadened my intellectual horizon widely. His death in 2009 was a great loss for all people who know him well. I will miss him greatly. Like all students working on political economy and comparative and historical sociology in the Department of Sociology at JHU, Beverly Silver has been a strong intellectual mentor for me. I learned a great deal from her seminars on labor and comparative and historical research methods. She has made a strong contribution to the maintenance of a lively intellectual atmosphere in our department, from which I have benefited greatly since the beginning of my PhD in 2007. Many Chinese and Indian academics and intellectuals provided me crucial assistance during the research process. I would like to thank He Xuefeng, He Huili, Li Derui, Lao Tian, Lin Huihuang, Liu Rui, Gong Weigang, and Yang Yunyun very much for v patiently answering my questions in several long conversations, which helped me understand rural China better. On the India side of my research, I am thankful to many scholars including Vinoj Abraham, Paul Appasamy, Palani Aragasamy, Pulapre Balakrishnan, Praveen Jha, K.P. Kannan, Srikanth Kondapalli, Sanjeev Kumar, Sriram Natrajan, G. Palanhithurai, S. Ramaswamy, Maria Saleth, K. Sivasubramaniyan, Samy Subramanian, Selvam Velangani Manickam, M. Vijayavaskar, Jesim Pais, Thanjai Ramamurthy, and Sanjay Verma. Han Dongping and Manjusha Nair provided encouraging comments on my dissertation proposal. I thank Ali Rıza Güngen, Ümit Akçay, Li Yao, Li Derui, Hirofumi Kawaguchi, Karyn Wang, Zhang Chunman, Sansar Tsakhirmaa, and Stephan Lee for their feedback on Chapter 1. Ceren Ergenç provided useful and encouraging comments on Chapter 2. Erdem Yörük shared with me detailed comments on several chapters. I thank Smriti Upadhyay for her suggestions on Appendix B. I have been very lucky for being surrounded by many friends whose support helped me endure all difficulties involved in doing PhD for long years. Erdem Yörük’s friendship and intellectual support during the entire process have been invaluable and unforgettable. I thank Savaş Şahan Karataşlı, Şefika Kumral, Emek Karaca, Gizem Koşar, Genco Güralp, Adem Can, Bican Polat, Sezer Yaşar, Onat Yılmaz, Sevcan Yeşiltaş, “the other” Erdem Yörük, Li Yao, Huang Lingli, Zhan Shaohua, Dong Yige, Sika Koudou, Smriti Upadhyay, Yu Xiao, Ryan Nielsen, Nazish Zafar, Daniel Pasciuti, Michael Rees, and Zhang Lu for their friendship and support. Jiang Shi’s friendship made my life in Wuhan unforgettable. Arangasamy Kanakaraj’s generous support made my India trip go very well. My dear old vi friends, Hilal Çelikkaya, Emin Gencer Aydın, and Saygın Doğancık have continuously supported me during these years. I also thank the staff of the Department of Sociology at JHU (Linda Burkhardt, Jessie Albee, and Terri Lovern) very much for their assistance since the beginning of my PhD. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my mother, Emine Gülseren Gürel and my sister, Ayşe Gürel for their strong support at all crucial stages of my life, including this dissertation. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... IV TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ VIII LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... XI I. EXPLAINING RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA AND INDIA.....................