Published by EH.Net (October 2022).

Debin Ma and Richard Von Glahn, eds. *The Cambridge Economic History of
China: Volume I. *Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. 732 pp. $155
(hardback), ISBN: 978-1108425575.

Reviewed by Jamin Andreas Hübner, LCC International University and
University of the People.



We live in a privileged moment in the 21st century, not least because of
the amount of history behind us and the availability of resources shining a
light on this past. *The Cambridge Economic History of China: Volume 1 *
(henceforth *CEHC*) consolidates the latest scholarship on the economic
aspect of China’s remarkable civilization from the earliest archeological
finds to around 1800, thereby introducing a number of perspectives that
affect not only perceptions about China, but also global economic history
as a whole.

The first of this two-volume work is divided into three sections: “Before
1000,” Interlude (“The Tang-Song Transition in Chinese Economic History”),
and “1000 to 1800.” Eighteen chapters cover every major aspect of China’s
ancient and early modern economy with the kind of prose, quality, and
content one would expect from a series of this kind. The contributions come
from a variety of scholars who have an established record within various
subfields of this subject and generally write well. There are plenty of
graphs and charts where appropriate and many helpful resources in Chinese
and English listed after each chapter.

It is not possible to comment on each contribution in such a short review
as this, so I can only provide a few reflections and impressions. These are
obviously biased and determined by my own background and scholarly
interests (which are currently eurocentrism in economic history, religion
and cooperative economics, and direct democratic forms of firm and
political governance.)

First, *CEHC *is, despite its price tag and occasionally technical
portions, accessible for those unfamiliar with China’s economic history.
While Von Glahn’s *The Economic History of China* (2016) is better suited
for general readers, the *CEHC *doesn’t assume an excessive amount of prior
knowledge, and is helpfully arranged not just chronologically but also
topically.

Second, this work in many ways alters the standard Eurocentric narratives
about “oriental despotism,” global economic development, and the various
institutions surrounding capitalism (property rights, markets, financial
institutions, etc.). This is very welcome. China has its own economic
history and must be interpreted on its own terms—though occasionally even
efforts to highlight this challenge ironically fail to succeed. For
example, in an essay on “Property Rights and Factor Markets,” we read:

“[China’s economic performance from the Song to mid-Qing period] has
puzzled historians of Chinese economy for more than a century. The
controversy surrounding this question is caused not only by the lack of
quantitative data but also by the difficulties in characterizing Chinese
economic institutions according to the models constructed out of European
historical experiences. On one hand, the late imperial Chinese economy
shows ostensibly ‘modern’ features in the sense that, for example, people
could freely trade land, choose jobs, and move to other regions. On the
other hand, Chinese society seems to have lacked precise concepts of
proprietorship and human rights, which are the cornerstones of modern
European society.” (p. 482)

This kind of assessment leaves readers asking, “Is it Chinese society that
lacks ‘precise concepts of proprietorship’—as if this is a deficiency
according to some universal standard—or is it European society that lacks
the ability to think outside of its sacralization of property rights?” (On
this “sacralization,” see Thomas Piketty, *Capital and Ideology*). More
importantly, it is puzzling how one could so confidently suggest that
“human rights” is a cornerstone of a society that itself achieved some of
the most notorious violations of human rights recorded in the last five
hundred years—violent colonization of entire continents, international
slave trading, and ongoing state-capital imperialism—all dressed in the
same justifying language of superiority. (America’s founders in the late
1700s didn’t value the “human rights” of countless women, indigenes, and
African Americans, for example, regardless of what they may have written in
political documents.) In brief, some essays could have benefited from a
China-sized dose of James Blaut’s *The Colonizer’s Model of the World
*and *Eight
Eurocentric Historians*; few of the essays in this new volume,
unfortunately, were critically informed by a decolonial framework, which is
essential for any kind of comparative analysis.

Nevertheless, even when occasionally lacking a critical perspective, many
readers will be surprised to learn about the free-market ideologies and
philosophical debates about private capital and merchants exercising too
much power over the state (ch. 5), significant increases in living
standards and wealth production, private property (chs. 10-12), contract
law and commercial law (p. 433-51), joint-stock companies (pp. 627-28),
vast markets (chs. 4, 16) and mass production, wage labor (pp. 463-71), the
critical roles of institutions like education and religion (Interlude, p.
243 ff; cf. 204-5), sophisticated political and taxation models (chs. 3, 9,
10), monetary regimes, the first known breweries (p. 65), a plethora of
land and rent arrangements, and countless other aspects of economic and
social life—all of which are typically assumed to be “western” and
post-1492—that existed during the Warring States Period and/or Song
Dynasty. Popular neoliberal historians and economists, like David Landes,
who argued that the “Chinese lacked . . . curiosity,” the “Chinese savants
had no way of knowing when they were right,” and “unlike China, Europe was
a learner” (*The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, *pp. 96, 344, 348) are
repudiated yet again.

Third, this volume has plenty on various markets, crops, productive
activities, goods, and significant alterations (like the equal-field
system), but little on specific, popular technologies. One will find more
on this subject in survey works of global history in sections about China’s
role in the “Scientific Revolution” (contrary to another Eurocentric myth
that postdates the more substantial scientific revolutions of the Arabic
and Chinese world by several centuries; note Gunder Frank, *Re-Orient, *pp.
186-92), such as Craig Lockard’s *Societies, Networks and Transitions. *This
is not necessarily a fault, as the book is rigorously focused on issues of
economics proper, but readers should be aware that they will have to go
elsewhere for insights on this related subject.

I enjoyed reading the first volume of *The Cambridge Economic History of
China *and highly recommend it to others who want to go a bit beyond short
surveys on this area without getting too tangled in the weeds. While not
intending to be “revisionist” per se, it is sure to challenge some
preconceived beliefs about the world’s largest nation—and its dynamic,
vibrant, and rich history.



Dr. Jamin Andreas Hübner is a faculty member at the University of the
People and LCC International University. He is a scholar of religion and
economics, as well as an activist, and organizational leader, and is
currently writing a book on cooperative economics.

Copyright (c) 2022 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied
for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and
the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator (
[log in to unmask]). Published by EH.Net (October 2022). All EH.Net
reviews are archived at https://www.eh.net/book-reviews.