¹ See Lichung, Li, “Guanyu Zhongguo Nongcun Shehui Xingzhi” (Concerning the characteristics of Chinese rural society), Zhongguo Jingji. 11 (12 1936), pp. 113–15. for a pre-1949 Chinese view along these lines.Google Scholar For the post-1949 view, see Shaowen, Chen and Xianglin, Guo, eds., Zhonggno Jindai Jingji Jianshi (Chinese modern economic history) (Shanghai, 1983);Google ScholarHistory Research Center of the Chinese Social Science Academy, Ming-Qing Shidai de Nongve Zibenzhuyi Mengva Wenti (The question of Ming and Qing dynasties’ capitalist sprouts in agriculture) (Beijing, 1983):Google Scholar and Yongli, Wei, Zhongguo Jindai Jingji Shigang (Modern Chinese economic history outline) (Lanzhou, 1983).Google Scholar

² See Elvin, Mark, The Pauern of the Chinese Past (Stanford, 1973), for his definition of “high-level equilibrium trap”. Note Chat he dates economic decline in China from the early nineteenth century.Google Scholar For a discussion of the term applied to the early twentieth century, see Dernberger, Robert. “The Role of the Foreigner in China’s Economic Development. 1840–1949”, in Perkins, Dwight, ed.. China’s Modern Economy in Historical Perspective (Stanford, 1975), pp. 19–47.Google Scholar See also Perkins, Dwight, Agricultural Development in China (Chicago, 1969). Note that most of the growth in output Perkins finds for the late nineteenth century and after occurs in newly settled areas of Manchuria and therefore the rate of growth of output for China proper was less than that of population.Google ScholarHuang, Philip. in The Peasant Economy in Prewar China (Stanford, 1985), is the most recent to make the connection between landholdings and economic welfare.Google Scholar See Myers, Ramon, The Chinese Peasant Economy: Agricultural Development in Hopei and Shanrung, 1890–1949 (Cambridge, 1970) for an early view somewhat similar to the one we advocate here.Google Scholar

³ See Riskin, Carl, China’s Political Economy (New York, 1986). p. 32:Google Scholar and Harding, Harry, China’s Second Revolution: Reform After Mao (Washington, DC. 1987), p. 13.Google Scholar

⁴ Rawski, Thomas G., Economic Growth in Prewar China (Berkeley, 1989):Google Scholar and Brandt, Loren, Commercialization and Agricultural Development. Central and Eastern China, 1870–1937 (Cambridge, 1989).Google Scholar

⁵ See Buck, John L., Land Utilization in China: Statistical Volume (Chicago, 1937);Google Scholar and Rawski, T., Economic Growth in Prewar China, chap. 6.Google Scholar

⁶ Extensive wage data for the 1930s can be found in Zhengrno, Chen, Ge Sheng Nonggong Gongzi Tongqi Ji Xugong Zhuankuang (Customary practices and demand and supply for farm labor in different provinces) (Beijing, 1935):Google Scholar and “Ge Sheng Nonggong Gongzi Tongqi” (Statistics on agricultural wages in different provinces). Tongqi Yuebao, 13 (09 /10 1933), pp. 99–106.Google Scholar These data have been deflated by provincial grain prices compiled by Wiens, Thomas, “The Microeconomics of Peasant Economy: China. 1920–1940” (Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University, 1973).Google Scholar Cross-sectional data for the 1880s can be found in Jamieson, George, “Tenure of Land in China and the Condition of the Rural Population”. Journal of time China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 23 (1889). pp. 58–143.Google Scholar For earlier periods, see Chao, Kang, Man and Land in Chinese History: An Economic Analysis (Stanford. 1986). pp. 218–19. The difference in wage levels between the 1880s and 1930s implies real wage growth just in excess of I percent per year.Google Scholar

⁷ Rawski, Economic Growth in Prewar China, chap. 6.Google Scholar

⁸ Liu and Yeh estimate that in the 1930s there were 87.5 million male “man-labor” units solely in agriculture and an additional 43.0 million jointly in agriculture and subsidiary occupations. Of this latter group. 2.8 million “man-labor” units were in trade and transportation. In other words roughly 8.5 million males devoted a third of their time to this sideline. See Liu, T. C. and Yeh, K. C., The Economy of the Chinese Mainland (Princeton, 1965). pp. 184–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ See, for example. Yi, Yang, “Qingchao Qianqi de Tudi Zhidu” (Land system of early Qing China), Shehui Yuekan, 7 (1958). pp. 21–26:Google Scholar and Yiling, Fu, “Guanyu Mingmo Qingchu zhongguo Nongcun Shehui Guanxi de Xin Guji” (A new assessment of rural social relationships in late Ming and early Qing China). Xiainen Daxue Xuehao, 6 (1959), pp. 57–70.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Hansheng, Chen, Landlord and Peasant in China (New York, 1936). p. 95.Google Scholar

¹¹ The results of 47 surveys carried out between 1931 and 1941 are reported in Chao, Kang and Chungyi, Chen, Zhongguo Tudi Zhidu Shi (History of China’s land system) (Taipei, 1982), pp. 234–38. A majority of these are the product of the research efforts of the South Manchurian Railway and can be found in Manleisu Chosa Geppo (Monthly survey reports).Google Scholar

¹² By international comparison, however, the concentration of landholdings in China does not seem so extreme. It is markedly less than that in Mexico in the 1920s. where the top 10 percent owned an estimated 64 to 99 percent of landholdings and 79 percent were landless, or Victorian England (excluding London). where 85 percent owned no land and the top 10 percent owned 82 percent of the land: and is actually slightly better than that estimated separately for both farming households and the entire rural population in the United States (whites only) in both 1798 and 1860. In many respects land distribution in China in the 1930s is very similar to that estimated for post-independence India. Data on Mexico. Victorian England. and the United States are taken from Lindert, Peter. “Who Owned Victorian England? The Debate Over Landed Wealth and inequality”, Agricultural History, 61 (Fall, 1987). pp. 25–51;Google Scholar data on India are taken from Bardhan, P. K. and Srinivisan, T. N., eds., Poverty and Income Distribution in India (Calcutta, 1974).Google Scholar

¹³ In the three densely populated provinces of the Lower Yangzi (Jiangsu. Zhejiang, and Anhui). for example, land rental contracts covered slightly less than half of cultivated area, of which 40 percent conferred on tenants topsoil rights in some form. See Weiyuanhui, Tudi, Quanguo Tudi Diaocha Baogao Gangyao (Summary report of the nationwide investigation of land) (Nanjing, 1937) p. 45.Google Scholar

¹⁴ In fact, some provide evidence contradicting the suggestion of increasing concentration of landholdings. See, for example, the data for Huailu county. Hebei province, for the early 1700s and 1930s provided in Brandt’s review of Huang’s, PhilipPeasant Economy and Social Change in North China in Economnic Development and Cultural Change, 35 (04 1987). pp. 670–82.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For the 1930s. estimates have been made on the basis of additional data contained in the Summary Report of the National Land Commission. For the 1880s. see Zhongli, Zhang (Chang Chungli), The Income of the Chinese Gentry (Seattle. 1962). p. 145.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Nongqing Baogao (December 1937). p. 330.Google Scholar

¹⁷ We have discussed these in some detail in an earlier paper prepared for the ACLS/SSRC conference on Economic Methods for Chinese Historical Research. 1988.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Most computational formulas for the gini coefficient based on grouped data such as these underestimate the degree of inequality because they ignore intra-group inequality. We have followed Kakwani in correcting for this, using the midpoint of each interval as an estimate of its mean. See Kakwani, Nanak. “On the Estimation of Income Inequality from Grouped Observations”. Review of Economic Studies. 43 (10 1976). pp. 483–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ In calculating the gini coefficient for the pooled data, we have taken a weighted average of the percentage of households in each province in each size category, using as weights the percentage of the total rural population in each province. Rural population estimates are based on provincial population estimates contained in Perkins, Dwight, Agricultural Development in China, p. 212,Google Scholar and estimates of the percentage of population classified as rural provided in Baosan, Wu. Zhongguo Guomin Soude, 1933 (China’s national income. 1933) (Shanghai, 1947). vol. 1, p. 151.Google Scholar

²⁰ Roll, Charles, “The Distribution of Incomes in Rural China” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1974).Google Scholar

²¹ See Manshū, Minami tetsudō kabushiki kaisha. nōson, Kitō jittai chōsahan. Dainiji kitō nōson jittai chōsa hōkokusho: tōkeihen. Dai ichiban. Heikoku ken. Dai sanhan: Hōjun ken. Dai yonban: Shōrei ken. (Report on the second investigation of actual conditions of northeastern Hebei villages: Statistical volume. First group: Pinggu County. Third group: Fengrun County. Fourth group: Changli County.) (Dalian. 1937). These surveys are part of an enormous collection of materials on social and economic life in China compiled by the SMR during the late 1930s and early 1940s.Google Scholar Of particular use is Manshū, Minami tetsudō kabushiki kaisha. nōson, Kitō chiku jittai chōsahan, Kitō chiku nai nijūgo ka son nōson jittai chōsa hōkokusho (Report on the investigation of actual conditions in 25 villages of the northeastern Hebei area) (Tianjin. 1936). 2 vols..Google Scholar which provides slightly less detailed information on an additional 25 villages in North China. For introductions to these materials, see Huang, Philip. The Peasant Economy and Social Change in North China and Ramon Myers, The Chinese Peasant Economy: Agricultural Development in Hopei and Shantung, 1890–1949.Google Scholar

²² An earlier estimate of the degree of income inequality in a North China village made by Marc Blecher suffers in both regards because it is based on a stratified sample for a village in which larger farms were overrepresented. and because household income is measured simply by the gross agricultural output of each household. See Blecher, Marc, “Income Distribution in Small Rural Chinese Communities”, China Quarterly, 68 (12 1976). pp. 795–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ The details of the income calculations are included in a lengthy appendix provided on request.Google Scholar

²⁴ Kuznets, Simon, “Demographic Aspects of the Size Distribution of income: An Exploratory Essay”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 25 (10 1976). pp. 1–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Datta, Gautam and Meerman, Jacob, “Household Income or Household Income per Capita in Welfare Comparisons”, Review of Income and Wealth, 26 (12 1980). pp. 401–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ The custom in China was for households to split up after the death of the household head.Google Scholar

²⁶ This discussion can be addressed more formally through a decomposition of the gini coefficient for household income. Let G_k (k = L, H, and K in all cases) be the concentration index (or gini coefficient) for earnings. y_λ from labor. land, and capital. respectively: u_λ be the mean earnings of each factor: s_λ be the earnings of each factor as a percentage of total earnings; and C_λ be the correlation between y_λ and the ranking of Y. total income. G^y the concentration index for total incomes is then equal to: G^v = (1/u) Σ(s_λ × C_λ × G_λ × u_λ). Income inequality is higher the more concentrated income from land ownership is and the higher the percentage of total income captured by land: in addition, income inequality will be higher the more highly correlated income from land is with the ranking of overall income. which depends pivotally on the correlation of income from land with that from other factors of production.

²⁷ These estimates are taken from Brandt, Loren. “Farm Household Behavior, Factor Markets, and the Distributive Consequences of Commercialization in Early Twentieth-Century China”. this JOURNAL, 47 (09 1987). p. 731.Google Scholar

²⁸ Average land rents were computed from detailed land contract information provided by the surveys. Land’s share was then calculated by dividing average land rent into average output per unit of land.Google Scholar

²⁹ The percentage of households in Michang and Lianggezhuang engaged in nonagricultural activity on a full-time basis (3.5 and 7.4 percent. respectively) was actually relatively low compared to that in other North China villages. The average for 30 villages examined by the South Manchurian Railway is 13.7 percent. In a number of localities. 20 percent or more of households were classified solely as nonagricultural. These include Macun in Huailu County, 21.8 percent: Zhongliangshan in Changli County. 26.8 percent: Huzhang in Ninghe County, 31.2 percent; and Dongjiao, located just outside Shijiazhuang. 46.8 percent. In a 1936 survey of 22 villages in Northeast China. 16 percent of all labor (not households) was classified as nonagricultural.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Riskin, Carl, “Surplus and Stagnation in Modern China,” in Perkins, Dwight, ed., China’s Modern Economy in Historical Perspective (Stanford, 1973). pp. 50–84.Google Scholar

³¹ A small portion of the stock represents next year’s seed requirements, by Buck’s estimate 3 to 4 percent of annual output in the winter wheat-millet area of North China.Google Scholar

³² Linden, Peter H.. “Unequal English Wealth since 1670,” Journal of Political Economy, 94 (12 1986), pp. 1127–62.Google Scholar