The economic historian Angus Maddison calculates that in the tenth century China was the "world's leading economy in terms of per capita income," and that "between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries economic leadership passed from China to Western Europe." Carl Dahlman and Jean-Eric Aubert of the World Bank argue, based on Maddison's data, that China was the world's largest and most advanced economy for the most of the past two millennia and among the wealthiest and most advanced economies until the 18th century. Some see the Qing as the time when China fell behind, either because of stagnation or because Europe or the West pulled ahead. Theory supporters, some of whom may be motivated by anti-Qing sentiment, claim that advances in science and technology and economic development in the Song and Ming dynasties moved China toward a modern age, the restrictions placed on commerce and industry and the persecution of non-orthodox thought after the transition from Ming to Qing in the 17th century caused China to gradually stagnate and fall behind the West.ĭifferent dates are offered for the beginning or end of ascendency and whether it was in economic, technological, or political terms. The theory seeks to explain why Europe could experience an industrial revolution, but China did not. The Qing conquest theory proposes that the actions and policies of the Manchu-led Qing dynasty held China back, and led to the Great Divergence in which China lost its early modern economic and industrial lead over the West. ( Learn how and when to remove this template message)
( August 2010) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. This article possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic.
0 kommentar(er)
