Talk:Chinese economic reform/Archive 1

Socialism with Chinese characteristics

 * Actually, "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a phrase used by Mao. The CCP describes the post-1978 economy as a "socialist market economy."
 * I removed one paragraph since it assumed an economic model that isn't universially accepted, and is also somewhat questionable. Moving from state ownership to corporate ownership wasn't a major part of Chinese economic reform until the mid-1990's.
 * Roadrunner 05:36, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The last sentence implies that immediate benefit helped cause economic success, which is not true. Since the reforms were immediately successful, the beneficiaries used their newfound economic power and political power(with the corruption of China) to freeze the reforms at the stage of highest or easiest benefit.  If the government hadn't stepped in, the entire reform process would've be stopped and economic success wouldn't happen.
 * azn king38 19:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the phrase of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" appeared at 1982, not 1978
...the program of economic changes called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" in the mainland of the People's Republic of China (PRC) that were started in 1978 by pragmatists within the Communist Party of China... It's not accurate. In Chinese language, Chinese economic reform actually means "reform and open". It's not associated with "socialism with Chinese characterristics". The phrase appeared in September, 1982 and suggested by Deng Xiaoping at the 12th Conference of CPC. While in Mao's era, there was socialism with Chinese characteristics or even Comunism with Chinese characteristics, the actual phrase was not used by 1982. Mao's "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is mainly the revolution process with Chinese characteristics, which is different from Soviet Union's process and led success in China mainland. And Deng's socialism with Chinese characteristics is that the concept of socialism is different from Karl Marx's theory of socialism.

Back to my main point:
 * 1) Reform started in 1978, while the phrase "socialism with Chinese characteristics" appeared first in 1982.
 * 2) Mao's theory is also socialim with Chinese characteristics, but not called so.

Xiaojeng 23:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

suggestion for consolidation
It seems to me that the contents of this article overlap a great deal with those discussed in Economy of the People's Republic of China. Perhaps this article would be better placed as a division of that article. 70.240.178.41 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Mysticfeline


 * It's such a massive change in policy and outlook and prosperity for the country, it merits its own article, whether or not there is overlap. In fact, in this case, the overlap is good -- someone exploring the economy can decide whether to dig deeper (by clicking this article) or not. To put all of this information on the Economy page would be TMI for that article. Since China is still a rarther inscrutable place for Westerners, the more info the better -- hence this article. Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Modest suggestions
Some thoughts for discussion and consideration.

Agriculture
The great begining was Wan Li (Anhui) and Zhao Ziyang (Sichuan) sticking their necks out and liberalizing agriculture in 1977-78, which created such great success that the notion of personal plots was adopted elsewhere. This, in turn, kick-started the generation of enormous surpluses in the countryside which could be used to "pay off" or subsidize the cities. By 1980, people were even leaving the cities to work in the countryside, because of better prospects. Urban reform was much later.

Comparison to Perestroika
Is this appropriate, considering that China's reform was quite advanced before the USSR began copying China?

DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the wording of the description of the comparison is quite heavy-handed. It claims that there were "only winners" in these economic reforms. That seems pretty biased. Mbroderick271 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wealth Disparity
Needs to be turned into prose... Colipon+ (Talk) 12:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Political Reform
In an entire article dedicated to economic reform in the PRC, the only photo is of an Armoured Personnel Carrier preparing for the National Day celebrations in Beijing in 2009.

I have removed this photo on the basis that it has no relevance to this article.

Ouyuecheng (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the photo was originally approved for use in the article 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, and I suspect the owner would not be happy to see his work used out of context.

Ouyuecheng (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Going to revamp this article
I have a collection of academic sources on this article, and I will be revamping it soon. Heads up to the major contributors.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Only sections left to do are fiscal policy and adding more to the description of the political struggles over reform, as well as adding pictures, alt text, reformat biblio, etc. Anyone wanna help?Teeninvestor (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead
While going over the RfC/U for User:Teeninvestor, I noticed he was edit-warring over the lead of this article. Upon closer inspection, his edits were problematic, because not only does he present a minority view in the lead, he does so without any hedging whatsoever. I only see one author claiming China's per capita income was above that of Europe as late as the 18th century. As far as I know, this is a minority view. Yet, the way the lead was written, it would have us believe that this is a unanimously agreed upon fact. In my opinion, minority views should be absent for the lead, but if not, they definitely need to be appropriately hedged.

Did you not see Hobson's source? And Pomeranz is definitely not a minority.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Even so, 2 sources is not "many scholars", and it still needs to be hedged, as there are many who dissent with this view. And since Pomeranz is but one individual, how can he not be a "minority".  Do you know what "minority" means?  Athenean (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hobson, Bairoch and Pomeranz are three I can name off the top of my head, all reputed scholars. In addition, in Hobson's source, he lists a long list of many names which agree with him. The dissent view is also expressed at the end. And yes, I do know what minority means, thank you very much.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A certain amount of hedging is still appropriate. We simply cannot present it as a universally agreed upon fact.  Athenean (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't; the opposing viewpoint is noted.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags
Teeinvestor, could you tell us why you are selectively removing some sources, while consistently keeping and expanding 'yours'? Sure you are sufficiently aware of WP:OWN?

I have added two tags: Undue weight (lead) for your propensity of making unnecessary comparisons with Europe and the West in China-related articles which do not add anything to the subject at hand. This is, as you know, also one of the main complaints in your ongoing Requests for comment/Teeninvestor.

The other (Neutrality (lead)) is for your repeated unexplained curtailing & removing of references in support of Maddison: 1, 2, 3, 4. What is your problem with these? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:OWN indeed. I note this user has tendency to revert within one minute of another user's edits.  I've lost counts of the number of reverts.  Athenean (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * After thinking a bit, I conclude that you two are indeed right. The per capita info in this article's lead has been removed (the original intent was to provide a background, but it's gotten out of hand). Regards. I have severe doubts about the references you're using though- please see the relevant article on Maddison's estimates.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is completely unacceptable.  Now China is presented as the undisputed economic power right up until the 19th century.  And this is presented without any hedging or qualification.  No way.  Athenean (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "One of", Athenean? That is basically common sense.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For GA reviewer
The GA reviewer should be aware that there is an ongoing edit war and other unsolved POV issues concerning the article, a convennient summary can be found here. Until these issues are resolved I don't see how the article can hope to aspire to GA status. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An extremely curious claim, considering that the information in question, historical Chinese per capita incomes, was removed. Athenean then restored it under the impression that China was presented as the undisputed economic power til the 19th century, after which I reverted and showed that the edit merely presents China as "one of the largest and wealthiest economies", a claim that is supported by all scholars. Since then he has not commented and probably has realized his mistake, and this article has seen virtually no changes (except regular content edits) for a week; curious that you would think that an edit war was happening. I summarized this little episode here 1.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Several references are too negatively biased towards Chinese policies. For example the "liberalizing trade in reverse" article goes as far as introducing false statistics. It states for example, that due to restricting FDI "according to the EU" FDI in China has decreased from 7.9 billion to 1.5 billion. According to Eurostat, however, it increased from 5.1 billion to 8.4 billion in 2007, and 11.4 billion in 2008. In general the 2005-present sections seems inconsistent with the scientific literature on this topic (which I'm curently reading through).

Years of Chinese civil war and Warlord era
To User:Quigley: Regarding the statement

"Before the collapse of international trade that followed the onset of the Great Depression, China’s share of world trade and its ratio of foreign trade to GDP achieved levels that were not regained for over sixty years"

my rationale for adding a citation tag was correct, since these happened to be the years of the Chinese Civil War which went from 1927 to 1949, and the violent Warlord era (1916-28), hence the unreferenced claim appeared inherently unlikely and my tagging justified. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are technically correct if we take the broadest view of both the duration of the civil war and the collapse of international trade. The Civil War from 1927 until the 1937 Japanese invasion was more occasional military purges of communists than a debilitating war, and the collapse of international trade can be said to go from the late 1920s to early 1930s, or well into the recovery. But I will edit my comments on that so as not to imply intentional misrepresentation. Quigley (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad we clarified that. Please note that I use references myself heavily and that I am therefore also prone to add a citation tag or two, if something strikes me as odd. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why Industrial Revolution in china Redirect?
Why does "Industrial Revolution in china" redirect to this article? The industrialization of China started in the Qing Dynasty, and the scope of the Industrial Revolution in china is much broader than what is covered in this article. Afuhz (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Deng's first reforms began in agriculture, a sector long neglected by the Communist Party
I think it is wrong to state that agriculture was neglected by the communists. The very basis of communist movements across the world has been land and land reforms have been first priority for all these movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.133 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Xiaogang Village
Just wondering why Xiaogang Village is not mentioned in this article? It is widely regarded, particularly in China, that the beginning of the reforms of the late 70s and early eighties began with the abandonment of communal farming in this village in 1978. Surly it is worthy of a mention? --Discott (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I think it's worth some coverage, although Xiaogang was probably most important as an example or a figurehead. It still has echoes today. bobrayner (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Check
You only need to read as far as the introduction to see neutrality issues with this article. There are a number of unsubstantiated opinions on the relative strength of the Chinese economy during different periods. This is quick sample. If there is data on this stuff, then its just a matter of fixing the point of view, if not then it shouldn't be there. I've added the POV-check tag to the article. Jkenn99 (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "From 1949 to 1978, Mao's disastrous collectivizations, Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution devastated the Chinese economy, resulting in the destruction of much traditional culture and a massive drop in living standards."
 * "However, most industry remained state-owned, inefficient and acted as a drag on economic growth."
 * "China's economy became the second largest after the United States."
 * "Poverty was reduced and both wealth and wealth inequality increased, leading to a backlash led by the Maoist New Left."

These are objective facts supported by the sources. There is no justification for the tag that you have placed.Tt121673 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the POV-check is needed. The second paragraph of the introduction opens with "China had one of the world's largest and most advanced economies prior to the nineteenth century,[1" which is a very surprising statement and I had to read it twice to be sure of that it is actually meant that in the 18th and 19th century when the country was under a heavy control of colonial powers was China one of the most advanced economies. I clicked on the source but it leads to a page with abstract only and the full text cannot be reached freely. That is a dubious source in my eyes that is trying to support an opposite claim than can be found in mainstream Western history education. I call for POV and for better sourcing. w.0q (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all over the damned place, and much of it is inaccrate. "Unprecedented economic growth" Plenty of countries throuhgt history has sustainced far larger growth rates for a longer peroid of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Reform and opening up
This is a good article about the economic side of the reforms. But there were a package of political reforms that were part and parcel of this. They are not mentioned here, and there seems to be no other article about them. This is a significant ommission. Anyone up for writing a new article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.90.80.201 (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

2005 to 4 Years Ago...
Most of this article seems to stem from 2008, even pre-"Great Recession" 2008. I get that this article is a B-list priority but the world's been through some pretty serious economic uphevals. Not only that, China has just had its first major change in leadership since 2005. An update by someone far more knowledgeable (or at least better research skills) than I would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.43.77 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Importance Classification
Why is this article classified as High Importance in the China Topic, rather than a Top Importance? This is one of the most important events of modern China's history, equivalent to the Cultural Revolution etc. It deserves a Top importance.Imsupernewstar (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism
— Assignment last updated by SlyRedeemerJT (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

what source is this information from?
what source is this information from?

From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year. TimurMamleev (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)