What Constitutes a Proto-Industrial Economy?

[Emperor RyRy]

I hear that pre-Meiji Japan was nearly perfect to be introduced to the Industrial Revolution due to the fact that its economy beforehand was proto-industrial, what exactly does that mean? What would it take to have a proto-industrial society form elsewhere? Would the Song be considered proto-industrial?

 

[trurle]

I hear that pre-Meiji Japan was nearly perfect to be introduced to the Industrial Revolution due to the fact that its economy beforehand was proto-industrial, what exactly does that mean? What would it take to have a proto-industrial society form elsewhere? Would the Song be considered proto-industrial?

The Japan was a special case because the official Shogunate technological policy was "full control". Therefore, Japan has an economics, organization, specialization and population densities typical for industrialized states but certain (expecially military) industrial technologies were absent because their introduction was deemed "harmful and destabilizing". In this sense, Song were not proto-industrial. They developed rapidly and largely without central control until been crushed by Mongols. It was a Song (military-skewed) technological and tactical package which later allowed Mongols to create their empire.

 

[Emperor RyRy]

The Japan was a special case because the official Shogunate technological policy was "full control". Therefore, Japan has an economics, organization, specialization and population densities typical for industrialized states but certain (expecially military) industrial technologies were absent because their introduction was deemed "harmful and destabilizing". In this sense, Song were not proto-industrial. They developed rapidly and largely without central control until been crushed by Mongols. It was a Song (military-skewed) technological and tactical package which later allowed Mongols to create their empire.

What allowed the Japanese to do this? A history of state control?

 

[Michael B]

What allowed the Japanese to do this? A history of state control?

Partly. However, it is more isolated than other states so easier to control the country.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I disagree with the state control aspect of it. Let's remember that Japan had extremely high literacy rates for those times and had developed into several large urban zones with countryside not too far behind in development; thus more equal.

Also, I wouldn't say that a state who's history was defined by constant warring daimyo is particularly centralized. Further, it was late into the game, I would argue that most any nation or people could build up large infrastructure and create a healthy market if they possessed the population of Japan and its isolation and thus freedom from foreign stress.

This theory, also assumes that a state interventionist economy and government is what creates industrialism. However, there are models that also suggest the opposite, especially in earlier states, who experienced extreme economic prosperity before industrialism. Ottomans for instance had a command economy and regulated and restricted everything possible and I would argue that the Ottomans were some of the worst in terms of economics. That being said, they certainly had an industrial economy, albeit very backward and sparse.

As others will say, the Qing dynasty had a full control economy in many aspects and did build railroads and modernize areas just like Japan. Yet, it did nothing for the overall economic and political instability.

We also should look at the nations that we even have in Africa and Asia to even think about why Japan was able to have its success.

Korea: Small, isolated from everything, fairly rural, doubtful to do anything specific in this regard.

Tibet: mountains and ruled by a monastic state essentially; should I say more?

Iran: has been through several different regimes all of which except the Safavid brought military and economic woes to the nation. Completely devastated by several series of plague both in Tehran and Isfahan. At this point, Iran has hit its lowest point in its long history.

The Mughals were defeated and destroyed really before they could have a chance.

Afghanistan, is simply too small and it really hasn't modernized completely yet.

Ethiopia, I do not know too much on this one.


Basically, we In otl did not have the best selection of nations for a case study into why a state outside of Europe can modernize. We had States who heralded the most depressed states in their histories.

 

[Tanc49]

I disagree with the state control aspect of it. Let's remember that Japan had extremely high literacy rates for those times and had developed into several large urban zones with countryside not too far behind in development; thus more equal.

Also, I wouldn't say that a state who's history was defined by constant warring daimyo is particularly centralized. Further, it was late into the game, I would argue that most any nation or people could build up large infrastructure and create a healthy market if they possessed the population of Japan and its isolation and thus freedom from foreign stress.

This theory, also assumes that a state interventionist economy and government is what creates industrialism. However, there are models that also suggest the opposite, especially in earlier states, who experienced extreme economic prosperity before industrialism. Ottomans for instance had a command economy and regulated and restricted everything possible and I would argue that the Ottomans were some of the worst in terms of economics. That being said, they certainly had an industrial economy, albeit very backward and sparse.

As others will say, the Qing dynasty had a full control economy in many aspects and did build railroads and modernize areas just like Japan. Yet, it did nothing for the overall economic and political instability.

We also should look at the nations that we even have in Africa and Asia to even think about why Japan was able to have its success.

Korea: Small, isolated from everything, fairly rural, doubtful to do anything specific in this regard.

Tibet: mountains and ruled by a monastic state essentially; should I say more?

Iran: has been through several different regimes all of which except the Safavid brought military and economic woes to the nation. Completely devastated by several series of plague both in Tehran and Isfahan. At this point, Iran has hit its lowest point in its long history.

The Mughals were defeated and destroyed really before they could have a chance.

Afghanistan, is simply too small and it really hasn't modernized completely yet.

Ethiopia, I do not know too much on this one.


Basically, we In otl did not have the best selection of nations for a case study into why a state outside of Europe can modernize. We had States who heralded the most depressed states in their histories.

I would argue the Asian model of state is well suited to modernisation with an emphasis on administration and education.

Compared to a purely feudal model, it can help uncover talents and propel change.

Now for example, the Chinese problem is the importance of Confucianism and traditions, similar to the Romans with emphasis on Greek authors and less modern science.

But if you have a good ruler, it means your administration is loyal to the state and well educated, that helps.

Compare with Ethiopia and it's feudal model of a loose, uneducated state. Even if the Negus had wanted, he would not have had the means to modernise

 

[Michael B]

Success of a proto-industrial economy would depend a lack of inference by Europeans, at least one outside outside Europe. With the British slowly eating the sub-continent up any Indian kingdom did not stand a chance. Once the Europeans started hammering China for trade ports and indemnities, it was in trouble. The Japanese had the edge in that compared with those two they had less European inference. I say less not none because they still had to pay some for various infractions.. In fact the British Empire deployed troops in Japan to enforce collection of one. For various reasons the American were also "visitors".

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

it was in trouble.

It wasn't, Chinese industries actually appear to have benefited from foreign demand and investment (the cheapness of labor and the expenses of transport meant that Chinese goods weren't necessarily outcompeted). Chinese proto-industries declined in the 19th century because of the second most horrifying war the world has ever seen, not directly because of Europeans. It was really only in India where a genuine proto-industrial tradition was ruined by Europeans and that specifically had to do with the form of European rule there.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I would argue the Asian model of state is well suited to modernisation with an emphasis on administration and education.

Compared to a purely feudal model, it can help uncover talents and propel change.

Now for example, the Chinese problem is the importance of Confucianism and traditions, similar to the Romans with emphasis on Greek authors and less modern science.

But if you have a good ruler, it means your administration is loyal to the state and well educated, that helps.

Compare with Ethiopia and it's feudal model of a loose, uneducated state. Even if the Negus had wanted, he would not have had the means to modernise

I actually completely agree to this. The Ming for instance were equal economically to Europe in these periods and in some way far outcompeted Europe in areas such as economic freedom, tax policy and fiscal responsibility. Japan certainly more resembled Ming at the turn of the century than resembling some feudal state in Europe or even many of the European states of the time.

 

[Michael B]

It wasn't, Chinese industries actually appear to have benefited from foreign demand and investment (the cheapness of labor and the expenses of transport meant that Chinese goods weren't necessarily outcompeted).

The fact is that Europeans hit China with indemnity after indemnity sucked out money that the Chinese could have invested in technology the way the Japanese did.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

The fact is that Europeans hit China with indemnity after indemnity sucked out money that the Chinese could have invested in technology the way the Japanese did.

Before Shimonoseki (which was a Japanese demand) indemnities were trivial due to just how rich China was. This wasn't exactly a Yandabo situation here. By and large, the Chinese did not have their money "sucked out" to Europe, they had their wealth destroyed by civil war.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The fact is that Europeans hit China with indemnity after indemnity sucked out money that the Chinese could have invested in technology the way the Japanese did.

You assume that central investment or that more money placed somewhere equals economic prosperity or industrialization.