This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Several attempts have been made to remove references to Japan from the following text while at the same time the statement that Taiwan's economic progress helped China's later progress.:
Following the war with Japan, Chiang acquired Taiwan from Japan and renewed his struggle with the communists. However, the corruption of the KMT, as well as hyperinflation as a result of trying to fight the civil war, resulted in mass unrest throughout the Republic and sympathy for the communists. In addition, the communists' promise to redistribute land gained them support among the massive rural population. In 1949, the communists captured Beijing and later Nanjing as well. The People's Republic of China was proclaimed on 1 October 1949. The Republic of China relocated to Taiwan where the Japanese had firmly established education and industry (see Economic history of Taiwan). Taiwan's economic successes predated and contributed to the later modernization of the People's Republic of China after Deng's reforms.
I don't dispute that Taiwan played a small role in China's growth following Deng's reforms. However, that growth was limited by the tense relations between the two countries. Only in recent years following the increased trade under Lee and Chen (and probably continuing under Ma) has Taiwan really been able to influence China.
However, Japan actually ruled Taiwan for 50 years. The two were intiminately linked. The Japanese brought industrialization to Taiwan and brought schooling to most people for the first time. To the extent that Taiwan was able to influence China was largely a result of Japanese influence on Taiwan. Readin (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Obvious that Taiwan contributed to China's growth after Deng's reforms?
An editor recent removed statement that Japan's contributions to Taiwan's education (citation showed school attendence for Taiwanese children rose from 4% to 71% during Japan's rule) and inserted a statement that Taiwan's economic success contributed to China's success after Deng's reforms. The explanation for the edit said: "The quote just mentions educaiton, doesn't mention it's impact on economics. In addition, the fact that Taiwanese investment contributed to the mainland's later modernization is Common sense." The importance of education to economic growth is well known and certainly obvious. However, the claim that Taiwanese investment contributed to China's success is dubious given the restrictions that Taiwan placed for such a long time on economic (and other) contacts with China. When Deng came to power it was difficult for relatives to even communicate between the two countries. If a claim is going to be made, it seems that at a minimum there is a need to show significant Taiwanese investment in China either earlier than or at the same time as investment from other countries. If support can only be found for later Taiwanese investment, after it was clear that China was growing and modernizing, then there would need to be evidence that the investment wouldn't simply be replaced by other countries rushing to capitalize on China's successes - that is, one would need to show that the absence of Taiwanese investment would significantly hurt China's growth. Readin (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Obviously Taiwanese investment withdrawing wouldn't "Significantly hurt" growth in mainland but the quote says that it "contributed" to the later economic success. Are you going to argue that Taiwan's investment was "detrimental" to the mainland's success? Also, just because school attendance increased does not equal economic success. Zimbabwean school attendance rose under Mugabe, but is that country economically successful? Correlation does not equal causation. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The question isn't whether a withdrawal of Taiwanese investment now would make much difference, the question is whether there would have been much difference had there been never been any Taiwanese investment. Early investment usually matters more than late investment. Was Taiwan an early investor in China after Deng's reformts? Was that early investment significant compared to other countries investments? If not, then why mention it?
And again, if we talk about the time right after Deng's reforms, I have my doubts that Taiwan invested at all. My understanding is that economic relations between the two countries got moving when Taiwan was led by Lee and Chen in the 1990s, while Deng's reforms were very early 80s. Readin (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problems with the current wording. Deng's reforms were a long period from roughly early 80's until the late 90's (after Deng's death, Zhu Rongji continued the reforms until about the mid-2000's, where Hu and Wen began to reverse them).Teeninvestor (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was both pages moved. - UtherSRG(talk) 22:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
– These two moves will provide consistency to the 'economic history' series for China, with the other article at Economic history of China (pre-1911). The term 'modern' China to refer to the 1911-1949 period is clearly misleading given ROC-controlled China hasn't existed for 63 years, and bringing the titles of all three articles in line as 'Economic history of China', disambiguated by time periods, provides consistency and makes it clear these articles are effectively a series. – NULL‹talk›
‹edits› 19:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Support the first one as a split at least that one is highly unclear. There are Two Chinas in the second period though... This current article covers the period from 1911 onwards, so a split is necessary. The current name can be used as a history attribution page. Various parts would get merged to various articles, and the current name can disambiguate between 1911-1949, PRC, ROC post 1949 articles. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"Modern" is definitely fuzzy. Support split. Tony(talk) 09:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. There's not a little tendentiousness in naming the founding of the ROC, rather than the founding of the PRC, as the start of "modern" China. Re 126.96.36.199: information about Taiwan can be included in the second article, depending on the editorial decisions of contributors, since the PRC stakes a claim to Taiwan that nearly every government recognizes. But in the English language, "China" is never the short form of the Taipei-based "Republic of China". Shrigley (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment during the Cold War, it was sometimes used to refer to Taiwan (Free China vs Red China or Mainland China, etc) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The first proposed name should be "Economic history of China (1912–1949)", not "Economic history of China (1911–1949)". although the Xinhai Revolution began in 1911, the Republic of China was not founded until January 1, 1912, and the Qing emperor did not abdicate until February 1912.--Jiang (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.