Polanyi and the Peasant Question in China: State, Peasant, and Land Relations in China, 1949–Present

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-07-23 DOI:10.1177/00323292211032753

Julia Chuang, John K. Yasuda

引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article applies Karl Polanyi’s concept of a double movement to the trajectory of rural state policies in China since 1949. It argues that Chinese socialism created a contradictory social contract that has fueled an ongoing struggle between state and peasantry over the surplus generated from rural land. This struggle has shaped a historical oscillation between state policies that facilitate extraction of agricultural surpluses and policies that introduce social protections in the form of household farming and revitalized collective ownership. Based on secondary sources, this article compares the arc of rural policies during the Mao era and in the transition to and during the current state capitalist period. Then, based on original interview-based and ethnographic fieldwork undertaken in rural Sichuan Province, it analyzes the current introduction of urban and agrarian capital into the rural economy, revealing dynamics of a current countermovement from state-led extraction to compromise.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

波兰尼与中国的农民问题:1949年至今中国的国家、农民和土地关系

本文将波兰尼的“双重运动”概念应用于1949年以来中国农村国家政策的发展轨迹。它认为，中国社会主义创造了一种矛盾的社会契约，助长了国家和农民之间关于农村土地剩余的持续斗争。这场斗争在促进农业盈余提取的国家政策和以家庭农业和振兴集体所有制形式引入社会保护的政策之间形成了历史性的振荡。本文以二次资料为基础，比较了毛时期、过渡时期和当前国家资本主义时期的农村政策。然后，基于在四川农村进行的原始访谈和民族志田野调查，分析了当前城市和农业资本引入农村经济的情况，揭示了当前从国家主导的提取到妥协的反运动的动态。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.

期刊最新文献

Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty