Contributions of the Green Revolution to China’s prosperity are not fully acknowledged because it is often overshadowed by the Cultural Revolution which it coincided with.

Princeton University’s Professor Emeritus, Lynn White gave a lecture on 19 September 2016 at the University of Helsinki. Focusing on the topic: “The Roots of Chinese Prosperity: Why did China Begin to Become So Much Richer in the Past Quarter Century? Professor White challenged dominant views that China’s prosperity began with Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in 1978, and that it was driven by the central government. Instead, using statistical and empirical evidence from places such as Jiangsu and Zhejiang, he argued that Chinese prosperity has its roots in local level agrarian and light industries managed by local entrepreneurs outside the influence of the central government in Beijing or political elites in Shanghai.

The mechanization of rice planting and agriculture during the Green Revolution also lay the basis for economic prosperity in the peri-urban and rural areas around Shanghai. Leveraging on locally available resources and labor, light industries in those rural communities thrived under production brigades managed by often tyrannical local leaders. The effect on metropolis like Shanghai and Beijing were however, negative. The metropolis suffered budget deficits, high inflation and shortages of raw materials in urban factories. To the Gang of Four, the prosperity of rural polities and ‘deprived’ state of the metropolis suggested rural peasants were establishing ‘pockets of capitalism’ derailing the Cultural Revolution. But despite resistance from socialist conservatists, the reformers thrived. It was Professor White’s opinion that contributions of the Green Revolution to China’s prosperity are not fully acknowledged because it is often overshadowed by the Cultural Revolution which it coincided with. It is also ignored because it does not fit the dominant view that politics is centrally rather than locally driven.

The thesis that China’s prosperity was largely locally driven challenges the way students, academics and politicians think of politics as being top-down. Professor White advised that in studying politics of any country, especially China there is need to open the ‘black box’ and examine local level actors because not all politics happens at the national level. It is therefore important to examine how much of the politics is local (bottom-up) and how much of it is top-down. What is the nature of the politics and how much of it is at the center, middle and local level or even at the family level? As he concluded, Professor White reiterated that rural factories outside control of the central government were the cradle of China’s prosperity hence the roots of development are in local polities.

This summary is written by Dr. Obert Hodzi, postdoctoral researcher at the Department of World Cultures of the University of Helsinki.