Barely two years after its release, Re-Orient may already be read in Chinese. And why not? Chinese elites have every reason to celebrate a book which resurrects their long held belief that the Celestial Kingdom, except for a temporary setback in the 19h-20th century, is the center of human civilization. For Frank is determined to challenge the Marxian-Weberian notion that China, after dominating the world economy throughout the medieval period, until 1500, failed to advance thereafter because it remained sunk in irrationality. Not only did China prevail until 1800, but its decision to continue to rely on its old technology was "rational" since it was the most cost-effective available path of action. I mentioned before China's cheap labor, but Frank's argument is more complicated than this, as it involves three interconnected variables: 1) low wages, 2) a higher population/land-resource ratio, and 3) a more polarized distribution of income. (Remember these are comparative cost assessments within a world market). Considering Frank's earlier statistical claims about China's superior economy, a gift for mental gymnastics will be required to balance all these facts. The balancing act goes like this: 1) it was China's agricultural efficiency and productivity which, by providing cheap and plentiful foodstuffs, allowed wages to stay low. 2) As the greatest beneficiary of the long post-1400 growth "A" phase, which caused China's population to grow at a much faster rate than that of Europe, China had a population/land-resource ratio of 3.6/3.8 people per hectare as compared to England's 1.5 or France's 1.1 in 1700 (p.308; Bairoch's figures) - which in turn kept or pushed wages down. 3) The long growth "A" phase after 1400 also "polarized the distribution of income and thereby constrained effective domestic demand of mass consumer goods" (301). Number 2 is really the point around which the other explanatory variables revolve. But we can start with variable number 3 to show this. How would a long period of economic expansion lead to polarization and lack of effective demand? Because such growth led to increases in population which led to scarcity of resources (land), which led to polarization. But Frank tip toes as well into the idea that much of the newly created wealth was diverted into the pockets of the elites. About India he cites Habib to the effect that the "Mughal Empire had been its own grave-digger", adding himself that "its governing class got much of its wealth through the expropriation of the surplus produced by the peasantry" (306). Tip toes because he knows he is suggesting that (a) the masses of Asia were indeed poorer than those of Europe (where wages were higher), and (b) that the phase "A" growth of Asia may have been achieved through increased exploitation of the peasantry, rather than through increased productivity. I shall qualify that Frank does *not know*, or want to know he is also suggesting (b). But that he wants to tip toe out of (a), when it suits him, is clear in his additional remarks, following Pomeranz, that Asia's distribution of income may not have been as skewed as that of Europe once we consider that China's workers could still draw on family support. Yes, Frank wants the best of all possible worlds for China:"However, no matter through what institutional mechanisms those cheap subsistence wage goods were or were not distributed, they could only have been made available by an agriculture that was more productive and thereby able to produce those wage goods cheaper in China that in Britain and Europe" (307). But (b) takes us to number 2, which, when examined closely, betrays Frank's whole thesis. However we are dealing with an older, more experienced Frank; variable number 2 relies on Mark Elvin's highly sophisticated explanation about the failure of late-traditional China's economy, a model known as the "high-level equilibrium trap". This model needs to be carefully studied. thanks, ricardo
