Q1. 根據(jù)核心閱讀，波蘭尼在大轉(zhuǎn)型的中心論點(diǎn)是，有市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)不脫嵌，完全自發(fā)調(diào)節(jié)。波拉尼（1944），該一方面市場(chǎng)全球擴(kuò)展被擴(kuò)展的參數(shù)。具體而言，商品在市場(chǎng)上的數(shù)量上升到一個(gè)令人難以置信的規(guī)模。另一方面，為了阻止間勞動(dòng)力，土地和貨幣的相對(duì)市場(chǎng)行為，相應(yīng)的措施或政策被演變成各種強(qiáng)大的系統(tǒng)的。波蘭尼認(rèn)為，這種雙重行為是雙重運(yùn)動(dòng)。

According to the core reading, Polanyi’s central thesis in The Great Transformation is that there is no disembeddedand completely spontaneous regulation of market economy.Polanyi (1944) arguments that on the one hand markets were expanded in the global extension. Specifically, the quantity of commodity in markets increased to an unbelievable scale. On the other hand, in order to block the relative market behavior among labor, land and money, the corresponding measures or policy were evolved into a variety of powerful system. Polanyi believes that this double behavior is double movement. 

 

國(guó)家干預(yù)的過(guò)程中，尤其是重商主義的政策，改變了土地的非商業(yè)性質(zhì)，勞動(dòng)和金錢(qián)讓他們?yōu)樘摂M商品是市場(chǎng)自我調(diào)節(jié)的發(fā)展過(guò)程。這從根本上扭轉(zhuǎn)了市場(chǎng)與社會(huì)之間的真正關(guān)系。作為市場(chǎng)的原則，價(jià)格機(jī)制原本只在經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域發(fā)揮作用。然而，自我調(diào)節(jié)的市場(chǎng)使其嵌入在社會(huì)中。博蘭尼（1944）主張傳統(tǒng)的經(jīng)濟(jì)體制已被淹沒(méi)在共同的社會(huì)關(guān)系中。換句話(huà)說(shuō)，商品交易和交易的主要目的是需求。然而，在工業(yè)革命和大機(jī)器生產(chǎn)時(shí)代，最重要的組成部分，勞動(dòng)，土地和貨幣，經(jīng)濟(jì)市場(chǎng)是“虛擬商品”。然后這個(gè)虛構(gòu)的三成為社會(huì)的組織原則，這意味著人類(lèi)社會(huì)必須順從于經(jīng)濟(jì)系統(tǒng)。在其他方面，人們的首要任務(wù)是獲得利潤(rùn)。在經(jīng)濟(jì)和市場(chǎng)操縱下，在所有其他領(lǐng)域的最終經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)的所有的行動(dòng)和活動(dòng)是有限的。但是，博蘭尼認(rèn)為，雙運(yùn)動(dòng)不是一個(gè)鐘擺的平衡，而是逆向游戲破壞了“自我調(diào)節(jié)”的機(jī)制。因此，市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)沒(méi)有完全自發(fā)的調(diào)節(jié)。The process of state intervention, especially the mercantilist policies, changed the noncommercial property of land, labor and money to make them into virtual goods is the process of development of self-regulating market. And this fundamentally reverse the real relationship between market and society. As the market principles, price mechanism originally only play a role in economic field. However, self-regulating market make it embedded in society. Polanyi (1944) claims that traditionally economic system has been submerged in the common social relations. In other words, the main purpose of commodity Exchange and transaction is demand. However, in the era of the industrial revolution and the big machine production, the most important component, labour, land and money, of the economy market is "virtual goods". And then this fictional three became the organizational principle of the society, which means that the human society must become subservient to the economic system. In other ways, people's first priority is to obtain profits. In the end economy over all other areas and all the operations and activities in the society is limited by economic and market manipulation. However, Polanyi thinks that double movement is not a pendulum balance, but the reverse games destroy the mechanism of “self-regulation”. Therefore, there is no completely spontaneous regulation of market economy.#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

Polanyi (1944) states that the economy is not autonomous as the idea of mainstream economists, but economy subordinates to the political, religious and social relations, which means embededness. He proposes that humans do not tend to exchange of the nature. The initial development of the division of labor does not rely on the existence of the market. The economy of humans is immersed in his social relations. Human’s motivation behavior lies not in possession of material property of personal interests, but in the maintenance of his social status, his social rights, his social assets. Only when the material financial services to these goals, he will cherish this material financial. The economy as a system process, is embedded in the economic and non-economic system.Reciprocity, redistribution and exchange which are three forms of economic activity have different embed form with relevant institutional environment. Before the industrial revolution in the non-market economy, market exchange mechanism has not yet been dominant. The economic life mainly in the form of reciprocal or redistribution, which is embedded in the social and cultural structure. In conclusion, no matter what circumstance, economic system would relied on non-economic motivation to work. Therefore, there is no disembedded regulation of market economy. 

 

 

Q2:According to the core reading, the author give us the point of this question. The point is that the rise of the West depends on the existence of the complementarities between core and periphery nations. And there are some reasons below supports the view. 

 

To begin with, one of the convincing reasons is Goldstone (2009) claims that the real change in Europe is the long-term expanding and the interrelated innovation in agriculture, transportation, financial, the machine process the industry, education, and marketing and other fundamental aspects. In other words, the real change in core nations did not just happen in a specific period, but the real change was never been interrupted. For example, Chinese has invented the gunpowder, paper and printing and so on. India and Islamic civilization invented the windmill, clocks and observatory. The Romans invented the concrete and improved the design of arch and Roman aqueduct of Segovia. All of these invention and creation provided the foundation for the rise of West. Therefore, the civilization of periphery nations is an integrated part of the rise of the West.

 

In addition, another important reason is that periphery nations supplied primitive accumulation of capital to core nations in those times. According to O’Brien(1982), British industrialization is hard to envision without colonies and slavery. In other words, colonies and slavery could have been obvious effect the primitive accumulation of capital of core nations. For example, cotton played a major role in the initial stage of British industrialization. It is quite clear that British gained a lot of original resources from colonial nations. In the same way, these nations could easily obtain plenty of resources, and then these nations’ economy would get the corresponding growth. #p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

Finally, it is an undeniable fact that huge trade and dense financial markets between core nations and periphery nations play an important role in the rise of the West. Since, as we all know that the population in periphery nations, particularly China India and Africa, was very large. Clearly, through the use of coercion and collusion, core nations could acquire long-distance trade and the reinvestment of profits in these dense financial markets. Pomeranz(2009) claimed that continued accumulation of profits in the free-labor “core” of that economy has required the continued existence of poor, generally unfree “peripheries.” Consequently, And since peripheries nations based on cheap goods and labour intensive industry. There will be a huge trade between core and periphery nations. For instance, there were huge trade of cotton between British and India. And there were huge trade of glasswork between the East and the West.

 

From all of the above, the conclusion can be easily drew that the civilization of periphery nations, primitive accumulation of capital of periphery nations, huge trade and dense financial markets between core nations and periphery nations lead to the rise of the West. Therefore, the rise of the West depends on the existence of the complementarities between core and periphery nations. 

 

Q3:According to the core reading, the answer to the question above can be easily got. Specifically, there were three periods of British Expansion overseas: 1750-1815, 1815-50, & 1850-1914. Cain and Hopkins (2004) found that domestic politics and domestic economics go hand in hand, domestic politics/economics and British expansion overseas go hand in hand in this process. And the relative roles of agrarian, industrial, and financial interests in Britain will make clear in the following.

 

In the first phase (1750-1815), agrarian is a large part of the whole domestic economics. Commercial capital was just emerging. Trade had no edge in this period until the end of the 18th century. In the beginning of this period, commercial capital disorganized the feudal natural economic. And then it broke market segmentation and made the domestic market whole. Through the colonial plunder and expansion of foreign trade, British accumulated a large number of monetary wealth. The development of handicraft industry provided material base. Consequently, there produced mercantilism economic thought which represented the interests and requirement of the business capital. Mercantilism is not said attaches great importance to the business, but getting cash through business.  Mercantilists believed that cash is the only to represent the embodiment of the wealth, and the role of business is to earn as much as possible. Therefore, countries need to increase exports and to reduce imports. For instance, by 1780s, cotton export began to flourish. The imperialism of mercantilism economic was established.#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

In the second stage (1815- 50), agrarian decline over time. The quantity of imports rise, but the value of imports decline. The industrial revolution gave the British new ideas. British correctly summarizes the experience and lessons, and gradually abandoned the mercantilist policies. In the end British accepted the idea of free trade. And British began to consider that foreign trade is more important than colonial rule. In fact, free trade doesn't mean that give up seize the colonies, but it means that change the method of plunder. In other words, through the industrial and commercial natural advantages, British can transmute foreign into a valuable colony without being forced to undertake the responsibility of ruling them. Because of this new idea British maintained the position that British held before. The imperialism of free trade was established. Consequently, Cain and Hopkins (2004) found that by 1830, 51 percent of all exports were cottons, and US and Europe began to guard fledgling industries.  

 

In the third phase (1850-1914), Cain and Hopkins (2004) found that free trade eventually killed off agriculture. After the second industrial revolution, British imperialist embodied the interests and need of the national monopoly capitalists. In other words, British mainly took place of capital export. And then British proceeded capital export, for instance foreign loans, debt trap, financial orthodoxy and so on. What is more, the wealth of foreign loan more than the wealth of industry. For example, after 1875, there was a fracture between industry and finance interests. Next, British and other imperialism countries sparked a frenzy divided assets of new colonies such as Burma, Malay States, China, West Africa. In the end, there launched a battle among imperialism countries. The imperialism of monopoly was established.

 

 

Reference:文獻(xiàn)
 

 

Cain, PJ & Hopkins, AG 1980, ‘The political economy of British expansion overseas, 1750–1914’, The Economic History Review, vol.33, no.4, pp.463-490.

 

Goldstone, MA 2009, Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History, McGraw Hill, Boston. 

 

Polanvi, K 2010, The Great Transformation, Beacon Press, Boston.

 

Pomeranz, K 2009, The great divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the modern world economy, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

 

O’Brien, P 1982, ‘European Economic Development: The Contribution of the Periphery’, The Economic History Review, vol.35, no.1, pp.1-18.