清代臺灣與近代早期英格蘭的土地制度與經濟發展：一個統治理性的比較制度分析

Land Regime and Economic Development in Qing Taiwan and Early Modern England: a Comparative Institutional Analysis of Governmentality

本文以英格蘭與清代臺灣的土地體制與其經濟發展為比較個案，重新檢討晚近彭慕蘭（Kenneth Pomeranz）引發的有關中西經濟史何時大分流的辯論。本文同意彭慕蘭主張的，16－18世紀間的晚明／清代與英格蘭的市場經濟與經濟水平的確有類似的發展，中西經濟的確是在18世紀晚期英格蘭工業革命之後才明顯分流。但不同意大分流的原因是其所說的外生偶然因素，而主張兩地在18世紀晚期以來的分流係奠基於兩地在16－18世紀以來的不同制度發展路徑上。本文透過英格蘭與臺灣土地相關社會制度以及做為這些制度基礎的國家統治理性的比較，指出近代早期英格蘭以近代統治理性為基礎的各種社會制度之逐步發展，不僅有效降低了土地交易與市場經濟活動的交易成本，促成了全國性經濟市場的開展，而且也提供了工業革命發生所需的社會制度基礎。與此相對，清代臺灣奠基於傳統統治理性的一田二主土地制度與典賣等土地慣習，僅能有限降低地區性經濟活動的交易成本，難以支撐跨地區性土地與經濟市場的有效擴展，也不足以提供工業資本主義發展所需的充分制度基礎。 Taking land regime and economic development in Qing Taiwan and early modern England as its point of comparison, this paper restudies “the great divergence debate” incited by Pomeranz's book. This paper agrees with Pomeranz that there was a similar development on market economy and economic level in late Ming/Qing China and early modern England, and that these two economies underwent great divergence after England's industrial revolution in late 18th century. But it challenges Pomeranz's explanation that industrial revolution occurred because of exogenous and contingent factors. It demonstrates how different institutions underlying the development of market economy in the two regions gave rise to the great divergence. This paper provides a comparison of land regime and governmentality in two regions. It suggests that the development of English land regime and modern governmentality not only facilitated the great expansion of commercialized agriculture, but also formed the institutional basis for the Industrial Revolution. In contrast, Qing Taiwan's land regime and traditional governmentality could allow for the development of commercialized agriculture and a market economy, but it could not pave the way for industrial development.

Taking land regime and economic development in Qing Taiwan and early modern England as its point of comparison, this paper restudies “the great divergence debate” incited by Pomeranz's book. This paper agrees with Pomeranz that there was a similar development on market economy and economic level in late Ming/Qing China and early modern England, and that these two economies underwent great divergence after England's industrial revolution in late 18th century. But it challenges Pomeranz's explanation that industrial revolution occurred because of exogenous and contingent factors. It demonstrates how different institutions underlying the development of market economy in the two regions gave rise to the great divergence. This paper provides a comparison of land regime and governmentality in two regions. It suggests that the development of English land regime and modern governmentality not only facilitated the great expansion of commercialized agriculture, but also formed the institutional basis for the Industrial Revolution. In contrast, Qing Taiwan's land regime and traditional governmentality could allow for the development of commercialized agriculture and a market economy, but it could not pave the way for industrial development.