Great Leap vs. Gradualism: China's Economic Development Since 1949
This paper examines patterns of economic development in China from 1949 to the present, contrasting the rapid, large-scale transformations of the Maoist era with the gradualist market reforms of the post-Mao period. Drawing on historians and economists such as Naughton, Bramall, and Chow, the paper argues that Mao's "big push" strategies — particularly the Great Leap Forward — caused severe economic disruption and human catastrophe, while the slow, incremental transition to market socialism under Deng Xiaoping produced sustained growth. The paper further contends that China should continue to resist wholesale adoption of foreign economic models, preserving elements of its own developmental tradition, including investment in human capital and welfare, as it deepens its engagement with capitalism.
- Introduction: Framing China's Economic Trajectory: Thesis: gradualism explains China's economic success
- Measuring Development Beyond GDP: Development requires human welfare metrics, not just output
- Maoist Rapid Change and Its Consequences: Soviet-style collectivization and its economic disruptions
- The Great Leap Forward: Shock Therapy in Practice: GLF caused famine and catastrophic human costs
- Post-Maoist Gradualism and Market Transition: Deng's incremental market reforms contrasted with Soviet shock therapy
- Why Gradualism Worked: Features of the Chinese Transition: Dual-track system and incremental reform mechanisms explained
- Conclusion: Lessons from Maoist and Post-Maoist Development: Avoid rapid foreign-model adoption; preserve developmental traditions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper structures its argument historically, using specific episodes — the High Tide of Socialism, the Great Leap Forward, and Deng's dual-track reforms — as concrete evidence rather than relying solely on abstract theory.
- It engages critically with sources, notably pushing back against Bramall's partial rehabilitation of late Maoism by distinguishing between Mao's personal policies and the moderating influence of Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping.
- The paper broadens its analytical framework early by citing Amartya Sen and Chris Bramall's human-development approach to measuring economic progress, avoiding a reductive GDP-only lens throughout.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates historical comparative analysis — contrasting rapid-change episodes within China's own history rather than relying solely on cross-country comparisons (e.g., China vs. Russia). This internal comparison strengthens causal claims by controlling for many country-specific variables, making the argument for gradualism more persuasive than a simple China–Soviet bloc contrast would allow.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by framing the puzzle of China's growth and stating its central thesis. It then establishes a broader definition of development before moving chronologically through Maoist policy failures (collectivization, the Great Leap Forward), a transitional recovery period, and finally post-Mao gradualist reforms. Gregory Chow's three-reason synthesis near the end consolidates the theoretical argument, and the conclusion ties historical lessons to contemporary policy recommendations.
Introduction: Framing China's Economic Trajectory
In recent decades China has been able to maintain an almost steady double-digit rate of economic growth, and this spectacular performance has attracted the interest of Chinese and non-Chinese economists, policymakers, media commentators, and general observers alike. Many leaders and economic thinkers in developing countries look to China as a model, as do Americans concerned about job losses, while multinational corporations admire China's vast and productive labor force. In light of these realities, it is valuable to examine the patterns of economic development in the Maoist and post-Maoist eras and to identify the factors that allowed China to prosper in recent years.
There are many factors that can account for China's successful economic performance. For example, the nation's enormous human capital and its traditional cultural emphasis on hard work are certainly among them (Chow, 2010). But the pattern of development that most decisively helped China in recent decades is its gradual transition from a planned economy to a market economy.
China's gradualism is usually contrasted with the "big bang" or "shock therapy" rapid economic changes that took place in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Qian and Xu, 1993). While such comparisons are useful, they cannot fully explain the reasons for success or failure in any of these economies, since each country has domestic and unique features — history, potential, and limitations — that distinguish it from the others. A better understanding of China's gradualist transition can be gained by historicizing the development. One useful approach is to examine periods when China adopted rapid economic changes and contrast them with eras when China embraced gradualism.
It is the contention of this paper that rapid changes — particularly those adopted under Mao — did not serve China well. In contrast, gradualism, whether adopted temporarily during the Maoist period or pursued as a continuous policy in the post-Maoist era, has worked. It is important, therefore, that for future development China should avoid rapid changes — such as the wholesale and uncritical adoption of Western models that ignores traditional Chinese patterns of development, including the legacy of Maoism — and instead take a cautious approach, gradually embracing the benefits of market economy in a way that befits China's national and unique needs and interests.
Measuring Development Beyond GDP
Before discussing any aspect of Chinese economic history, it is important to note that economic development cannot be measured solely on the basis of GNP or GDP growth. It is one of the biases of the Western neoliberal approach to assess economic development purely in terms of gross economic output. A country's productivity potential in producing goods and services and engaging in foreign trade is certainly a meaningful measure, but it is not a sufficient one. Economic historians such as Amartya Sen and Chris Bramall have argued that the measure of development should include, alongside statistical data on gross output, the freedom of the population, civil liberties, citizen access to basic necessities such as education and healthcare, and other factors that account for people's satisfaction with their standard of living. This approach ties the measure of development to citizens' "perceived level of happiness" (Bramall, 2009, p. 3), and it also better explains the complexity of Chinese economic development across both the Maoist and post-Maoist eras.
References
Bramall, C. (2009). Chinese Economic Development. Routledge.
Chow, G. C. (2010). Important lessons from studying the Chinese economy. Singapore Economic Review, 55(3), 419–434.
Naughton, B. (2007). The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Patnaik, U. (2004). The republic of hunger. Retrieved April 10, 2011, from
Qian, Y., & Xu, C. (1993). Why China's economic reforms differ: The M-form hierarchy and entry/expansion of the non-state sector. Economics of Transition, 1(2), 135–170.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.