International Law

Ming Dynasty Trade Problems ? Same Old, Same Old

By Stan

I think I spent too much time outside today in the surprisingly-hot Beijing sun. Or perhaps it’s because I’ve been reading too many journal articles on intellectual property piracy and international trade. Either way, an article I just read about an archaeological find in Guangdong Province made me a bit giggly.

Archaeologists working on the wreck of a 400-year-old merchant vessel off south China have found evidence that Chinese merchants probably flouted bans on foreign trade at the time.

I got interested right there. Sure, smuggling has been around for thousands of years and has probably occurred in every nation that established customs rules. But smuggling in South China? Flouting foreign trade rules? It just sounds so now, doesn’t it?

By the way, the Ming rules concerning foreign trade are constantly brought up whenever anyone talks about modern Chinese trade history, so this is a subject that is discussed quite often. In fact, I talk about Ming trade policy in the very first lecture I give in my class on China Foreign Direct Investment Law.

The reason I talk about Ming trade restrictions in my class is to contrast it with later Chinese trade and investment policies, particularly the post-1978 “Opening Up” reforms of Deng Xiaoping. It’s simplistic, but the major difference in trade policy is easily understood and useful for grasping material brought up later in the course.

But I’m getting sidetracked. I was chuckling over “South China” and “smuggling.” Let’s continue.

Archaeologists believe the ship, which sank in the Sandianjin waters off Nan’ao county, Shantou city, may have been carrying 10,000 pieces of blue-and-white porcelain, mostly made during Emperor Wanli’s reign (1573-1620) of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644).

Some big porcelain bowls found in the vessel, dubbed “Nan’ao-1, ” were probably made for foreign trade as they were not commonly used in Chinese daily life at that time, they believe.

The find is particularly interesting as the administration of Wanli had imposed a ban on sea trade.

So some enterprising manufacturers were engaged in the export trade, which was presumably more profitable, what with the trade ban and all. No parallels to modern government policy, but these guys putting their efforts into exports instead of producing for the domestic market — that should sound familiar.

But this is where I really went “hrrm?”

Sheet copper and coins found during the salvage operation indicated the ship might have been smuggling copper too, as the export of copper was also banned at the time, said Sun Jian, head of the salvage team.

Many ancient Chinese dynasties, including the Ming Dynasty, banned the export of copper as the metal was precious and mainly used to manufacture coins, a major currency, in ancient China.

A ban on the export of precious metals necessary for production of a domestic good? Are you kidding me? That little tidbit could have been ripped right out of today’s headlines. Well, almost.

So we had smuggling/pirates in the South China Sea, companies forsaking the domestic market so they could make more money with exports, and a ban on the export of precious metals. All this during Ming Emperor Wanli’s reign in the 16th/17th centuries.

See, kids, history can be fun!

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: china trade, Emperor Wanli, export trade, international trade history, Ming Dynasty, piracy, precious metals trade, rare earth exports, smuggling

Full post as published by China Hearsay on May 02, 2010 (boomark / email).