BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//wp-events-plugin.com//7.2.3.1//EN TZID:America/New_York X-WR-TIMEZONE:America/New_York BEGIN:VEVENT UID:200@harvard-yenching.org DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20150306T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20150306T173000 DTSTAMP:20201027T004209Z URL:https://www.harvard-yenching.org/events/revisiting-markets-and-institu tions-early-modern-east-asia/ SUMMARY:Revisiting Markets and Institutions in Early Modern East Asia: Beyo nd Exceptionalism and Generalization DESCRIPTION:\n A workshop organized by Kuroda Akinobu (U Tokyo/Harvard) an d David Howell (Harvard) in cooperation with the Harvard-Yenching Institut e and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Project No. 26285073 )\n\n\n PRESENTATIONS\n\n Part 1　10:00 am - 11:25 am\n\n Chaired by Sun Joo Kim (Harvard University)\n\n Kuroda\, Akinobu - The Characters of Mar ket: Comparison between China and Japan in 19th Century\n\n Rhee\, Young H oon (Seoul National University) - What Were Prices in the 19th Century Se oul\, Korea?\n\n Part 2  11:35 am - 1:00 pm\n\n Chaired by Elizabeth Perr y (Harvard University/Harvard-Yenching Institute)\n\n David Howell (Harvar d University) - Market Troubles in a Collapsing Regime: Night Soil in Edo \, 1867\n\n Takatsuki\, Yasuo (Kobe University) - Property Rights Protect ion in 18th century Japan Revisited\; the Case of Rice Backed Security Exc hange Market\n\n Lunch  1: 00 pm - 2:00 pm\n\n Part 3  2:00 pm - 3:25 pm \n\n Chaired by Elisabeth Köll (Harvard Business School)\n\n Elisabeth K aske (Carnegie Mellon University) - From Privilege to Market: Conceiving Government Bonds in Qing China and Meiji Japan\n\n Maura Dykstra (UCLA/Har vard University) - Anonymity\, Place\, Authority\, and the Court of Chong qing: Exploring the Relationship between Qing Long-distance Commercial Pra ctices and Imperial Jurisdiction from 1750 to 1911\n\n Part 4  3:35pm - 5 :30 pm\n\n DISCUSSION  Chaired by Michael Puett (Harvard University)\n\n Comments \n\n Jane Guyer (Johns Hopkins University) Anthropology\, Africa n Studies read by organiser\n Craig Muldrew (University of Cambridge) Euro pean Early Modern History\n Peter Perdue (Yale University) Chinese Early M odern History\n\n WORKSHOP AIM\n\n To find a difference between societies is one thing\, to locate the difference either in negative direction or po sitive is another. If a human cluster in certain period deserves to be cal led a society\, it must have a characteristics of its own. Characteristic of human cluster itself sounds unsuitable to be taken advanced or backward . Only a teleology provides a measure to commensurate a difference as a tr ansformation from something ‘primitive’ to something ‘sophisticated ’. Along this sense a viewpoint such as the evolution of the market has played a role as a kind of teleology behind historical interpretations\, t ypically\, in a way as follows.\n\n Exchange between persons\, households\ , groups and regions depending on comparative advantage should increase th e productivities. Decrease of cost such as that for transportation should strengthen the efficiency of trade\, in other words\, intensify the extent of the market. Technological innovations like railroad should be crucial for the market to advance the process into a new stage\, while social rela tionship among people and administrative connections should be exogenous. They should often work to intervene the evolution of the market\, conseque ntly cause the market activities to deviate from their nature. In other wo rds\, without intervention\, trades should eventually bring an equilibrium in which demand and supply of goods and services should be adjusted by a single set of prices in the most optimal proportion.\n\n In tandem with th e presumption above\, a dichotomy between profit orienting market and ethi c orienting society and a contrast between pro freedom market and pro regu lation state have ignored that\, even within a society or under a state\, an exchange might have a background with an institutional factor while ano ther exchange might have precluded another institutional factor.\n\n Here let us define market activities fulfilling exchanges through making price. However\, in reality\, market activities might have a multiplicity in nat ure. Although behaviours by peasants in rural market could not be perfectl y independent from actions by merchants who dealt with large size consumpt ions\, their activities did not always synchronise in the same direction. For example\, increasing dependence on market places by peasant households might have brought a special monetary demand among them which were incomp atible with money available for interregional settlement or large size tra nsactions. Ubiquitous presence of multiple monies across the world and thr ough human history proves a nature of money which differentiated itself ac cording to situation.\n\n A price should be made in terms of a money. Arbi trage between a price of a commodity in a region and a different price of the same commodity in another region would make sense only in a condition that money should be provided in the same way to both. The compatibility o r incompatibility between a currency in a region and that in another regio n was determined by a combination of various factors such as mint system\, taxation and its remittance\, exchangers\, network of long distance trade rs\, etc.\n\n Even if a single money worked across regions\, in a society cash payments might have dominated in rural markets while credit supply or clearance through account books might have prevailed among merchants in t he same town\, in contrast\, in another society\, villagers might have dep ended on mutual credit or rarely used cash while merchants\, especially fo r long distant trade\, might have preference to settle their transactions by precious metal currencies. Currency provides anonymity\, or freedom in choosing opponents\, in making transactions\, while named relationship beh ind credit provides certainty to deals. How to combine both anonymous rela tionship and coherent one depended on society and period.\n\n All in all\, market activities and institutions are inseparable. Before assuming a fra mework relating entire the market to entire institutes\, decompose market activities partially enough to reveal a multiplicity of mutual dependence between a pattern of exchange and an institutional framework. A characteri stic of society appeared with how to assort various attachments between an exchange and an institution. In nature\, it must be far from measuring ad vanced or backward.\n\n Sharing geographical conditions\, basic technology \, and ideological context\, comparison of East Asia in early modern perio d vividly shows us how variously exchange and institutions woven each stru cture characteristically. LOCATION:\, \, X-APPLE-STRUCTURED-LOCATION;VALUE=URI;X-ADDRESS=\, ;X-APPLE-RADIUS=100;X-TI TLE=:geo:0,0 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York X-LIC-LOCATION:America/New_York BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20141102T010000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 TZNAME:EST END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE END:VCALENDAR