8 replies to this topic

[Andy Lau]

I wonder why most of China's wealthiest come from the Southern part of China (ie Shanghai, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangsu, etc) ? Are we more agressive in business?

From a November 2010 article i found online, it said that Guangdong province had the most Billionaire in China:

Guangdong has the most billionaires of any province in China and they are, on average, richer, younger and keep a much lower profile than their counterparts in other parts of the country, according to a wealth report.

Link: http://www.wantchina...=20101110000174

[mandarin]

for they were less influenced by the Confucianism which has a strong discrimination on commercial activity

[bloodmerchant]

I wonder why most of China's wealthiest come from the Southern part of China (ie Shanghai, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangsu, etc) ? Are we more agressive in business?

From a November 2010 article i found online, it said that Guangdong province had the most Billionaire in China:


Link: http://www.wantchina...=20101110000174

Yet, at the same time, certain parts of Southern China, had a higher percentage of scientists, engineers and scholar-officials. That may be due to how Confucianism was applied locally rather than the influence of Confucianism. Even within confucianism, there were a variety of movements that contested with each other. For example, progressive Confucians as opposed to conservative Confucians. For the most part, Southern China was more progressive than the north, and often adopted new ideas from other nations. Which is why the anti-foreign rebellions (Boxer rebellion) were more focused in the North than in the South and many progressives during the Qing dynasty were southerners, esp. Sun Yat-sen.

Edited by bloodmerchant, 11 March 2011 - 03:53 PM.

[mariusj]

Yet, at the same time, certain parts of Southern China, had a higher percentage of scientists, engineers and scholar-officials.

Do you have source for that? What is the percentage?

That may be due to how Confucianism was applied locally rather than the influence of Confucianism. Even within confucianism, there were a variety of movements that contested with each other. For example, progressive Confucians as opposed to conservative Confucians.

Yes, but that may or may not be the cause. Shu school is also very progressive, yet it does not have similar effect, thus there must be something else.

For the most part, Southern China was more progressive than the north, and often adopted new ideas from other nations.

It could be argued that rather than it is more progressive than other areas, it merely have more access.

Which is why the anti-foreign rebellions (Boxer rebellion) were more focused in the North than in the South and many progressives during the Qing dynasty were southerners, esp. Sun Yat-sen.

Same argument as above.

[Shiang]

its not true that southern han are more commercial oriented.

Shanxi province was once the center of banking during the qing dnasty and ROC era, there were thousands of Shaanxi and Gansu and other northern merchants trading in Xinjiang and their own provinces. (and yes, these merchants were han, not hui)

[TiYiJian]

Because they've always been the major ports which have been opened to the foreigners. From the beginning, the Guangdong and Shanghai areas became the most modernized and commercial-oriented because of the western influence.
After 1989, the southern regions became the wealthiest due to Hong Kong (just in front of the guangdong area) and to Taiwan (just near Zhejiang and Fujian). These two countries invested the most in China after its opening, and many of the HK inhabitants were refugees from Guangdong, that's why they're among the richest in China.

[moobie]

The defining difference between the North and South's economies is that in the South, wealth and income is far more evenly distributed. There are a lot of people at the top (billionaires), but also a lot of people at the bottom. The South is much more linguistically, culturally, historically and genetically diverse (much of this due to geography) which always or almost always leads to social stratification.

The second gradient would be a coastal/interior difference in income because of the resources sea access provides.

[mohistManiac]

If your cities have more people obviously there will be more people at the top and more people at the bottom. The real hint is in how these people generally spend their money or save their money in their economies. Neglecting the countryside could there really be a big difference between the larger cities of the north and south? I do have a feeling in the south that in modern times people are engaged in more spending which makes their economies less vibrant or less prone to stagnation but they've also had a head start in modernizing.

[moobie]

Those are % population based, not absolutes. Hong Kong and Taiwan have fairly high wealth and income distributions while the "mainland" as a whole (and Japan and South Korea) has surprisingly low levels. This is, IMO, because the South is more diverse in almost every way.