[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

　One of the most heated topic of Ming Qing period is the population growth. The actual population of the Ming and Qing dynasty is still a debate among the scholarly circle.
Western historians are far less conservative than Chinese ones in estimation, where the Chinese histoian still stick to census, western historians started to disregard those during late Ming and early Qing almost completely. The myth of 50-60 million people under late Ming has pretty much proven to be false. Many new historians including well known historians such as Spence estimate the late Ming population to be around 150 million before it collapsed. The more moderate PRC estimation nowadays also start to take the moderate appraoch to estimation.( Those in Hong Kong still seem to stick with the census)According to (明清时期的中国人口)（《清史研究》1994年第3 期）葛剑雄、曹树基：《对明代人口总数的新估计》（《中国史研究》1995 年第1期）。
The actual estimation is around 120-200 million

However, the early Qing is even a greater mystery, the census of the period by calculation reveal around 40-60 million men during the eighth year of Shun Zhi. Chen used Kang Xi to Yong Zhen's average growth and gave a number of 70 million for the beggining of Qing.（注：程贤敏：《论清代人口增长率及“过剩问题”》，《中国史研究》1982年第3期。），
Yet he still relies on the census. Gao thinks that around 1682, the Qing population is 70-80 million, At 1700, around 90-100 million（注：高王凌：《清代初期中国人口的估算问题》，《人口理论与实践》1984年第2期)

The prominent western scholars however, long recognized that the Qing census shows nothing but taxation population was free to make estimations and considered the Chinese population in the beggining of Qing to be alerady around 100-150 million（注：参见高王凌：《明清时期的中国人口》。）

　Population studies has the general law that population will always slowly increased until it becomes greater than the capacity to feed it. Yet past myths of enourmous drops in population in census attribute the vast decrease in population to civil wars, in reality, wars do not bring such destructions, because whenever there is war, population always grow elsewhere where there is no war, even in places where there is. Thus, there can never be severe drops due to war alone.
Thus most scholars in both east and west agree that around 1700, Qing's population is probably already around 150 million, recovered from the Ming wars.

　In the fifty first year of Kang Xi（1712），The phrase “盛世滋生人丁，永不加赋” Taxation would not increase when population increase became a general policy,　only in the 6th year of Qian Long(1741) was there a true census in the modern sense that covers the entire population of the state. And the estimation was “各省通共大小男妇14341万1559名口” or 143,410,000 people. Yet this census is still mixed with those of the taxation census. Only in the 34 th year of Qian Long did the policy of mixed registration end in which taxation census became the same as the population census.

Thus people seem to attribute the population growth of Qian Long to be faster than those of Kang Xi and Yong Zheng, in fact faster than any period in Chinese history up to that time. With terms such as population explosion coming to describe the phenomenon and prosperity of the Qian Long period.
Since the early 20th century it has been estimated that the growth（1741—1794） as an average of 1.485％， While attributing the growth between（1794—1850）as 0.566％（注：罗尔纲：《太平天国革命前的人口压迫问题》，《中国社会经济史集刊》1949年第8卷第1期) Quan Han Yi and Wang Ye Jian divided the Qing population growth into 4 separate periods. The recovery phase in the late 17th century. Rapid growth phase in the 18th century, normal growth period since the end of Qian Long to the Tai Ping. And recession period till the end of the dynasty.（注：全汉昇、王业键：《清代的人口变动》，《历史语言研究所集刊》1961年，第32本）Zhou Yuan He divided the Qian Long period into 3 parts，ad calculated the average growth rate in the Qian Long period to be 1.45％（注：周源和：《清代人口研究》，《中国社会科学》1982年第2期） He claimed that the rapid growth rate during the Qian Long is in fact true and not a complete fabrication of census.（注：周祚绍：《清代前期人口问题研究论略》，《山东大学学报》（哲社版）1996年第4 期）

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

　　　Here is a graph of growth in the Qing

year 　　　　　　　registered　 field tax
　　　　　　　　　　　
(1662)　　　 －　　　　－　　　　　　　　－
(1686)　 5.9%　　　 11.1%　　　　　　 7.1%
(1711)　　 21%　　　　17.4%　　　　　　 7.8%
(1734)　　 11.1%　　　28.4%　　　　　　 5.8%
1662—1734　 37.6%　　　67.6%　　　　　　 8.8%

According to 《清实录》 the graph above the 50 years during KangXi already has uneven growth rate.
　　Especially the 25th year of Kang Xi the registered population and field grew but taxation increase actually decreased，　　


　year 　　　　　　　registered　 growth
　　　　　　　　　　　

(1795)　　 313280000　　　　 －
(1825)　　　 379890000　　　　0.64%
(1851)　　　 432160000　 0.52%
1795—1851年　　　　　 —　　　　　　 0.58%

According to 《清实录》Qing Shi Lu，the population in 1796 actually decreased to 29696000，an obvious error.
　　　　　　　

　
三、清代前中期人口增长率

　　现在回头总结一下仅依官方数字得出的康雍、乾、嘉道三个时段的人口年均增长率：康熙二十五年至五十年的人口年均增长率0.77％，康熙五十二年至雍正十二年（含滋生人丁）为0.7％， 乾隆六年至五十九年为1.49％，乾隆六十年至咸丰元年为0.58％，前面指出的诸多漏洞，已经反映出，乾隆年间如此之高的人口增长率是值得怀疑的，进一步而言，从逻辑和实践仍可辩驳：

　　1.人类漫长的历史进程已经证明：“每一次壮观的人口激增都是在生产技术获得重大突破时发生的”（注：（美）L·S·斯塔夫里阿诺斯：《全球通史》（上），上海社会科学院出版社1988年版，第76页。）。与康雍、嘉道相较，乾隆朝不过是封建社会发展链条上的一环，生产技术并无任何重大突破。至于人们普遍认同“高产作物”的因素，其实并非均在乾隆朝蜂拥而至。这些作物从引进到推广、普及，有一个陆续、缓慢的发展过程。例如玉米、蕃薯，早在明朝嘉靖、万历年间已引入中国，在清代逐渐推广。而近代中国百姓的“救荒粮”马铃薯，从1705年引入中国，直至19世纪以后才得到普及。如果说乾隆朝人口增长有高产作物的因素，那么嘉道时期又何尝没有呢？况且，与其说是高产作物的推广刺激了人口的增长，不如说是人口的增长促进了高产作物的栽培和推广。将清代人口放在特定的历史条件下，重新审视二者的关系，可能会有新的启示。

　　2.由于乾隆朝在人口统计标准上的重大转变，由于统计工作的不断完善，以前皆免予登记人口的众多特权贵族、下等户、边区游民、山区棚民、沿海灶户、渔民乃至大量边疆少数民族等不断“咸登版籍”。这种巨大差异造成的人口增加当属“人为”而非“自然”增殖，这种“人为”增殖人口的大量出现，当是史籍所载乾隆朝人口“激增”、“爆炸”的实质所在。

　　那么，抛开这些不实成份，乾隆朝人口增长率可能在什么程度呢？由于我们在前人研究基础上已大致确定了清初人口的基数，又已知清后期人口峰值数，因此，可以根据实际情况，作一个谨慎的求证和估计。

　　康雍年间人丁数的不实已是众所公认的。但自康熙二十三年（1684年）收复台湾之后，清朝统治即趋于稳定，人丁统计标准亦相对固定，从人丁数的前后变化反映出的人丁年均增长率应具有较大参考价值。嘉道年间同理。因此，从康熙二十五年至五十年的0.77％、康熙五十二年至雍正十二年的0.7％和嘉道间的0.58％三个时段的人口增长率中， 我们取其中数0.7％（注：帕金斯（Perkins）的计算结果是，1650—1850年间中国人口的成长率为0.6％， 陈春声通过对广东省乾隆四十一年至五十六年间人口增长考察，算出年均增长率为0.68％（参见陈春声著：《市场机制与社会变迁——18C广东米价分析》， 中山大学出版社1992年版，第19页），另据《清实录》计算乾隆五十五年至道光十四年的人口年均增长率亦是0.7％，均与此估计增长率接近。）作一检验。

　　以清初1.5亿人口为基数，以0.7％为人口年均增长率向后推算，随机抽出几个年代可得出若干个推测数据，将推测数据与《清实录》所载数字比较，我们会发现不少新的问题，请见下表：

　　表3　《清实录》数字与推测数字比较表

年　份　　　　　《清实录》人口数　　推测人口数　　　　二者相差(大约)
康熙三十九年(1700年)　　 2010万　　　 1.5亿　　　　　5000万
乾隆六年(1741年)　　　　　1.4亿　　　　 2亿　　　　　6000万
乾隆五十五年(1790年)　　　　3亿　　　 2.8亿　　　　　2000万
嘉庆二十五年(1820年)　　　3.5亿　　　 3.5亿　　　　　　0
道光三十年(1850年)　　　　4.1亿　　　 4.27亿　　　　 1700万
咸丰元年(1851年)　　　　　4.3亿　　　 4.3亿　　　　　　0*

＊康熙三十九年的人口统计单位是“丁”。

比较这组饶有趣味的数字可以发现：

　　1.推测数字与史载数字基本吻合，且越到后来越吻合，说明0.7 ％的人口增长率是大致符合历史逻辑发展的。

　　2.乾隆六年，史载人口数字表面上比康、雍年间已有“飞跃”，但实际上由于漏登、免登等长期形成的历史原因，其对人口的统计数字实际上仍然偏低，乾隆初年人口的官方数字为1.4亿，实际上很可能已达2亿左右，已恢复到明末的人口水平。

　　3.乾隆五十五年左右，出现了推测数字低于史载数字的现象，这里至少有两种可能：①1700年左右1.5亿的人口基数实际上仍是偏低的；②乾隆中晚期的人口增长率确实稍高于此前此后的其它时期，如何炳棣先生认为人口数较准确的乾隆四十四年至五十九年（1779—1794）间的人口增长率为0.87％。

　　4.道光三十年与咸丰元年仅一年之隔，人口统计上居然出现近2000万的差别，计算其人口增长率为4.26％！这种增长率在人口死亡很高的封建社会根本不可能出现，再次说明官方史料的随意性和不可靠。

　　5.在嘉庆二十五年和咸丰元年，推算人口与史载人口二度完全吻合，反映了清代前中期人口即便按现在看来并不算高的增速增长（ 如0.7％），到中后期已逾越3亿、4亿大关，而这几个数字在生产力水平与以往历史时期并无突破性提高的清代，已足以使人们感到压力。

　　人类自身生产是不同于其他生产资料生产的独特的社会历史现象，它具有自己鲜明的特点和规律，如具有社会性、惰性（惯性）、以家庭为范围、周期长等等。经典作家曾经指出：“人类的增殖条件直接决定于各种不同社会机体的结构”（注：《列宁全集》第1卷， 人民出版社1984年版，第414页。）。社会结构不变，即人类的增殖条件不变， 人口再生产的特点就会具有明显的历史延续性，我国解放初期人口行为强大的惯性发展已清楚地显示了这一点，因此，任何脱离封建社会固有的社会结构、社会条件而去“抽象地”研究人口规律的行为都是不够科学和严谨的。

　　　　　　四、结语

　　基于前述种种，我们可以得出以下结论：

　　1.明末清初之际的人口损益不会导致清初人口在总量上的急速下滑。经过近百年的调整、恢复，清初人口与明末相比应略少或接近。表现为具体数字，是1700年左右当有1.5亿或更多的人口。

　　2.清朝前期、中期人口的年均增长率并非如官方数字显示的那么大起大落，大体上应是稳定而有规律可循的，其总体人口自然增长率当在0.7％上下。

　　3.乾隆朝人口的增长速度并不一定或并不在很高程度上高于此前的康雍二朝和此后的嘉庆朝，过高估计“盛世滋生人丁，永不加赋”等农业政策或高产作物等救荒粮食的引进对人口的刺激作用，以及依《清实录》记载数字得出乾隆朝人口“激增”的结论，均缺乏真实有力的根据，难以令人信服。

　　4.由于“盛世滋生人丁，永不加赋”政策及高产作物推广等因素影响，乾隆朝后期的人口增速可能会略有增加，但十分有限。清代人口问题在乾隆年间有所凸现，不是因为其增长速度太快，而是本来庞大的人口基数，即使增速不快，若中间未经人为或天灾中断，到一定阶段亦会对农业社会形成较大压力，乾隆朝不过是这种量变阶段较引人注目的一段。

【责任编辑】黄长义

The most modern estimate for 1684, for example, is only 101,700,000 (Qu & Li, 1994)

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Thus the real population of the Qing era is probably calculated below

year 　　　　 registered estimation difference
乾隆六十年(1700)　　 201,000,000　　150,000,000　　　50,000,000
乾隆六年(1741)　　　　　 140,000,000　200,000,000　　　60,000,000
乾隆五十五年(1790)　　　300,000,000　　280,000,000　　　20,000,000
嘉庆二十五年(1820)　　　 350,000,000　　350,000,000　　　　　　0
道光三十年(1850)　　　　 410,000,000　　427,000,000　　　17,000,000
咸丰元年(1851)　　　　　 430,000,000　　430,000,000　　　　　　0


the graph above is a little bit out of order, the first row is registered population the second is modern day estimation of actual Qing population and the third is there difference

[astralis]

very interesting stuff. one of the reasons why the qing dynasty suffered such endemic poverty by the end was because of the huge jump in population growth, not matched with economic growth. to make matters worse, the best and the brightest spent all their time trying to test into a calcified bureaucracy...

[wlee15]

Warhead have you had the chance to read the article Unveiling China's True Population Statistics for the Pre-Modern Era with Official Census Data by Kent G. Deng from the journal Population Review?
This article argues that given the general consensus of the effectiveness of government land registration system, the limited reasons for underreporting at the local level, and the often extreme punishments for intentional misrepresenting census data the author asserts that the official census data wasn't inheirently unrealiable. Instead the authors believes that census inconsistency were caused by use of counting by household, and offers a estimate based on offical census data that is adjusted by multiplying official household data with the long run average person per household(5.77 in the article). The article also offer tests for it's assertions including comparing the national price of rice (fixed for changes in money supply) to change in population and the effect of the number of disaster and the resulting change in the growth (or decline) of population.

[houliyang]

astralis, on Jan 23 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

very interesting stuff. one of the reasons why the qing dynasty suffered such endemic poverty by the end was because of the huge jump in population growth, not matched with economic growth. to make matters worse, the best and the brightest spent all their time trying to test into a calcified bureaucracy...

why do you think that Qing suffer endemic povery by the end? many sources imply that Qing's economy is very strong until mid-1850s. how do you get such idea?

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Warhead have you had the chance to read the article Unveiling China's True Population Statistics for the Pre-Modern Era with Official Census Data by Kent G. Deng from the journal Population Review?
This article argues that given the general consensus of the effectiveness of government land registration system, the limited reasons for underreporting at the local level, and the often extreme punishments for intentional misrepresenting census data the author asserts that the official census data wasn't inheirently unrealiable. Instead the authors believes that census inconsistency were caused by use of counting by household, and offers a estimate based on offical census data that is adjusted by multiplying official household data with the long run average person per household(5.77 in the article). The article also offer tests for it's assertions including comparing the national price of rice (fixed for changes in money supply) to change in population and the effect of the number of disaster and the resulting change in the growth (or decline) of population.

This is precisely the argument of this thread, population census are inaccurate, but not wholy unreliable, there is still a rapid growth rate during the Qian Long era, just not the ridiculous multiplying rate that old historians attribute.

[ChiangAP]

warhead, on Jan 23 2006, 08:48 PM, said:

This is precisely the argument of this thread, population census are inaccurate, but not wholy unreliable, there is still a rapid growth rate during the Qian Long era, just not the ridiculous multiplying rate that old historians attribute.

1/Most interesting. Could you recommend a reference where I could find a reasonably simple diagram of Chinese population growth since, say, 秦始皇帝?
2/ The eternal race between population growth and economy speaks volume of modern China's merit of trying (with some success) to control its population, but this is off topic.

[ChiangAP]

warhead, on Jan 23 2006, 08:48 PM, said:

This is precisely the argument of this thread, population census are inaccurate, but not wholy unreliable, there is still a rapid growth rate during the Qian Long era, just not the ridiculous multiplying rate that old historians attribute.

Whoops! I found Liang Zeming interesting diagram a few threads after ("Chinese population)". I must ask him more details on his sources.

[astralis]

Quote

why do you think that Qing suffer endemic povery by the end? many sources imply that Qing's economy is very strong until mid-1850s. how do you get such idea?

not very strong, it had stagnated by the end of the qianlong period. the economy grew progressively worse, as state spending remained the same while much of the silver accumulated from the 1500s-1700s were either spent at home or went abroad (opium).

factor in western industrial revolution and imperialism, and you had a qing dynasty whose economics were in quite some disarray. there was some reason why li hongzhang was so interested in creating indigenious chinese mining, steamboat, and mailing companies!

[hamtaro]

Hi Warhead,

Thats an impressive research, does the population numbers also includes XIn Jiang? I just read that Xin Jiang was finally subdued for good during Qian Long's reign, before that, was Xin Jiang already considered part of Qing empire?
Could these newly conquered/acquired territories, like XIn Jiang, also contributed some factors some roles in escalating the population growth, too?

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

does the population numbers also includes XIn Jiang?

No, Xing Jiang wasn't registered as a province at this date.

Quote

Could these newly conquered/acquired territories, like XIn Jiang, also contributed some factors some roles in escalating the population growth, too?

During the Qing all of conquered territories are still either protectorates or vassal states. Not registered provinces until the end of Qing. They do not make the population census.

[浪淘音]

Xinjiang still isn't technically a province, its an autonomous region 自治區

[YuenKamSiu]

According to late professor Fred W. Mote, China's population was CONSIDERABLY LARGER in the Ming than previously thought. In fact he estimates that the Ming's so called 100-150 million was actually more in the vicinity of 250-275 million. The idea of Qing population explosion is thus called into question. The Qing was merely a continuation of steady growth rather than a giant explosion.