JessicaPL

It is as Immanuel Hsu argues that ‘beneath the veneer of progress’, chiang kiashek and the nationalist governemtn made a trivial attempt at implementing Sun yat sens policy of the peoples livelihood in china during their decade of power, as there were ‘seroius fundemental problems’ within the nation. Sun was clear in the prospects he had of bring equality to the eighty per cent of the Chinese population who were peasants in areas such as transport and communication, finance, education and land ownership. Although chiang seemed to achieve a great deal within these specified areas within the Chinese economy, he was never fully devout on bringing about sun yat sens full revolution (as seen through his move away from democracy, to facism) and thus, never made any serious attempts of implementing the principle of equality. Chiang was not focused on pleasing the pesantry and as a result lost the ‘hearts and minds’ of eighty percent of china’s population, leading to sulfulfilling results. so who was he focused on pleasing and for what reason?
 * // To what extent did Chiang Kaishek implement the policy of People's Livelihood as outlined by Sun Yatsen in the period 1928 to 1937? //**

The new nationalist government seemed to be bringing about the priniple of improving peoples livelihood. They immeadiately devoted a large proportion of their expenditure towards developing infrastructure. The government firstly expanded the existing railway network by five thousand kilometres and then increased the length of sealed highways from 1000 to 115 703 kilometres by 1936. (good) However, unbeknown to the average chinese citizen, at first, these upgrades on transport were not for the betterment of their livelihoods, but instead, for the use of the growing military. As a result, when the people realised the intended use of these modes of transport, the great deal of economic stimulation which this expendicture was supposed to lead to, resulted in nothing. Additionally, although the 95000 kilometres of telegraph lines had been erected by 1936, this communication progress was too, only to improve military contact, as there was no effort to install lines in the rural areas of china. As a result, the peasantry had, on the whole, not at all benefited from the nationalist governments expenditure, which fronted as the begingings of implementing the primciple of the peoples livelihoods.

When the nationalists came into power in 1927, the chinese economy was in ruins and although they attempted to bring about change, the only advantages were felt by the gentry of china. In 1935, chiang replaced and nationalised the former varius currencies by a standard silver dollar with the hope of bring some current account stability. However, even with the four major banks organised with specific responsibilities on managing the economy, the government never found a fiscal surplus. Thus, as Hsu argues, the governemtn had “the chronic ill of deficit spending” which resulted in huge increases in inflation, bearing most heavily upon the poor (peasantry) of china. However, from first glances the chinese economy seemed to be favouring an uswing as from 1928-37 their GDP grew by an average of 6 per cent, per annum. On closer anylisis however, modern industry that was fueling this rapid pace of growth, was concentrated in coastal cities and was financed predominately, by foreign investment. Therefore, the governemtns foreign debt was continually increasing, pushing the economic problem further and further into an irreversible situation. Furthermore, these industry’s only employed an insignificant number of workers from the urban areas, thus, until the government did something to help the eighty per cent of people working on the country side, the economic stagnations was unlikely to improve.

Sun yat sen envisaged a china with universal education that would support the modernisation of their nation, and so too did the member of the new nationalist governemtn. Between 1935 and 1937 school enrolements rose by 10 million, as the government centralised education and created a compulsory national language. However, as with the rest of the changes chiang had made to china, the educational opportunites were unevenly distributed with all of the tertiary insitiutions based in major urban centres such as Beijing ans shanghai. As a result of the small opportunties given to the rural communities, total secondary education still only stood at 545207 in a population of 450 million. Furthermore, as the minority of people who were given the opportunity to go into tertiary education, graduated they tended to cluster in urban centres and as a result the traditional intellectual contempt for the peasant and for agriculture persisted. The illiteracy rate of the eighty per cent of the population who were pesants did not improve significantly and as a League of Nations report said “such an educational system is highly injurious to the masses..because a carefully educated social elite, not closely connected with the general needs, may become..enclosed within the narrow boundaries of its own interests.”

Although in most other areas of the economy, chaing and the nationalist governemtn did attempt to implement the policy of peoples livelihoods (however trivial those attempts may have been), they did not make any effort in redistributing the land amoungst the peasants. This was one of the changes sun saw as formidable in bringing about the priciple of equality for the people of china and without this fundemental amendment, none of the other areas which were altered, would have an impact on the peoples livelihoods. During the first five years of the nationalists authority, the peasants and their livelihood, agriculture, had been hot hard by natural disasters of famine and flooding. This increased poverty was then again struck by landlords forcing unrestricted high taxes on the peasants who would have no way of ever paying these debts off. During these times of hardship for the majority of the population, The nationalist government made offered little help to the millions who had lost their homes and crops. However, the government did seem to be moving in its direction when, in 1930, a law was passed limiting rents for land, but this statute was never put into practise. Thus, by 1937 the vast majority of chinas peasantry remained locked in poverty and ignorance. In spite of its high sounding promises, the nationalist government has turned its back on eighty per cent of its population. Therefore, it is evident that although chiang and the nationalist government did bring about changes to china, these were only to improve the living standards of the gentry who lived in the urban centres. There were no seroiuous attempts made by the government to implement suns principle of improving the Peoples livliehood, as chiang never focused on poverty stricken peasants. As a result, chiang and the nationalists lost their opportunity to win the support of eighty per cent on the population and as douglas Paaur argues, that these years (1928-1937) were “little more then a continuance of economic stagnation”  Hi Jessica This is a good start. Stylistically you need to keep your at least some of your sentences more concise and lessen their complexity. The level of historical detail is excellent. Your conclusion is really your introduction. However, this essay demonstrates you have a good level of understanding. Lets discuss some of the sentences and why your conclusion is your answer. Ms Lawrence