ElainePL

 Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalist government’s implementation the principle of People’s livelihood can be seen as a attempt that was limited, insufficient and in general an inadequate attempt to live up to the spirits of Sen Yat-sen. __**this is an impressive start - very strong**__
 * __To what extent did Chiang Kai-Shek implement the principles of people’s livelihood in the period 1928-1937? __**

Their failure can be seen as the result of a series of irresponsible economic policy and planning which further highlighted the class inequality between the bourgeois and 80% of the population which was consisted of exploited peasants. The Kuomintang’s approach to education and land reform should also be commented and regarded as a major contributor to the failure of implementing people’s livelihood, for they like the economic policies has further highlighted and invigorated the inequality in Chinese society in decades from 1928 to 1937. __**Modality - Can you back this up with strong evidence?**__ The most detrimental decisions of the new nationalist government can be seen in the irresponsible and ineffective economic planning of the Kuomintang. Despite the governments attempt to modernize and stimulate the economy through the ￥ 500 million Yuan investment through intercity infrastructure projects such as the Guangzhou-Hankou railway and increased lengths of the sealed highway and having the railway network expanded from 80 000 km in 1928 to 13 000 km in 1937, the policy was doomed for failure as it was purely for the use of the military. This did not allow the majority of the people which was consisted of 80% of peasants to develop and prosper by producing goods they have the most comparative advantage in and be transported into the market to be traded. The infrastructure projects has failed to stimulate the economy and improved the standards of living among the majority of the poverty stricken population. Instead, the Kuomintang has imposed harsh customs and tax rates on these already exploited peasants. This also leads to another failure to of the Chiang government – the failure to implement income tax. It subsequently resulted in a heavy reliance on customs, salt tax and contributed to a lack of stable source of revenue for government’s budget. This in turn minimizes the Kuomintang’s chances of having stable and secure source of funding to plan for the future development of the nation. In one extreme case in the Gansu province, despite the peasants coping with famine, the peasants were subjected to 44 taxes in the 1930s. This highlights the suppression the majority of the population was forced to endure and cope as a result of the defective economic planning and policies of the Kuomintang during their reign from the 1928-1937. Furthermore the Chinese industry at the time was also another major contributor to Chiang’s failed application of Sun Yat-sen’s principle of people’s livelihood. This can be seen in the overwhelming amount of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment), most prominently in their domination of Chinese natural reserves. When products such as coal and iron were extracted, the foreign firms become the profiteer and beneficiaries of resources and did little to boost the domestic economy. Such industries in mining and manufacturing have never employed more than 2 million people and produced no more than 10% of the Gross National Product. This demonstrates a case of underemployment in the Chinese labor force which was largely unskilled and uneducated. The presence of overwhelming amount of foreign occupation in pivotal industries does not only goes against the principle of the principles of people’s livelihood which Sun Yatsen promised to provide equality, food, shelter, clothing and shelter, however it stands against the Sun’s principles of nationalism. It should also be noted that only 70% of the population was employed in rural China, therefore consumer demand would be low and propensity to save would be high. This places the Chinese economy in a state of economic stagnation and in a downward spiral and would places a barrier for it achieve economic upturn, despite various government’s stimulus packages through investments in infrastructure, education, establishment of financial institutions… In addition, the effects of the failed economic policies, the lack of a stable source of government revenue, foreign occupation of natural resources and the high case of unemployment has resulted in the inequality between the vast majority of the Chinese population to the bourgeoisie and the landlords in the country. This can be seen in graphic account by the American journalist Edgar Snow of the poverty experienced by the rural Chinese. //“I saw a naked, twig armed child, his belly a balloon from a diet of twigs and sawdust. He was trying to shake life back into his naked father who had just died on the road…The shocking thing was that in many of those towns there were still rich men, rice hoarders, money lenders and landlords with armed guards to defend them while they profiteer.”// The journalist being of an American origin can contain traces of bias which diminishes the reliability of the source, The case of inequality can be seen as a result of the poor economic planning and greed of capitalist and the Kuomintang which not only defies against the Sun Yatsen’s three principles of equality which has promised the equal distribution of land to the peasants. Chiang’s failure to comply with the founding principles for the Republic of China has portrayed him and his party as a failed inherent of Sun Yatsen who is regarded the Father of the Nation. The unequal opportunities in education during the decade Kuomintang in power was another fundamental issue which caused the utter disregard for Sun Yatsen’s principle of people’s livelihood. This can be mostly predominately seen in the uneven distribution of tertiary placements. O the 103 tertiary institutions available during decade 1927-1938, 32 were in Beiping and Shanghai with remaining stationed in other urban centers. The vacancy for these institutions further confirms the unequal opportunities between the urban and the rural areas of China. In Shanghai a major the hub of trade and politics there were 213 places per 10 000 people, while in Shanxi there were a meager 4 places per 10 000 people. With the presence of such blatant inequality in education opportunities, it is not surprising that there were only 550 000 people educated in a population of 450 million. Chiang Kai-Shek’s years as the leader of the Republic of China can be seen as stunt of economic failure and social inequality. It can be seen as a disregard of the principles of Sun Yat-sen who’s ideals Chiang was supposed to have been followed and implemented. Chiang has led the party and the nation into a period economic downward spiral and failed to have catered for the needs of 80% of the population and has carried out measures in terms of their monetary and educational welfare, his disregard has resulted in further exploitation and inequality among the Chinese population. It is just as the historian Douglas Paaur dismisses that the Kuomintang’s years in power and rule of China was “little more than a continuance of economic stagnation”.

__**This is damning in the extreme. Your argument is clear however, it is perhaps lacking in balance if only slightly. I am impressed with your understanding thus far and your ability to integrate a high level of historical detail. I would also continue to reference our historians. You might however, be punished for the high level of modality in the work. Let's discuss.**__