Slaves were almost 12% of the population, poor serfs were over 47%, middle serfs were 22%.
81% of Tibet's population as of 1961 were slaves or serfs.
Table 2. “Class” Structure of the Population in Lhoka Prefecture, Tibet (1961)
“Class” Household % Population %
Serf-owner 152 0.4% 606 0.4%
Manager of serf-owner 1460 4.0% 8611 5.5%
Rich serf 1195 3.3% 8574 5.5%
Middel serf 5413 14.8% 34567 22.1%
Poor serf 18413 50.4% 74271 47.4%
Slave* 7245 19.8% 18251 11.7%
Herdsman** 2327 6.4% 10064 6.4%
Handicraftsman 130 0.4% 555 0.4%
Merchant 113 0.3% 438 0.3%
Vagrant 104 0.3% 510 0.3%
Total 36557 100.0 156447 100.0 * Many slaves were single; ** Herdsmen were not classified. Source: Labapingcuo, 1984:251.
1 Economic Patterns of the Tibet Autonomous Region: The Past and Present
1 Studies on Tibet have concentrated on the issues of history, religion, traditional culture, ethnic relations, Han in-migration, human rights, etc. (Pye, 1975; Dreyer, 1976; Grunfeld, 1987; Goldstein, 1989).
The pattern of Tibet's economy has received less attention than other issues.
Ethnic conflicts often arise from economic interests (Glazer and Moynihan, 1975:8), and religious groups might have their own economic interests and participate differently in economic affairs (Weber, 1963:223). Migration between regions where different ethnic groups are concentrated is also affected by the economic relationship between the regions (De Jong and Fawcett, 1981).
To understand the impact of social and economic structures on ethnic relations, we examine the Tibet’s economy, past and present, and place ethnic migration issues and the Han-Tibetan relationship in this economic context.
We focus on three sets of questions: 1. What are the major characteristics of the modern Tibetan economy? What were the economic relations between Tibet and the Han regions in the past?
How did these economic relations affect migration and ethnic relationships in Tibet? 2. What changes have occurred in Tibet's economy during the past three decades?
What are the major characteristics of the present economy in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR)? What is the impact of these changes on migration and Han-Tibetan relations?
3. What role have the central government and the Han played in Tibet's economy since 1959? The Tibetans who live outside the TAR2
The data and information were derived from several sources: (1) official statistics and census results released by the Chinese government; (
2) books and other materials on Tibet published in Chinese before and after 1949;
(3) articles published in Xizhang Yanjiu (Tibet Studies), a journal edited by the Tibet Academy of Social Sciences in Lhasa; and
(4) books on Tibet published in English.
Materials in Tibetan language were not covered have been under the administration of the respective provinces for a long time. They have been largely integrated into the local economies in these provinces for the most part, and we therefore focus only on the TAR. 3 .
The quality of census and government statistical data is questionable, but they are the only systematical economic data available. This study may be seen as a first step in an examination of the Tibetan economy, suggesting some propositions for further research.
1 This paper was originally published in Population, Ethnicity, and Nation-building, edited by Calvin Goldscheider (Westview Press, 1995), pp. 37-75.
This is a revised version.
2 According to the 1990 Census, the total population of ethnic Tibetans in China was 4.59 million. Of that number,
2.49 million lived outside TAR (CPIRC, 1991).
3 This study was carried out at Harvard University, the materials and data were obtained from several libraries at Harvard, but the Tibetan materials there were limited. Further research should include local economic records and other materials available in the Tibetan language in the TAR and at western university libraries.
2 I. The Theoretical Framework Based on the literature of migration and regional economic development (Goldlust and Richmond, 1974; Shaw, 1975; Todaro, 1985; and Hansen et al, 1990), an outline of a theoretical framework was designed to examine the factors affecting ethnic relationship in Tibet (Figure 1). In this model, the differences in social and economic systems (e.g. land ownership and management) and cultural aspects (e.g. religion and language) between two regions (Tibet and other areas in China) are assumed to affect the content and extent of administrative and social communications, economic exchanges (aid and trade), and migration (official exchanges, circular or settled merchants, labor migration) between these regions. Large differences in economic patterns may set limitations on trade and migration (Findley, 1977). People are less likely to migrate into a region where the social system, ownership system, and language are different from what they had been accustomed to in their locale. Social, economic and cultural differentials between two regions also might have an indirect impact on trade and migration through their influence on the attitudes and policies of regional authorities towards these activities. When geographic features (elevation, climate, humidity, natural resources) and life customs (diet, living conditions) are very different in two regions, and transportation conditions are also poor, trade and migration between these two regions will be affected (cf.Ma, 1987 for a similar migration scheme of Inner Mongolia). Influences of foreign governments Policy implication Administrative relationship, social communications, Social, economic, and economic exchanges cultural differentials Relationship between ethnic groups in Migration between two different regions Geographic, climate, regions (structure and differentials, occupations of migrants) transportation conditions Natural resources and employment opportunities Figure 1. Model for Examining the Factors Affecting Economic Exchanges and Migration between Ethnic Groups in Two Regions Economic opportunities, related to availability of natural resources in rural areas (cultivated land, grasslands, forest, mineral resources, etc.), and jobs in urban areas directly affect people's motivation to migrate. Policies of foreign governments, viewed as an intervening variable, sometimes may influence attitudes and policies of one region's local authorities towards the other regions with regard to trade and migration. Foreign countries, through their own trade activities with one or another region, may affect economic exchanges between these regions. Foreign governments also might use diplomatic pressure on a government to influence its domestic ethnic policies. 3 Administrative relationships, social communications, and economic exchanges between two regions also may be linked to inter-regional migration. The general relationship between two ethnic groups in different regions depends on administrative, social, and economic relations, as well as migration between the regions. We shall examine the range of factors in this model and their interrelationship to see how this model fits the Tibetan case. In his study of the Celts case in British islands, Michael Hechter (1975:6-8) proposed two models of national development to assess the relationship between the majority (core) region and the minority (periphery) region within a country: the diffusion model and the internal colonial model. The first assumes that under condition of equal rights for all groups, the social structure and economic patterns in the core region gradually will diffuse, or spread, into the peripheral region. In contrast, the internal colonial model assumes that the core region dominates the peripheries politically and exploits the population economically. As two models of long-term national development, they will be used to evaluate the socio-economic relationships between the TAR and other regions in China. II. Economy in Tibet before 1952 The Tibet Autonomous Region covers of 1.23 million square kilometers and is located on a high plateau averaging 3,600 meters above sea level in southwestern China. According to the national census, the total population in the TAR was 2.2 million in 1990 (CPIRC, 1991). It has a strong religious tradition (Tibetan Buddhism), and its special religion-related culture has lasted for centuries. In order to understand the basic economic patterns in the TAR, it is necessary to examine its main economic activities, its economic organization and productivity, its economic relations with other regions, the distribution of income and the use of its resources for economic activities. 1. Production and Trade. Agricultural and pastoral production. For centuries, agriculture and animal husbandry have been the major economic activities in Tibet. They provide food, clothing4 4 They were made of wool and leather. Cotton cloth has relied on imports. , raw materials for handicraft, and goods for trade. The Tsangpo River valley (around 3,500 meters above sea level with an annual average temperature of 4-10 degrees centigrade) is its main agricultural area. Most cultivated land in Tibet is located in river valleys. Northern and western Tibet are pastoral areas with very low population densities. In the north, some areas at the highest elevation (above 4,600 meters) are largely "uninhabited areas"(Figure 2). Generally, Tibet's geographic and climatic conditions set certain limitations on the development of agricultural production and on population distribution. 4 Figure 2. Location of Agricultural Areas in Tibet In 1952, there were 2.45 million mu of cultivated land in the TAR (1 mu = 0.165 acre) and grain production totaled 155,335 tons (Statistical Bureau of Tibet (SBT), 1989:211-218)5 . Major types of grain produced in Tibet are: barley, peas, buckwheat, etc. In the 1940s, it was estimated that barley comprised 70 percent (Wu, 1953: 113). Total population (including Chamdo District which became a part of the TAR in 1961) was 1.15 million in 19536 Before 1952, grain production in Tibet was generally at a self-sufficient level. Rice and wheat imports were very small and mainly consumed by aristocrats and wealthy Tibetans, as well as by merchants who had come from the Han regions and were not accustomed to the Tibetan diet (parched barley mixed with butter). . Therefore, grain production was approximately 135 kg per capita in 1952 (SBT, 1989:133). Of 9.7 million animals in the TAR in 1952, 2.25 million were yaks, 4.7 million sheep and 2.5 million goats (SBT, 1989:233). Most of these animals were located in the pastoral areas of northern and western Tibet. It is difficult to estimate the production of animal husbandry before 1952, but trade records reveal that animal husbandry provided most export products. Transportation and Communication. In 1950, there was no other place in the world "where no wheeled vehicles were used" and "principal rivers were unbridged", "for centuries, all transportation in Tibet was by porters and pack animals" (Karan, 1976:46). The first 600-kilowatt hydroelectric power plant in the TAR was established in Lhasa in 1956 (Karan, 1976:50)7 5 The total annual grain production was around 176,000 tons during the 1940s (Wu, 1953: 85). . Telephone and postal services have become available to the public only since the late 1950s (SBT, 6 In the first National Census (1953), the Tibet Government under the Dalai Lama reported one million Tibetans living in the Tibet Region. The Chamdo District under the control of the central government was reported to have 0.15 million population (Ma, 1988:4). 7 There was a small hydroelectric plant in Lhasa before 1950; it was used in the mint to make Tibetan currency. 5 1989:27). Handicraft. By modern standards, industrial production did not exist in Tibet before 1952. While the economy and finance in Tibet relied heavily on agriculture and animal husbandry, handicraft was the main non-agricultural production; only 6 percent of the total population was engaged in non-agricultural activities in 1952 (SBT, 1989:133)8 Trade. . The major handicraft products in Tibet were Pulu (a woolen fabric), Kadian (rugs), tents, wooden bowls, boots, knives, and jewelry (Lhapa Phuntso, 1984: 478). Except for local products such as wool, leather, and wood, handicraft production relied on the import of other raw materials (cotton cloth, silk, metal, etc.) from either nearby Han regions or India and Nepal. Other than some raw materials for handicraft production, daily consumer goods (tea, cotton cloth, china, and industrial products) were available only as imports. For centuries, "tea-horse trade" was the main form of trade between Tibet and other regions in China (especially Sichuan, Yunnan, and Gansu). Sichuan provided Tibet with tea, cotton cloth, silver, sugar and silk. Yunnan was the main area from which Tibetans bought tea and copper. Tibet provided the Han regions with wool, leather and musk. An estimate made by a British consul-general in Chengdu in the early twentieth century suggested that trade between Tibet and the Han regions was four times the trade between Tibet and India (Huang, 1982:50)9 . "Retingsang" (a company owned by regent Reting Rempoche)10 Trade between Tibet, India and Nepal was also important. The Yatung customs records and a Han company "Heng-Sheng-Gong" (from Yunnan province) controlled the tea trade between Sichuan and Tibet for decades. There were over two thousand Han trading companies and stores in Lhasa in the late Qing dynasty (Chen Fanzhou, et al, 1988:53). 11 indicate that annual export of wool to India reached 544 tons during 1895-1898 (Huang, 1982:49). Over 150 stores in Lhasa were owned by Nepalese in the 1940s (Wu, 1953:112). In tandem with the increasing influence of British India on Tibet around the beginning of this century, Yatung customs records also show a significant growth of trade between India and Tibet. The value of exports from Tibet to India increased from 131,548 rupees in 1889 to 805,338 rupees in 1902, while imports increased from 561,395 rupees in 1896 to 962,637 rupees in 189912 8 But it is not clear how monks were classified into its categories. . The value of imports was generally higher than that of exports (e.g. 962,637 rupees import compared to 822,760 rupees exports in 1899, Huang, 1982:48). 9 The value of goods transported from the Han regions to Tibet was 96,771 lb.t. (pound troy, 1 lb.t = 11.94 liang = 0.3732 kg.) of silver each year at the beginning of twentieth century, and the value of goods from Tibet to the Han regions was 85,887 pounds.t. of silver (Huang, 1982:51). 10 "Nearly half of Tibet's trade with India was carried on Siliguri-Kalimpong road (through Yatung)"(Karan, 1976:43). 11 It was one of three largest trading companies in Tibet (Goldstein, 1989:331). 12 The value of Rupee increased in 1900: 1 (British India) Rupee equalled 0.196 US gold dollar in 1897, (One Rupee equalledd 0.207 U.S. gold dollar in both 1898 and 1899) and it equaled 0.324 US gold dollar in 1900 and in 1903 (The World Almanac and Encyclopedia 1898 and volumes of the following years, see "money foreign"). The increasing value of Rupee shows a more significant growth of Tibet-India trade during the period. 6 Pastoral products comprised the major parts of the total value (822,760 rupees) of exports to India in 1899: they included wool (581,944 rupees), yak tails (42,628 rupees), horses and mules (31,823 rupees), and sheep leather (14,183 rupees). The above items comprised 81.5% of the total value of export goods. Musk, 14 percent of the total, is another major export good (116,024 rupees in 1899) (Huang, 1982:49). After the 1911 Revolution, with the encouragement of some foreign governments, the Dalai Lama government sought independence. The relationship between Tibet and China's central government deteriorated. Trade between Tibet and other regions in China decreased rapidly. One report estimated that in the 1930s wool exports from Tibet to India were about 1,500 tons, but wool exports to the Han provinces totally only 500 tons (Chen Fanzhou, 1988:55). 2. Economic and Social Systems in Tibet before 1952 It is clear that a very primitive agricultural production in Tibet (e.g. using wooden plough, threshing by yak tramping) supported a population of over one million. Over 10 percent were monks (114,103 monks in 1958, Liu Ruei, 1989:298)13. The army consisted of about 60,000 soldiers (Chen, 1937:134)14; and the government had several hundred officials15 The serf system dominated in Tibet for centuries (Goldstein, 1989:3-6). Three groups (government officials, nobles and monasteries) owned almost all cultivated land, most animals, and the serfs. Table 1 shows the structure of land ownership in Tibet in 1959. Self-employed peasants, who owned 0.3 percent of cultivated land, lived in areas bordering the Han regions; and most peasants were serfs without land. . The monasteries and government took most of the peasants' and herdsmen's products to support monks, nobles, officials and soldiers, and to maintain religious activities and the governmental administration. Table 1. Ownership of Cultivated Land in Tibet (1959) Land owner Cultivated land (acre) Percentage Government 160,976 38.9 Monasteries 152,286 36.8 Nobles 99,317 24.0 Self-employed 1,241 0.3 Total 413,820 100.0 13 In history, the number of monks was 316,231 in 1737, about 35 percent of the total population (Liu Ruei, 1989:35). Another study reported that this number of monks only included only those under the Gelugpa sect, and the total number of monks was about one half of the total population (Wang Sen, 1984:193). The Dalai Lama claimed to have 250,000 monks in Tibet in the 1950s (Le Figaro, Oct.5, 1982). 14 A much smaller number (6,500 soldiers) was reported to the central government in 1940 (Wu, 1953:75). Other reports based on Tibetan sources indicate that Tibetan army recruited 15,000 new troops in 1920 (Goldstein, 1989:84). The military budget was about 50 percent of the total government income during 1947-1950 (Lhapa Phuntso, 1987:344). 15 In the 1930s and 1940s, there were 200 lay officials and 230 monk officials in the government (Grunfeld, 1987:9). It should be noted that the numbers of monks, solders, and officials mentioned above are from different sources, so these numbers can be used only as references. 7 Source: Lhapa Phuntso, 1984:253. Lhoka prefecture is one of the major agricultural areas in Tibet (Figure 2). The population structure by "class" before "land reform" in 1961 is shown in Table 2. A group of "rich serfs" ("tsampa") who worked on "Cha-gang" land provided a certain amount of labor service, products and money to estate-owners each year. They might own their tools and some animals, but they were not allowed to leave the land. Most serfs in this group worked on lands directly owned by the government. Serfs who worked for nobles and monasteries were usually poorer. Poor serfs and slaves comprised about 60 percent of the total population in this prefecture. Another source provides a similar social structure: nobility (5 percent), clergy (15 percent), herdsmen (20 percent), and serfs (60 percent) (Grunfeld, 1987:13). Table 2. “Class” Structure of the Population in Lhoka Prefecture, Tibet (1961) “Class” Household % Population % Serf-owner 152 0.4 606 0.4 Manager of serf-owner 1460 4.0 8611 5.5 Rich serf 1195 3.3 8574 5.5 Middel serf 5413 14.8 34567 22.1 Poor serf 18413 50.4 74271 47.4 Slave* 7245 19.8 18251 11.7 Herdsman** 2327 6.4 10064 6.4 Handicraftsman 130 0.4 555 0.4 Mechant 113 0.3 438 0.3 Vagrant 104 0.3 510 0.3 Total 36557 100.0 156447 100.0 * Many slaves were single; ** Herdsmen were not classified. Source: Labapingcuo, 1984:251. Serf-owners and managers working for serf owners comprised 6 percent of the population, while self-employed handicraftsmen and merchants comprised 1 percent. Thus, only 7 percent of the total population was free. There were 195 noble families throughout Tibet in 1959, and some were rich and powerful (Lhapa Phuntso, 1984:242-245). "On large estates owned by monasteries and noblemen, agriculture had slumped through centuries of neglect and the failure to make permanent improvements of the cropland by the theocratic feudal owners" (Karan, 1976:81). 3. The Role of Monasteries in Administration and Economy The regime in Tibet before 1952 was a combination of religious institutions and civil administration. "One of the most unusual aspects of the Tibetan polity was the dual systems where every lay official had a clerical counterpart" (Grunfeld, 1987:9). Religious organizations controlled the whole society. Not only had the Dalai Lama become the ultimate ruler of Tibet, but the positions of both Lonchen ("primer minister") and the chief officials at the prefecture level were also restricted to monk officials. During the spring religious ceremony, the administration in Lhasa was directly under the control of the Drepung monastery. Large monasteries had their own military forces and had often been 8 involved in power struggles (Lhapa Phuntso, 1984:309). Tibetan civilization, including its philosophy, art, medicine, astronomy, and literature, has been based on Tibetan Buddhism. Education had mainly been carried out within monasteries16 In 1959, three famous "seat" monasteries (Drepung, Sera and Ganden) owned 18,435 acres of cultivated land, 110,000 animals, and 40,000 serfs (Lhapa Phuntso, 1984:243-244) . Visitors to Lhasa obtained the strongest impression from its religious atmosphere (Chapman, 1940). In 1952, of an urban population of 37,000in Lhasa, 16,000 were monks (People's Daily, April 17, 1991). 17 According to an incomplete record, the Dalai Lama's loan office loaned 254,488 lb.t. silver in 1950 and collected interests of 27,961 lb.t. silver. The total amount of grain loaned by Drepung monastery was over 80,000 tons in 1952 (Ya, 1988). A general interest rate for loans from monasteries was about 25 percent and for loans from nobles about 20 to 25 percent . Usually, the serfs of monasteries were required to give over 70% of their harvest to the monasteries (Huang, 1983:12). Monasteries controlled estates, serfs, and handicraft workshops, and also engaged in trade and loan business. All large monasteries had their own organizations (Lab-rang) which engaged in trade affairs (Bell, 1928:125). 18 Although monasteries were very rich, they provided only limited supplies to ordinary monks (Goldstein, 1989:34-35). Monasteries and monks received a large amount of money and items from pilgrims, and many monks actually lived on these items. Most of these pilgrims were serfs and herdsmen. In the 1950s, the Drepung monastery's annual income from pilgrims included 25,963 lb.t. of silver . The interest earned comprised 25 to 30 percent of the total income of the three "seat" monasteries and about 11.5 percent of the total income of the local government (Lhapa Phuntso, 1984:284-285). 19 Several records exist about income of the Tibetan government and its use. A document sent to the Qing emperor in 1795 reported that "the Tibetan government at Potala Palace has, besides the income in terms of items (barley, animals, butter, etc.), an annual cash income around 127,000 Liang silver (10,637 pounds.t.). But their expenses of 143,600 Liang exceeded this income: 79,000 Liang was for the main religious ceremony in January and February, 39,200 Liang for monthly religious rituals, and 24,400 Liang to buy grain, medicine and other items for monks. The shortage was subsidized by the Qing government" (Wu, 1953:85). The income and expenses of the Tashilhunpo monastery under the Panchen Lama had a similar ratio: 66,900 Liang silver income compared to , 13.75 tons of barley and 106.25 tons of butter (Huang, 1983:12). After making their contribution to serf-owners, government and monasteries, the serfs and herdsmen still had to live at subsistence level. 16 Until 1050, "there were no schools for the populace. The only schooling available to a young man was in the monasteries" (Karan, 1976:13). There were also several private schools in Lhasa, mainly for nobles' children (Goldstein, 1989:7). For detailed information on education in Tibet in the 1940s, see. Wu, 1953:90-94 and Liu Ruei, 1989:301. 17 Drepung monastery alone had 185 estates, 20,000 serfs, 300 pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen (Goldstein, 1989:34). 18 The annual interest rate of the usury arranged by three famous monasteries was somewhere between 30 to 50 percent. For small amounts, interest sometimes reached 100 or 150 percent (Zhou, 1984:44). 19 1 pound (lb.t.) = 11.94 Liang = 0.3732 kg. 9 74,600 Liang expenses (Zhang, 1983:35). Sir Charles Bell cited the financial records of the Tibetan government in 1917. The Lhasa civil government received 720,000 pounds (in British currency) in that year while the church (Potala Palace) received 800,000 pounds. The government gave the church an additional 274,000 pounds from its own funds (Bell, 1946:165-166)20. Another study reported that local governments at Zhong (county) level also gave 50 to 60 percent of their annual income to the monasteries each year (Zhou, 1985:43). Therefore, the Potala and the monasteries were the main wealth collectors through direct taxes from estates and contributions from government and pilgrims. Most of the wealth in Tibet was used for religious activities. 4. Major Characteristics of Tibet's Economy before 1952 Generally, the characteristics of Tibet's economy before 1952 can be summarized as follows: 1. Tibet had a primitive agricultural economy using manpower, animal power and primitive tools. Generally, there was no modern industry, transportation or electricity and no application of modern science and technology in production and consumption. Handicraft and trade were at a very primitive level (small workshops, street peddlers, and transportation by porters and yaks) and there was a very low level of urbanization21 2. Both agricultural and pastoral production in valley areas with a relatively high population density were controlled by monasteries, the government, and nobles under a serf system, with some variations (some serfs were allowed to keep a higher proportion of their products than others, while there were some slaves). There was a looser control on herdsmen who lived in remote pastoral areas and some of them even lived within a tribal society . 22 3. Tibet had a self-supporting agricultural production; it exported mainly wool and other pastoral products in order to import tea, cotton cloth, metal, and other necessities for daily consumption and handicraft production. . 4. Religious groups (or more precisely, senior monks on behalf of monasteries) were very powerful. Monks comprised over 10 percent of the total population of Tibet and over one-half of the urban population in the 1950s23 Examining the use of societal wealth in Tibet helps place into context the nature of Tibet's economy and production. A small part of Tibet’s products was used to keep serfs and herdsmen alive. Most wealth, which was collected through different channels, was . Monasteries controlled the government and economy, owned over one-third of cultivated land, many pastures and a large number of serfs and slaves. 20 In the 1940s, the annual income of the Tibet government included: barley (750 tons), butter (363 tons), tea (183 tons), cash (7 million Liang silver) (Wu, 1953:86). 21 Urban population comprised 7 percent of the total in 1958, and most urban population lived in Lhasa (Liu Ruei, 1989:184). 22 The Xiang administration was first established in 1985 in these areas (People's Daily, July 9, 1990). 23 Among the total 50,000 to 60,000 urban population in Lhasa in the 1950s, there were 30,000 to 40,000 monks and 20,000 residents (Liu Ruei, 1989:69). 10 used for very costly annual rituals. The expenses for the January and February rituals in Lhasa were about 62 percent of the total annual income of the Dalai Lama's government in the eighteenth century (Wu, 1953:85)24. Millions of butter lamps burning day and night in about three thousand monasteries25. Other funds were used to support the monks and their activities. In the 1950s, on average, two households were needed to support one monk (Liu Ruei, 1989:298)26 The Tibetan government and its army also needed support. Because more than half of the government officials were monks, and lay officials obtained their reward mainly from the estate appointed to them, the administrative budget in Tibet was relatively small before 1952. While half of the government's income went to monasteries, the other half was used to support its army. In large part, the economy in Tibet before 1952, therefore, can be called a "monastery economy". . More than half the income of the Tibetan government also went to monasteries. Finally, a large amount of gold and silver collected by monasteries was melted down and made into Buddha statues or to decorate towers containing the corpses of senior incarnated monks. Following this tradition, the central government recently provided over 600 kg. of gold and over 500 kg. of silver to decorate the tower of the tenth Penchen Lama, and another 64 million yuan to build a 33 meter-high temple for this tower (Chinese Tibet, spring issue, 1990). A huge amount of money was also used to build and maintain thousands of monasteries. Some of them were very large, e.g., Drepung monastery had 10,000 monks in 1951 (Goldstein, 1989:25). Generally, Tibetan society before 1952 can be compared with the European Middle Ages. In both, "the great religions prospered and overwhelmed the masses. Hierarchies in both the organized Christian Church in Europe and Lamaist monasteries in Tibet played a major role in society and in the government of the two areas. The Middle Ages in Europe were followed by the Renaissance, …… In Tibet no comparable renaissance occurred. The hierarchies of the Gelugpa sect, the Dalai Lamas, continued to maintain a monastic monarchical state from 1578 until ... 1951" (Karan, 1976:12). 5. Relationship between Tibet and the Han Regions before 1952 Administrative, social and economic relationships between the Han regions and Tibet, therefore, were established under these historical conditions. The geographic features and poor transportation conditions made social, economic and cultural exchanges between Tibet and other areas very difficult. The landlord-tenant system in the Han regions was very different from serfdom, and Han farmers could not obtain or rent land from estate owners in Tibet. In contrast to Tibet, there was a multi-religion system in other regions of China: Taoism, Mahayana Buddhism27 The relation between Tibet and the Han regions before 1952 seems to fit the first stage , Christian religious groups had limited influence on administration of other areas of China. 24 In the 1950s, the January ritual cost about 0.62 million yuan each year (Kuang, 1990:146). 25 There were 2,711 monasteries in 1958 (Liu Ruei, 1989:298). A report to the Qing emperor in 1737 mentioned that there were 3,477 monasteries in Tibet at that time (Zhang Yuxin, 1983:34). 26 In the eighteenth century, each household had to support 2.5 monks (Zhang Yuxin, 1983:34). 27 Mahayana Buddhism is different from Tibetan Lamaism (see Karan, 1976:65-67). 11 of the "diffusion model" quite well. "The core and periphery regions exist in virtual isolation from one another. Events in the core have but slight influence in the periphery, …... and there are many significant differences in their economic, cultural, and political institutions" (Hechter, 1975:7). Because social, economic and cultural systems in Tibet were very different from those in the Han regions, and communication and transportation conditions were so poor, the policy goal of the Qing dynasty was limited to maintaining the subordination of Tibet. This was the main function of its two commissioners (ambans) and troops28 The main official economic relationship between the emperors in central China and the Dalai Lama's government was described as "tribute and reward" (Huang, 1988). Besides a large amount of tea, the trade taxes collected in western Sichuan had also been rewarded to the Dalai Lama each year during the Qing dynasty (Zhang, 1983:32). A document signed by the Qing emperor (Qian-Long) announced that the empire would "exempt Tibetans from imperial taxes" and "all the taxes and fines collected by the local government in Tibet should be used for religious rituals and local administration" (Zhang, 1983:32). in Lhasa. "There can be no question regarding the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China following the chaotic era of the sixth and seventh Dalai Lamas in the first decades of the eighteenth century" (Goldstein, 1989:44). According to the documents and materials released by the Chinese government, Tibet has been a part of China since the 13th century (Lhapa Phuntso, 1984:111). The commissioners in Lhasa were also responsible for arranging trade between Tibet and other regions. This trade had often been regulated by an administrative system. For example, three times during the period of the Qian-Long emperor (A.D.1736-1795), the Tibetan government bought copper from Yunnan through the Chinese commissioners in Lhasa. When the Yunnan governor (Li Sirao) refused to provide copper to Tibet in 1779, the Dalai Lama complained through the commissioners, and Qian-Long formally rebuked this governor (Chen Fanzhou, 1988:54). The Han regions in China have been major partners of Tibet in the exchange of goods (Bell, 1928:12) 29 During 1911 to 1950, the Tibetans who lived outside the present TAR (Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan claimed about one-half the total Tibetan population in China) were still under the administration of these respective provinces, even as the Dalai Lama severed the relationship with the central government. These Tibetans’ economic activities were integrated into the local economy and their relations with the Dalai Lama were mainly religious. . Even though relations between Tibet and the central government worsened after the 1911 revolution, trade between Tibet and the Han provinces continued. The records show that during 1929 to 1938, the tea sold and transported into Tibet from a single county (Fohai) in Yunnan was about 634 tons each year (Tan Fangzi, 1940). Trade was the major economic link between Tibet and other regions in China. Special economic systems (estate, serfdom) made it impossible for Han in-migrants to engage in 28 There were 1,000 Han and Mongolian soldiers in Lhasa in 1792 (Chen Jiafu, 1937:12). 29 "Tibetan civilization and culture of the present day are largely due both to China and India; to the latter for the religious side, to the former in the main for the material side" (Bell, 1928:12). 12 agriculture and animal husbandry in Tibet. The geographic features of the plateau (high elevation, rarefied air, mountains, etc.) limited the volume of trade and migration between Tibet and other regions. The Han and members of other ethnic groups in Tibet (e.g. Manchu, Hui)30 included officials and troops sent by the central government (about 1,000 before 1911, and a few officials remained in Lhasa after 1911); merchants in cities and towns, and handicraftsmen and gardeners31. Although their total number was several thousand and comprised only a very small percentage of the population in Tibet, they maintained administrative, social, economic, and cultural relations between Tibet and other parts of China. After the Kuomintang government's failure in the civil war, the Dalai Lama government expelled most Han officials from Lhasa in 1949. III. Major Changes in Tibet's Economy Since 1959 The Communist Party won the civil war in 1949. After a battle in Chamdo, the "Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" (17-Point) was signed by the central government and the Dalai Lama's government in 1951. The Dalai Lama agreed to carry out social reform and to help the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops enter Tibet, while the central government agreed not to change the social and economic systems (serfdom and estate systems) by force (Karan, 1976:90). The Chinese central government became a key factor in Tibet once again. During 1952-1959, the basic situation in Tibet did not change very much. However, "land reform" brought some social and economic changes to the Chamdo District, which was under the direct control of the central government. The industrial productive value which was mainly produced by the factories located in Chamdo, reached 1.7 million yuan in 1956 and 53.3 million yuan in 1959 (SBT, 1989:84). The main social and economic changes in the TAR occurred after 1959. 1. Reform of Social and Economic Systems In 1959, serfdom was abolished and monasteries lost their administrative power. In the "land reform" of 1959 to 1960, all serfs and slaves were liberated and land and animals were distributed among serfs, herdsmen and slaves. During 1965 to 1975, the commune system was gradually established in most rural areas in the TAR (Lhapa Phuntso, 1984:455-459). In the 1980s, the household responsibility system was introduced, and land and animals were redistributed among peasants and herdsmen. An administrative network (government, social organizations, party organizations, and urban neighborhood committees) as well as other systems (education, health care, welfare, and resident registration) were established in the TAR, based on models in other Han regions. Therefore, the social and economic systems in the TAR were becoming the same as those in 30 There were several hundred Hui in Lhasa before 1952, living in a neighborhood (He-Ba-Lin) near the Jokang. A study reported that about 1,000 Hui went into exile in 1959 (Fang Jianchang, 1988:109-112). 31 There were also some Han handicraftsmen and gardeners (planting vegetables) in Tibet (Bell, 1928:31), but no data on their numbers are available. 13 other regions of China, influenced by all the policy changes of the central government. Tibetans suffered as other ethnic groups did during the "Cultural Revolution", and they are also benefiting from new policies of the recent "system reform" (cf. Goldstein and Beall, 1990). This reform period is similar to the second stage of the "diffusion model": through equal rights and development programs (education, health care, and most important, industrial production), the social and economic structures of the core gradually diffused into the peripheral region. 2. The Role of Monasteries in TAR after 1959 In 1959, many monks went in exile to India with the Dalai Lama32 The situation began to change after 1980. The government has reemphasized religious freedom and tried to recover damage done during the "Cultural Revolution". Many monasteries were rebuilt and the number of monks increased rapidly, to 6,466 monks and 234 monasteries respectively by 1986. The newest report indicates that there were 34,680 monks in the TAR in 1990, a five-fold increase within four years (People's Daily, January 17, 1991). Religion again has wide influence, even among Tibetan cadres and intellectuals (MacInnis, 1989:187). Since 1959, monasteries had lost their traditional power in both the economy and administration; they lost most of their estates, serfs, slaves and high positions in government. However, along with the increased number of monks there has been a request from these monasteries for more power. . The number of monks and monasteries in Tibet then decreased significantly: there were 114,103 monks and 2,711 monasteries in 1958, but only 18,104 monks and 370 monasteries in 1960. In 1976, after the "Cultural Revolution", only 800 monks and 8 monasteries were left (Liu Ruei, 1989:298). Because the income of peasants and herdsmen increased significantly in the past decade33, they have increased their support of monasteries and monks. A study in 1988 reported that the average annual income obtained from donations was 1,000 to 1,300 yuan per monk in Lhasa's monasteries, three times the peasants' and herdsmen's incomes. The TAR government also gives a "salary" to monks and provides subsidies to monasteries as its payment to government employees and monks in other Han regions34. 3. Production Also, an effective road network has been established, 22,391 km in 1995, compared with 7,343 km in 1959. There were 29,403 cars and trucks and 10,556 tractors in the TAR in 1995 (SBT, 1996: 255). The power of agricultural machinery in TAR is close to the national level of China. It reached 684 million watts in 1995, about 290 watts per capita, 32 It was estimated that total Tibetan refugees who went to India in exile in 1959 were about 50,000 to 55,000, including 5,000 to 6,000 monks (Grunfeld, 1987:187). 33 The net income per capita was 397 yuan in 1990 for the rural population in the TAR, about 2.3 times their income in 1978 (People's Daily, Nov.14, 1990). 34 All monks officially registered in monasteries and temples in China have a salary system, with ranks parallel to cadres in administration; their salaries are paid by the government. It is not a joke, therefore, to ask how many "bureau-director rank" monks and "section-director rank" monks there are in a monastery. 14 (SBT, 1996:168). Chemical fertilizer and other techniques for improving production are commonly used in rural areas in the TAR (8.3 kg chemical fertilizer per capita in 1995). With improved transportation conditions, the introduction of machinery and new technology, the value of agricultural production in the TAR increased four-fold in the past three decades. The increases in the main items in both agricultural and industrial production are shown in Table 3. Cultivated land increased from 2.45 million mu in 1952 to 3.34 million mu in 1995; grain production increased from 80 kg./mu in 1952 to 253.6 kg./mu in 1995, or 135 kg. per capita in 1952 compared to 305 kg. per capita in 1995 (SBT, 1996:173-175). The number of animals increased from 9.74 million in 1952 to 23.79 million in 1995, about 10 animals per capita. Agricultural and industrial production has increased faster than population growth. Table 3. Major Indexes of the TAR’s Economy 1952 1959 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Population (10,000) 115 122 135 151 169 185 199 218 236 Agri-production (mil yuan) 143.1 144.2 264.2 280.3 340.3 532.2 1088.8 1950.2 3589.6 Grain production (1000 ton) 155.3 182.9 290.7 294.9 445.8 505.0 530.7 608.3 719.6 Live-stock (10,000) 974 956 1701 1919 2117 2348 2179 2251 2379 Indu-production (mil. yuan) - 43.4 23.5 37.3 113.1 148.9 212.5 372.0 908.2 Cr ore (1000 ton) - - - 0.3 0.2 50.3 14.1 93.1 109.9 Coal (1000 ton) - 45.8 19.7 9.4 61.9 29.8 29.8 9.0 8.9 Lumber (10000 cubic meter) - 6 8 7 17 21 21 20 16 Knitting wool (ton) - - - - 353 371 146 72 89 Cement (1000 ton) - - 11 4 34 52 47 132 220 Source: Labapingcuo, 1984: 63, 84, 218, and 233; SBT, 1996: 172, 179, 197, 200-204. Many factories also have been established in Tibet since 1959, but the development of industry in the TAR has a tortuous history. It tried to follow the industrial structure and development plans of other regions, ignoring the actual situation in the TAR (scarcity of fuel, high expenses of transportation, and inexperienced local laborers). Many factories established in the TAR rapidly acquired a financial deficit and became a burden on the government. So, the value of industrial production of state-owned enterprises first increased to 117.3 million yuan in 1960, then decreased to 11.9 million yuan in 1968. The adjusted value of industrial production increased to 908.2 million yuan in 1995. (SBT, 1996:195). In contrast to the situation before 1952, the conditions for economic development in the TAR (systems and organizations, channels of funds, technology, and supplies) are now similar to those in other regions. By national standard, the TAR is still the least developed area in China. 4. Income and Welfare Since the social and economic reform in the 1980s, people's income in the TAR increased significantly. For employees of state-owned enterprises (which comprises 82 percent of the total urban laborers in 1988, SBT, 1989:164), the average annual salary income per capita increased from 854 yuan in 1978 to 7,572 yuan in 1995 (SBT, 1996:71) 15 (1 US dollar = 8.27 Chinese yuan in 1998), and average annual welfare per capita (including health care, pension, and labor protection) increased from 161 yuan in 1983 to 583 yuan in 1988 (SBT, 1989:499). In 1988, average annual income per capita for state-owned enterprises was 1,810 yuan, and welfare was 537 yuan in China (SBC, 1990:101-151). Meanwhile, average annual income per capita was 1,211 yuan for urban residents in Tibet (SBT, 1989:521) and 1,192 yuan in China as a whole (SBC, 1989:726). The income level in urban areas in the TAR is higher than the national level of China35 Te average annual "pure income" per capita was 374 yuan in 1988 and 1,200 yuan in1995 for rural residents in the TAR (SBT, 1989:517, 1996:142) . 36 Generally, Tibet seems to have reached, or closely approached the last stage of the "diffusion model". . Average annual pure income per capita was 545 yuan in 1988 and 1,578 yuan in 1995 for rural residents in China (SBC, 1989:719; 1996: 279). But considering free health care, free education and other welfare programs in Tibet, which cover a very large proportion of the rural population, then rural income differences between the TAR and the Han regions are not significant. The rural-urban income difference is greater in the TAR than the Han regions. 5. Trade: Economic Exchanges of TAR with Other Regions Data in Table 4 show the growth of retail sales within the TAR during 1978-1995. Four trends are noteworthy: 1. Sales of consumer goods increased much faster than that of productive materials during 1978-1988 (4.3 times compared to 1.3 times). As a region, the TAR is becoming a consumptive unit rather than a productive unit. After 1990, production increased faster. For the period of 1978-1995, consumer good retails increase 10 times while total value of agricultural-industrial production increased 8.2 times. 2. Sales in urban areas increased faster than that in rural areas (8.9 times compared to 6.8 times). The urban sector expanded rapidly in the TAR but actually produced very little. All economic activities that have taken place in the urban sector (industrial production, construction, trade, etc.) have had huge deficits. Table 4. Total Retail Sales in TAR (in million yuan) 1978 1980 1983 1985 1990 1992 1995 By object: agri-prod materials 62.9 73.9 48.0 150.3 193.0 161.2 consumer goods 244.8 286.9 393.9 949.8 1287.0 1522.7 2449.6 1. to residents: 210.0 249.4 338.5 751.1 887.0 1032.3 2. to units: 34.8 37.0 55.4 198.7 400.0 490.4 By rural-urban: (consumer) rural areas: 142.5 165.1 229.2 501.9 710.4 680.6 979.9 35 Because of long-distance transportation, the prices of many consumer goods in TAR are little higher than those in other regions although the government pays a large subsidies in controlling market prices. 36 According to the definition of SBC: "pure income" of rural residents = total annual income － productive expenses － tax － depreciation of fixed productive assets － contract contribution － survey subsidy (SBC, 1989:759). 16 urban areas: 165.1 195.6 212.7 598.2 769.6 1003.2 1469.8 Total retail sales 307.6 360.7 441.9 1100.2 1480.0 1683.8 Source: Statistical Bureau of TAR, 1989: 422; 1993: 349; 1996: 273. 3. The percentage of consumer goods sold to units (work units related to the government, distinguished from individual customers) increased very quickly during 1978-1988 (12.8 times compared to 3 times for individual customers). These work units bought 42 percent of consumer goods, even though employees of these units only comprise 7 percent of the total population. 4. Accompanying the new economic policies which began in 1980 was the development of collective and private business. Among the total value of social retail in 1995, 53% was managed by private retail stores (SBT, 1996:274). Data in Table 5 document that the value of goods imported from other regions increased very rapidly (e.g. from 7.1 million yuan in 1955 to 390.9 million yuan in 1988). The value of goods exported to other regions also increased, from 0.8 million yuan in 1959 (the first year of export) to 58.4 million yuan in 1988. The difference in import and export of the TAR to other regions in China reached 332.5 million yuan in 1988; export was only 13 percent of the total import-export value. Table 5. Purchase and Sales of State-owned Trade Institutions (in 10,000 yuan) Bought from individuals Imported from other regions Imported from other countries Sold within TAR Exported to other regions Exported to other countries 1951-1955 278 708 1576 3880 - - 1956-1960 1545 16767 1916 19737 332 123 1961-1965 5380 35315 1030 46814 5910 388 1966-1970 4620 41035 556 60403 5862 222 1971-1975 13020 66868 648 92829 9963 518 1976-1980 26894 103799 1597 163183 14867 697 1981-1985 36448 190383 6024 254884 13125 3169 1986-1990 148522 258111 19980 320910 17844 19348 1992 85577 50016 24425 150675 14939 10466 1995 28784 24952 Source: Statistical Bureau of TAR, 1989: 425; 1993: 354; 1996: 281. The structure of goods imported and exported in TAR is shown in Table 6. Transportation records indicate that grain and oil are the two major food and fuel imports. Consumer goods (industrial products, cloth, and sugar) and "distributive goods", which were bought by the government and distributed directly to government units outside trade channels, include construction materials and equipment that are another two major categories. Pastoral products and traditional medicine (caterpillar fungus, musk, etc.) are still the main goods for export along with chromium ore and timber. Table 6. In- and Out-Transportation of Goods in TAR (ton) 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 In-transportation: consumer goods 16300 17569 13000 27940 44700 42100 37595 13356 grain 9053 16259 3510 13056 34700 39400 95480 70272 oil 19451 22547 18068 59407 79200 92300 107880 7201 17 distributed goods 3452 10760 6600 26898 41500 77700 87126 31101 others 14244 9465 940 23398 34398 231900 34824 20172 Total 62500 76600 42118 150699 234400 483400 362905 181906 Out-transportation: pastoral product - - 1768 5631 4200 3300 1399 7533 Cr ore - - 924 - 22500 43800 73908 69871 lumber - - - 1566 900 - 8987 37659 others - - 1602 19541 14900 19500 17632 3060 Total - - 4294 27638 42500 66600 107746 135510 Source: Statistical Bureau of TAR, 1989: 343-344, 441-442; 1996: 256. 6. International Trade and Tourism in TAR There has been very limited foreign influence on the economy of the TAR since 1959. International trade only comprised a small proportion of total trade in the TAR with other regions. The total value of international trade in the TAR was 64.73 million U.S. dollar in 1995 (34.68 million U.S. dollar imports, 30.05 million U.S. dollar exports, plus 5.79 million U.S. dollar border trade) (SBT, 1996:281). Although the income from tourism increased from 1.8 million yuan in 1984 to 213.8 million yuan in 1995, it comprised about 5.6 percent of the total annual income of the TAR government. 7. Income and Expenses of the TAR Government In sharp contrast to the slow growth of production, there has been a rapid growth in the financial deficits of the TAR government since 1970s. From the data in Table 7 it is clear that industry, trade and grain management (buying grain and other consumer goods from other regions and selling them to the residents in the TAR) in Tibet were major sources of deficit for the government. Until 1988, the deficit of enterprises had been higher than the sum of tax and other local income. The deficit of local enterprises and local income (mainly tax) became balanced in 1988 (Table 7). Table 7. Income of TAR Government (10,000 yuan) 1952 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Local income of TAR 1. enterprise: (1) industry - 3222 124 -230 122 -537 -2647 - - (2) construction - 69 -24 -69 -27 74 184 - - (3) agriculture - 43 6 -1084 476 -1432 -47 - - (4) post, transport - 2773 -146 -1844 -2421 -3029 -1816 - - (5) grain, trade - - -221 -268 -3098 -1904 -6406 - - (6) others 4 35 -83 -390 -174 -1596 -816 - - subtotal 4 6143 -343 -3885 -5122 -8254 -11548 -16766 1223 2. tax 137 1316 1208 1187 1953 2030 4544 13694 20922 3. others 118 2360 881 556 184 251 967 1263 -645 4. depreciation - 342 493 - - - - - - Total 258 10161 2239 -2142 -2985 -5973 -6037 1809 21500 Financial aid from the central government 1047 2725 11805 18345 29179 60104 105772 124389 313440 Total income of TAR 1305 12886 14044 16203 26194 54131 99735 126198 376088 % of aid in total TAR income 80.2 21.1 84.1 113.2 111.4 111.0 106.1 98.6 83.3 Source: Statistical Bureau of TAR, 1989: 470-471; 1996: 111-112. 18 Meanwhile, expenses of the TAR government have increased rapidly. In 1995, the local income of the TAR government was only 215 million yuan, the expenses were 3,487.5 million yuan. So, the subsidy of 3134.4 million yuan from the central government (83.3% of the income of the TAR in 1995) was essential in maintaining the TAR government and its economy. Of the TAR government's total income during 1952 to 1959, 89 percent was financial aid from the central government. In the 1960s, financial aid as a portion of the TAR government was 84.3 percent; it increased to 106.7 percent in the 1970s and 105.7 percent in the 1980s (it was over 100 percent because sometimes it also covered the deficit of local production) (SBT, 1989: 470). In order to understand the new characteristics of the TAR's economy, it will be helpful to examine the sources of the deficit of the TAR government. The structure of the annual expenses of the TAR is shown in Table 8. During 1960 to 1995, administration expenses increased 36.9 times; expenses of "cultural units" (including education, health care, scientific research, sports, etc.) increased 101 times; 37 One of the major sources of financial deficits in the TAR is administration. The number of government employees increased rapidly from 40,487 in 1959 to 178,433 in 1980 as the highest, then maintain around 150,000 in the 1980s and 1990s. Bank records in the TAR show that, in 1988, cash withdrawal for the "salary of the employees of state-owned institutions" was 1412 million yuan, cash withdrawal for "bonus to the employees of state-owned institutions" was 71.9 million yuan (Table 9). The sum of these two items, 1,484 million yuan, was about 42.6 percent of the total expenses of the TAR government in 1995. Considering the additional expenses for their housing, transportation (including Hans' return to place of origin for vacation), and these employees actually consumed a very large proportion of the government's money. and funds for improving agriculture only increased 8.7 times. Table 8. Expenditure of TAR Government (10,000 yuan) 1952 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1995 administration 712 1843 2899 2494 3873 7599 13249 25171 25665 34278 68051 cultural units 206 595 1268 1062 3430 7692 17099 31111 33823 41125 60202 industrial units 22 262 531 524 2805 6130 10903 13512 17409 9544 18239 agriculture - 1362 1452 1190 1785 1446 6077 5829 7493 18795 11845 urban maintain 3 24 39 100 50 273 1933 2038 1932 1566 2099 industrial subsidy - 1361 1452 1190 2012 2245 7148 1054 1443 2354 1753 construction 28 7510 3648 4619 8164 15716 34241 14651 25920 36817 80222 prospecting - 172 114 192 1865 189 698 575 - - 817 welfare 2 26 192 104 249 1532 1391 3619 3809 5434 7673 price subsidy - - - - - - 2239 5442 5291 7886 14287 circulating fund - 2984 583 166 1220 221 190 - 165 - - militia - - - - 94 171 115 173 246 167 174 others - 402 587 163 285 4834 13725 26067 42924 60400 69762 Total 973 15450 11313 10613 24026 46602 102941 129242 166120 216012 348749 Source: Statistical Bureau of TAR, 1989: 473-475; 1996: 115-116. 37 The funds for education alone were 145 million yuan in the TAR in 1990 (People's Daily, Jan. 30, 1991). 19 The second major source of deficits is enterprises in industry, construction, transportation, trade, grain buying and selling. Due to a scarcity of many kinds of raw materials for industrial production (metal, cloth, paper, wood, etc.), local fuel, and power supply (oil, coal), and a low level of education and technical training of local laborers, the cost of developing industrial production has been much higher than enterprises can afford. As in other Chinese cities and towns, the TAR government has supplied urban residents with grain, oil, and other necessities at low prices similar to those in the Han provinces. But the cost of these goods is actually much higher in Tibet because they have been transported for thousands of miles from other regions. Buying agricultural products (especially grain) at a high price and selling at a low price is the government policy to promote agricultural production while keeping the urban residents (who have enjoyed low priced supplies for decades) satisfied. The problem is even worse in Tibet. Since 1980, no agricultural tax has been collected in TAR, in line with the policy of the central government. Therefore, the TAR government is able to buy only a small amount of grain from local sources, but must import grain from Han provinces, which is more expensive. The TAR government bought 30,162 tons grain within Tibet in 1987 (only 6.5 percent of the total grain production), while it imported 65,725 tons to supply urban residents (SBT, 1989:427 and 440). One noteworthy phenomenon is the increase in "other" expenses since 1978: from 3.64 million yuan in 1977 to 557.8 million yuan in 1995 (Table 8). This increase was due largely to "reimbursement" for damages and losses to monasteries and individuals during the "Cultural Revolution". The "other" item does not appear in statistical yearbooks in other autonomous regions (e.g. Inner Mongolia). It consists of 15.9 percent of the total TAR government expenses in 1995, and it reached 20.6 percent in 1988 or 96 times the local income of the TAR government that year. As the main consumers in Tibet before 1952, monasteries have lost their power in society and administration since 1959. The number of monks also has decreased. However, administration has expended and the number of “cadres” has increased. They have become the main consumers of wealth in Tibet. There were 161,000 employees working in government institutions or other units under government management in the TAR in 1989. They received salaries, bonuses, and all kinds of subsidies (about 470 million yuan in 1989)(SBC, 1990: 121-135). Actually, they were paid by the central government because the TAR government’s income was close to zero, if not a deficit. The picture develops as follows: the central government paid money to maintain the local government (administration); fed 161,000 government employees (63 percent of them were Tibetans, SBC, 1990); maintained systems of free education, health care, welfare, public services, and urban construction and created jobs for urban youth; provided subsidies and materials to improve agricultural and pastoral production; supported local industrial productions, which have continuously maintained deficits; and provided funds to rebuild monasteries and subsidies to monks to implement the policy of "religious freedom" and maintain social stability. 20 At the same time, the social and economic structures of the Han regions merged into the TAR, and the urban Tibetans and Han actually earn more than the average level of the nation. It is assumed that, at the last stage of the "diffusion model", "cultural differences should cease to be socially meaningful; ... the core and peripheral regions will tend to become culturally homogeneous because the economic, cultural, and political foundations for separate ethnic identification disappear" (Hechter, 1975:8). Table 9. Structure of Cash Payment or Withdrawn From Banks in TAR (10,000 yuan) 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 salary of state employee 1365 3692 1970 6635 15175 27552 43328 141211 bonus to state employee - - - - 66 2061 3213 7193 state paid to individuals - 295 318 695 1889 9200 13757 40956 withdrawn by military 1084 3129 3888 3857 3789 7558 22939 71181 salary/bonus of urban collectives 31 65 62 34 866 1656 3038 5850 collectives paid to individuals - - - - - - 2475 14523 expenses of town-Xiang enterprises - - - - - 681 735 7814 withdrawn of private enterprises - - - - - 207 4375 39186 payment for agricultural products 1258 2059 1697 1527 1226 3178 9364 20007 to rural credit cooperatives - 146 208 1546 4612 6210 16452 35171 expenses of administration 199 1034 908 2110 3546 4512 9633 57605 payment for industrial products - - - 16 79 197 324 3363 withdrawn of individual deposit 360 1116 1512 1671 3629 13438 35457 214794 remittance 16 64 15 122 296 1086 2266 23661 others (bond, etc.) 402 672 650 1652 2006 7199 15066 253305 Total 4715 12272 13825 19865 37131 84735 182467 945820 Sources: Statistical Bureau of TAR, 1989: 482-483; 1996: 293. But it seems that the situation in the TAR is more complex that this. Cultural differences, especially religious differences, still exist. Efforts to develop modern industry in the TAR, to a certain extent, have failed. The "diffusion" of the administrative and economic systems of the Han regions into Tibet has had some unintended consequences. In 1995, financial aid given by the central government was 1,328 yuan per capita in the TAR, while the net income of the rural population in China, as a whole, was yuan in 1995. Maintenance of administration, economy, society and all other affairs in the TAR has relied entirely on the central government's money. The economy in the TAR should be called a "dependent economy", rather than a "dependent development" (Evans, 1979:32). No accumulation of capital and industrialization occurred in the TAR, though the central government plays a key role in Tibet's economy by its "alliance" with the local government. The post-1959 Han-Tibetan relationship has acquired some new characteristics with the new social and economic relations between the TAR and the Han regions. IV. The Han in the Tibet Autonomous Region 21 In 1951, some Han officials and merchants went to Tibet accompanying People’s Liberation Army troops after the 17-Point Agreement” was signed 38 . When construction of Qinghai-Tibet Road was completed in 1954, transportation between Tibet and other parts of China was greatly improved. The preparatory Committee of the TAR was established in 1956, and many Han officials were transferred into Tibet to work for this Committee and its institutions. The Han cadres and workers in Tibet reached 17,631 in that year39 Because the central government decided to avoid conflict with the Dalai Lama’s government, land reform was not carried out in Tibet during 1956 to 1960. Many Han left and their numbers decreased to 2,200 in 1957 (1,500 to 1,600 cadres and 600 workers) (Liu Rui, 1989:141). . After the Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959, the local government and its institutions patterned after those in other Han regions (bureaus, social organizations) were established. New factories, hospitals, schools, stores, and post offices were established throughout Tibet, and the number of Han increased again. In 1980, the number of Han in the TAR reached 122,356 (about 6.6 percent of the total population), the highest number in history. In the same year (1980), the central government decided to have Tibetans as the “main body” of cadres and workers in the TAR after Hu Yaobang’s visit to Tibet. This new policy resulted in Han emigration in the following years. Table 10 presents the changes of Han population in the TAR during 1956-2005. Table 10. The Registered Han Residents in the TAR Year Han population % of total Year Han population % of total 1956 17,631 - 1991 65,101 2.94 1957 2,100-2,200 - 1992 66,318 2.94 1964 36,700 2.93 1993 64,890 2.84 1978 112,569 6.46 1994 65,749 2.83 1980 122,356 6.60 1995 67,772 2.88 1981 99,873 5.37 1996 68,725 2.87 1982 91,720 4.85 1997 69,205 2.85 1983 79,650 4.12 1998 73,841 3.01 1984 76,322 3.88 1999 70,145 2.83 1985 70,932 3.56 2000 72,122 2.87 1986 72,340 3.57 2001 77,003 3.03 1987 78,804 3.79 2002 85,166 3.33 1988 79,871 3.76 2003 105,379 4.07 1989 74,989 3.47 2004 93,306 3.54 1990 67,407 3.09 2005 104,647 3.91 Source: Liu Rui, 1989: 140-141; SBT, 2007: 33. Major differentials in social and economic systems between the Tibetan and Han regions decreased in the 1950s and 1960s, and disappeared in the 1970s along with 38 "Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" was signed by the representatives of the Dalai Lama's government and the central government on May 23, 1951 (for its content, see Karan, 1976:89-91). 39 The Han population discussed in this article excludes military forces because no data are available. 22 the establishment of the commune system in the TAR. The impact of the religious differentials also decreased. These tremendous changes in the TAR increased the possibility of Han in-migration, especially in urban areas where the traditional culture was not as strong as in the rural areas. Controls on in-migration to the TAR were generally slack, especially during the “Cultural Revolution.” However, it seems that few Han wanted to migrate into the TAR. The question is why Han in-migration did not occur in Tibet as it occurred in other autonomous regions such as Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. In these other two large frontier autonomous regions, the Han population increased from 0.3 million in 1949 to 5.7 million in 1990 in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, and from 5.2 million in 1949 to 17.3 million in 1990 in Inner Mongolia (CPIRC, 1991). Referring back to the model in Figure 1, what variables have had impact on Han migration into Tibet? I raised this question with both Han and Tibetan cadres and scholars during my survey in the TAR (June-September, 1988). I asked why the Han people did not want to migrate into Tibet and why those who were already working in the TAR wanted to leave. It seems that there are different migration patterns in urban and rural areas in the TAR. The reasons given by cadres and intellectuals for urban areas are summarized below. 1. The importance of geographic factors was confirmed by all Han respondents. High elevation and scarcity of oxygen made many Han physically ill. I was told that after some incidents, in which either a mother or baby died, no Han women wanted to give birth in the TAR. They returned to the Han regions for childbirth and left their babies there with relatives. Some Han believed that after a long period of work on the plateau they could not survive heart attacks or other diseases they might suffer upon their return to the Han areas after retirement. Concern for their own and their children's health made many Han hesitant to work in the TAR. 2. Because transportation in the TAR still is not convenient as in other regions, entertainment is so limited, well-educated young Han cadres and intellectuals cannot visit their families often and complain that life in the TAR is very boring (Bass, 1990). The new railway connecting Lhasa and Xinning (Qinghai province) start functioning in July, 2006. It is for sure that it will change the situation. 3. The educational levels and development of science and technology is generally lower in the TAR than in other parts of China, therefore, young Han teachers, doctors and engineers complain that the TAR is not a good environment to develop their professional careers. They feel that they are disadvantaged when they return to the Han regions after several years of service in the TAR. Because of these personal concerns, only a very few Han university graduates are willing to work in the TAR, and those who already have been sent to the TAR want to leave. Although the number of voluntary migrants has been small, the central government successfully arranged for thousands of Han to work in the TAR. Every year, many institutions of the central or provincial governments are requested to send a certain number of employees (with the required professional skills) to work in the 23 TAR for a designated period of time40. The government raised the salaries of these employees one or two ranks, allowed them to keep their place of origin household registrations, and provided many subsidies and benefits41 A large proportion of Han migrants in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang were spontaneous rural-rural migrants and these migrations mainly occurred during the 1950s and 1960s (Ma, 1987; Ji Ping, 1990). Why did this kind of in-migration not occur in the TAR during the “Cultural Revolution”, when the administrative control on migration was also loose? . They have an all-expenses paid six-month vacation after the first year of service, and self-postponement of return to their jobs in the TAR has not been an unusual occurrence. Both the TAR government and their work units also try to make them comfortable in Tibet. The Han usually lived in separate residential zones with better housing, water and electrical supplies (Ma, 1991:820). First, arable land is very limited in the TAR. During 1952-1988, the area of cultivated land increased from 0.4 to 0.57 million acres in the TAR, but because of natural population growth, cultivated land per capita decreased from 0.35 to 0.26 acres. Of cultivated land, only 34.8 percent has irrigation facilities (Li Qingzhu, 1990:55). Because of the conditions of temperature, rainfall, irrigation, and fertility of the land, area grain production (181 kg per mu or 1.1 ton per acre in 1988) in the TAR is less than half that in nearby Sichuan. An investigation by the Chinese Academy of Sciences reported that arable land not in use is only 0.2 million mu (32,940 acres) in the TAR (Shang, 1989:5). Cultivated land in the TAR (both by quality and quantity) cannot provide opportunities for farmer in-migrants. Besides, the grain (barley) able to be grown in a plateau climate is different from those in the Han regions (wheat and rice), and this difference also has a negative impact on in-migration of Han farmers into the TAR. Second, several Tibetan autonomous prefectures are located between the TAR and Han areas (in Qinghai, Sichuan, and Gansu). The elevation in these prefectures is lower than that of the TAR and the climate is closer to that of Han areas. When Han farmers moved to Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang in the 1950s and 1960s, some also moved into these prefectures. During 1953-1982, the Han population in these Tibetan autonomous prefectures increased from 0.43 million to 1.45 million, then decreased to 1.44 million in 1990. But this migration was restricted by the central government and local authorities after the "Cultural Revolution." During 1981-1994, the total number of registered in-migrants (for both urban and rural areas) was 0.113 million, while the total number of out-migrants was 0.189 40 During the 1950s-1970s, they worked in TAR for a undetermined period of time. In the 1980s, people were sent to the TAR to work for a three- or five-year period. The total accumulated number of people who were sent to the TAR since the 1950s was about 200,000 (People's Daily, April 8, 1991). 41 A Han cadre in Gyantse county calculated his monthly income for me: 82 (salary) + 5 (bonus) + 23 (food price subsidy) + 2.5 (haircut) + 2.5 (subsidy of service length) + 7 (one rank extra salary) + 80 (plateau subsidy) + 35 (oxygen subsidy) + 11 (temporary subsidy) = 248 yuan. He would only earn 115 yuan (the first 5 items) if he works in a Han region. 24 million (SBT, 1995:40). There has also been a trend of out-migration among the members of the Han population who have been officially registered in the TAR. The recent economic reforms and its policies allow people to manage private business and travel with fewer restrictions. Since the late 1980s, spontaneous temporary in-migration has occurred in the urban areas of the TAR. Many Han peddlers, craftsmen, carpenters, construction workers, and businessmen arrived in Lhasa and other cities to make money. Their numbers were very large in Lhasa, at about 45,000-50,000 in the summer of 1988, or about 30-40 percent of permanent residents of the city (Ma, 1990:62). The migrants include Han, Hui, Tibetans, and others were about 100,000 (winter) to 20,000 (summer) in 2005. Since the migrants were mainly young adults (predominantly male) and very active in the streets and markets, they made a very strong impression on visitors to Lhasa. The government raised the salary of government employees in the TAR for 2.5 times of the same rank in other regions. This policy significantly raises the urban residents’ income, as the consequences, the income of temporary migrants in services also increased and became attractive for the new comers. When asked how long they intend to stay in the TAR, most migrants respond that they are there only for a particular season or a limited period. Among the 516 temporary Han migrants in our 2005 Lhasa survey, 39.3% reported that they plan to stay in Lhasa less than 2 years, and only 16 respondents said that they intend to stay longer than 10 years. For the most part they are there for the economic opportunities and their plans call for them to return to their homes as soon as they have some savings to re-build their houses or to open businesses. Those migrants who rent land to grow vegetables were welcomed by local residents because their products reduced the prices of vegetables in local market. The flow of temporary migrants into Tibet in recent years has strongly influenced local labor markets and raised prices causing some social tension due to the competition facing local Tibetan craftsmen, businessmen and workers. During our interviews in Lhasa in 1988 and 2005, we heard many complaints from local Tibetan residents. Additional study is needed to investigate their concerns and their impact (positive and negative) on the community, and other factors in order to find the best strategy for the government to regulate and manage this temporary migration. In Tibet, government policies and regulations are still the key to understanding migration issues, in both urban and rural areas, whether it’s the case of government arranged migration or spontaneous, temporary and circular migration. In order to understand the role of the Han population has played in Tibet, we examine the age and occupational structure of the Han, and their geographic distribution in the TAR. The age structure of both the Han and Tibetan populations in the TAR shown in Figure 3 are based on the data from 1982 census. The pattern of Tibetan age structure was a normal population pyramid. Among the Han, the 25 to 29-year-old groups was the largest, and there was a relatively much smaller group under age 14. 25 Figure 3. Age Structure of Han and Tibetan Population in the Tibet Autonomous Region (1982) This pattern is clearly shown that a large proportion of Han in the TAR were cadres, professionals, and workers aged 20 to 34. Their migration was arranged by the government, and they worked in the TAR for a designated period of time, leaving elders and children in their place of origin. The occupational structure of the Han is also very different from that of Tibetans. Of a total of 91,720 Han in the TAR in 1982, the “worker” group comprised 40 percent. Other groups were “professionals” (25.4 percent), “cadre and clerical” (22 percent), “service worker” (7.6 percent), “trade worker” (2.4 percent) and “worker in agriculture” (2.3 percent). In Contrast, “peasant and herdsman” comprised 87.1 percent of the Tibetan population. Other groups were “worker” (6.3 percent), “professional” (2.9 percent), “cadre and clerical” (2.4 percent), “service worker” (0.9 percent) and “trade worker” (0.4 percent) (Liu Rui, 1989:294). The structures of the Han and Tibetans in the TAR do not change in the following census data. The geographic distribution of the Han population in the TAR shows that in 1982 the percentage of Han in the total population was less than 5 percent in most counties and less than 1 percent in more than half the total counties in the TAR (Ma, 1990:59). In 1986, 52.5 percent of the Han in the TAR lived in Lhasa City, where the government and its institutions are located. Because most Han intend to stay in Tibet for only a short period of time, they maintain their life customs and assimilate less with the native Tibetans compared with the Han in other minority areas. On the other hand, accompanying the increasing influence of the central government in the TAR, many urban Tibetans learn the Mandarin (Han) language and have been influenced by the Han culture (Ma, 1990). Ethnic integration is obviously Han-biased in the TAR. In sum, the Han in the TAR have been mainly cadres, professionals, and workers, working in government, schools, hospitals, and factories. Their in-migration was arranged by the government and they work in the TAR only for a period of several years. The TAR relies not only on the Han regions for consumer goods and financial 26 aid, but also relies on the Han regions for professional laborers. IV. A Comparison of the Situation in Tibet and Inner Mongolia Is the situation in the TAR unique in China? To what extent does Tibet share its experiences with other autonomous regions of ethnic minority groups? Inner Mongolia is another large autonomous region in China, with an area of 1.18 million square kilometers and a population of 23.7 million in 2000. A brief comparison between the TAR and Inner Mongolia help us understand the factors affecting social, economic and demographic changes in the TAR. Like Tibetans, Mongolians have their own language and glorious history. They ruled all of China during the Yuan Dynasty (A.D. 1271 to 1368), and were expelled from central China by the Ming emperors. Therefore, their relationship with the Han group was looser than that between Tibetans and Han during the Ming dynasty (A.D. 1368 to 1644). Mongolians had a close relationship with the Tibetans because they have accepted Tibetan Buddhism since the Yuan dynasty. When the Manchus ruled China, both Tibet and Inner Mongolia (also Outer Mongolia) came under the direct administration of the Qing Dynasty (A.D. 1844 to 1911). In order to separate different ethnic groups for easier domination, the Qing emperors forbade the Han from migrating either to Tibet or to Inner Mongolia. The situation began to change in the mid to late nineteenth century, when the British won the Opium War and the Russians expanded their territory into Siberia. The Qing Court released restrictions on, and even encouraged, Han migration into Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, and Xinjiang (the northwestern frontier) to protect border areas. Mongolian princes obtained a large amount of money by selling grasslands to Han farmers. In 1912, the Han population in Inner Mongolia reached one million, exceeding the number of native Mongolians (0.8 million). Meanwhile, due to several reasons (he negative attitudes of the Tibetan authorities towards Han in-migration, the large differences in social and economic systems, and the environmental factors), few Han farmers moved into Tibet. When the Qing dynasty was overthrown in 1911, the civil war started. With military support from the Russian Red Army, Outer Mongolia claimed independence (although its legitimacy in international forum was not confirmed until 1945 after the wartime Yalta Meeting). The Dalai Lama's government also tried to become independent at this time. Because of Inner Mongolia's geographic closeness to central China and the strong influence of the large Han population, the central government established several provinces in the area of today's Inner Mongolia and placed them under its direct control. During 1912-1949, the Han population in Inner Mongolia increased from 1 million to 5.3 million, while the number of Han in Tibet decreased. It could be argued that the main reason for such a large difference in in-migration in Inner Mongolia and Tibet was due to administrative and political factors. 27 In 1959, the central government controlled Tibet. Social reform abolished serfdom, and monasteries lost their traditional power. Administrative systems and other organizations similar to those in other regions were established in the TAR. Other than the poor transportation conditions (no railways connects the TAR with other regions until 2006), other situations in the TAR are quite similar to those in Inner Mongolia. There were few spontaneous Han migrants to the TAR but the Han population in Inner Mongolia increased from 5.3 million in 1949 to 17.3 million in 1990 (a large proportion of the growth due to natural increases). One could argue that the distance from central China is an important factor in Han in-migration to the TAR and Inner Mongolia. For comparison, let us examine another autonomous region -- Xinjiang. Xinjiang is located in the northwestern frontier area, as distant from central China as is Tibet. The Han population in Xinjiang increased from 0.3 million in 1949 to 5.7 million in 1990 (CPIRC, 1991). Transportation conditions in Xinjiang are better than those in the TAR (a railway connects the capital city of Xinjiang to central China). Geographic distance is certainly a negative factor affecting in-migration in Xinjiang compared with Inner Mongolia. But Han population growth in Xinjiang is still significant. With social, economic, and administrative systems similar to those in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang; with a similar geographic distance from central China as Xinjiang; with the same religion as that in Inner Mongolia (although its influence has weakened since 1949); with similar religious differences from the Han regions as in Xinjiang (Moslems in Xinjiang supposedly have a more negative attitude towards Han in-migrants because they eat pork); then geographic conditions (mainly the high elevation) in Tibet may be the only important factors left to explain the low volume of Han in-migration to the TAR. Central government financial subsidies are also very important in Inner Mongolia. In 1988, the total income of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region was 2.4 billion yuan while expenses were 5.1billion yuan. The aid of 2.7 billion yuan difference was covered by the central government. But differences in production and population size between Inner Mongolia and Tibet are significant. An industrial productive system (steel and coal productions, electricity production, manufacturing, light industry) has been established in Inner Mongolia since 1949. In 1988, the value of industrial and agricultural production per capita was 986 yuan in Inner Mongolia compared to 440 yuan in the TAR. On the side of consumption, the average salary of state-owned enterprise employees was 1,641 yuan (plus 213 yuan for social welfare) in Inner Mongolia in 1988 compared to 2,739 yuan (plus 582 yuan for social welfare) in the TAR. Compared with Inner Mongolia, the TAR produces very little while consuming much. Results show that the central government subsidy was 130 Yuan per capita in Inner Mongolia compared to 566 Yuan in the TAR in 1994 (Statistical Bureau of Inner Mongolia, 1995:105). Local income of the TAR government has always been zero, or a deficit, so it has relied entirely on money from the central government. 28 The percentages of the central government’s aid in local expenses to the five autonomous regions in China were 44.7 percent (Guangxi), 52.7 percent (Inner Mongolia), 60.4 percent (Xinjiang), 63.3 percent (Ningxia) and 99.8 percent (Tibet) in 1988 (Pan, 1989:143; Ji Xiade, 1989:286; Wei, 1989:271). The percentages in 2002 remain at a high level: 38.9 percent (Guangxi), 50.0 percent (Inner Mongolia), 59.5 percent (Xinjiang), 76.9 percent (Ningxia) and 93.8 percent (Tibet). The degree of financial dependence of the TAR is much higher than other autonomous regions. V. The Reasons for this Economic Pattern to Emerge in Tibet Why this “dependent economy” pattern can emerge and continue in Tibet? Several points may be brought into our attention: 1. The central government actually has practiced “diffusion model” (proposed by Michael Hechter) for centuries. This related to two traditions in Chinese ideology: (1) “the great unification”, which pursues unification of all controlled territories in all aspects: language, measurement, and social organizations; (2) “superiority of core Han areas”, which intends to assimilate border groups by the Han culture. This is the traditional cultural factor for such a policy. 2. The policy to provide financial subsidies and other helps to ethnic minorities is the principle of Marxist ideology in ethnicity. Ethnic minorities should be treated equally, and government should help them to “catch up” with advanced group to reach the goal of “factual equality”. This is the ideological base for such a policy. 3. The Chinese government had practiced a “planned economy” for several decades since the 1950s. This economic system made the central government to be able to distribute man power, money, and all kinds of materials into different regions and different groups according to its plans. This is the economic system base to practice such a policy. 4. Although there are 55 ethnic minority groups in China, the total population of these groups together only consists about 8 percent of the total population. For a large population of 1.2 billion Han and huge economic power of the Han regions, to provide some financial subsidies to these small ethnic groups is feasible financially. 5. For centuries, the central government in China (especially in the Qing dynasty) continually provided financial subsidies to Tibet and Tibetan leaders. It was clearly mentioned in the 17 Pint Agreement, that all expenses of administrative organizations and PLA from Han regions will be supported by the central government. After 1959, all construction and social services have been supported by the central government’s budgets. This policy becomes a historical pattern between Tibet and the central government in finance. VI. Concluding Observations Before the twentieth century, the administrative, social and economic relations between Tibet and the Han regions were limited due to significant differentials in social, 29 economic and religious systems in Tibet. The official function of the relationship was to keep Tibet subordinate to China. Trade with the Han regions was important for Tibet's economy and consumption. During 1911-1950, the influence of foreign governments in Tibet increased and had a negative impact on the administrative relationship and trade between Tibet and the Han regions. Geographic features of Tibet (mountains and high elevation) have been important factor affecting trade, transportation and migration. Monasteries were the dominant group in Tibet before 1959. Monks comprised a large proportion of the population. They were very powerful in the economy and they controlled the administration. Religious activities had consumed the majority of Tibet's wealth in the past. After 1959, monasteries lost their power. Under the new "freedom of religion" policy of the government, their influence has increased again since 1980. Since 1959, social and economic systems of other Han regions were introduced into TAR. Although agricultural and pastoral production increased, productivity has been very low in state-owned enterprises. Accompanying the expansion of the TAR government and institutions, and with other disadvantages in Tibet due to the general low level of educational and economic development, the deficit in the TAR increased rapidly. Gradually, the finances of the TAR government have become entirely dependent on aid from the central government. The "dependent economy" of the TAR becomes a new factor in the relationship between Tibet and the Han regions. The Han comprise a very small proportion of the total population in the TAR. They mainly are cadres and professionals. Their migration is arranged by the government and they usually work in the TAR for a designed period of time. The main reason why so few Han in-migrated to the TAR was because of its high elevation. Spontaneous Han in-migration occurred on recently and they are temporary migrants, working in services, trade, and handicrafts. Referring to two development models proposed by Michael Hechter, as Tibetans have obtained equal legal rights compared to the Han and other groups after 1959, the political and economic systems of the Han regions have indeed diffused into Tibet. But these systems did not work well and resulted in a complete "dependent economy". People's income and welfare in the TAR now are even higher than the national level, but both urban residents' income and all people's welfare programs rely entirely on the financial aid of the central government. It cannot be called a successful example of the "diffusion model". The Tibet case suggests that, if social and economic systems and cultural traditions had been so different between the core and peripheral region in the past, "diffusing the core's socioeconomic systems into periphery", at least as a short transition alternative, might be an oversimplified strategy. Besides the system reform, other aspects such as cultural and economic traditions, religion, and the knowledge of modern education and production need to be considered and play an important role in policy planning. References: Bass, C. 1990. Inside the Treasure House, London: Victor Gollancz. 30 Bell, C. 1927. Tibet Past and Present, London: Oxford University Press. Bell, C. 1928. The People of Tibet, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bell, C. 1946. Portrait of the Dalai Lama, London: Collins. Chapman, F.S. 1940. Lhasa: the Holy City. London: R&R Clark. Chen Fanzhou et al. 1988. "Studies on Yunnan-Tibet Trade," Xizang Yanjiou (Tibet Studies) 1988 (4): 51-58. (in Chinese) Chen Jianfu, 1937. Xizang Wenti (Issues on Tibet), Shanghai: Shangwu Press. (in Chinese) CPIRC (China Population Information and Research Center), 1991, China's 4th Census Data Sheet, Beijing: CPIRC. De Jong, G.F. and J.T. Fawcett, 1981, "Motivations for Migration: An Assessment and a Value-Expectancy Research Model," G.F. De Jong and R.W. Garder eds. Migration Decision Making New York: Pergamon Press. Dreyer, J.T. 1976. China's Forty Millions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Evans, P. 1979. Dependent Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fang Jianchang, 1988, "Hui in Tibet and Their Temples: Spread of Islam in Tibet and its Impact." Xizang Yanjiou (Tibet Studies) 1988 (4): 102-114. (in Chinese) Findley, S. 1977. Planning for Internal Migration,ISP-RD-4. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Goldlust, J. and A. Richmond, 1974, "A Multivariate Model of Immigrant Adaptation", International Migration Review 8 (Summer): 193-226. Goldstein, M. 1989, A History of Modern Tibet, Berkeley: University of California Press. Goldstein, M. and C.M. Beall, 1990, Nomads of Western Tibet, Berkeley: University of California Press. Grunfeld, A.T. 1987, The Making of Modern Tibet, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Hansen, N. et al. 1990, Regional Policy in a Changing World, New York: Plenum Press. Hechter, M. 1975. Internal Colonialism, Berkeley: University of California Press. Huang Wanluen, 1988. "Economic Relationship between Tibet and the Central Government During Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties," Xizang Yanjiou (Tibet Studies) 1988 (3): 8-17. (in Chinese) Huang Wanluen, 1982. "Historical Studies on British and Russian Economic Invasions in Tibet," Xizang Yanjiou (Tibet Studies) 1982 (2): 40-52. (in Chinese) Huang Wanluen, 1984. "Several Essays in Democratic Reform in Tibet," Xizang Yanjiou (Tibet Studies) 1984 (4): 5-20. (in Chinese) Ji Ping. 1990. Frontier Migration and Ethnic Assimilation: A Case of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China. (Ph.D. Dissertation at Brown University) Ji Xiade. 1989. The Advancing 40 Years (Xinjiang Volume). Beijing: Statistical Press of China. (in Chinese) Karan, P.P. 1976. The Changing Face of Tibet, Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Kuang Haolin, 1990. "Monastery's Economy in Modern Tibet," Zhonggo Shehui Kexue (Social Sciences in China) 1990 (3): 133-153. (in Chinese) Lhapa Phuntso, ed. 1984, Xizang Zizhiqu Gaikuang (General Situation of the Tibet Autonomous Region), Lhasa: People's Press of Tibet. (in Chinese) Liu Rui, 1989. China's Population (Tibet), Beijing: China's Finance and Economy Press. (in Chinese) 31 Ma Rong, 1987, Migrant and Ethnic Integration in Rural Chifeng, Inner Mongolia, China (Ph.D. dissertation at Brown Univ.). Ma Rong, 1991. “Han and Tibetan Residential Patterns in Lhasa", China Quarterly No. 128 (Dec. 1991): 814-835. Ma Rong and Pan Naigu, 1988, "Demographic Changes in Tibetan-inhabited Areas". Beijing Review (April 4-10): 21-24. MacInnis, D.E. 1989. Religion in China Today, New York: Orbis books. Pan Jimin. 1989. Forty Years of Ningxia (1949-1989). Beijing: Statistical Press of China. (in Chinese) Pye, L.W. 1975, "China: Ethnic Minorities and National Security," N. Glazer and D. P. Moynihan, eds. Ethnicity, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pp. 489-512. Shang Jiali. 1989. "Study on Bearing Capacity of Land in Tibet", Xizang Yanjiou (Tibetan Studies) 1989 (2): 5-15. (in Chinese) Shaw, R.P. 1975. Migration: Theory and Fact. Bibliography series No.5. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute. Statistical Bureau of China (SBC), ed. 1990, Statistical Yearbook of China (1990), Beijing: Statistical Press of China. (in Chinese) Statistical Bureau of Inner Mongolia, ed. 1990, Statistical Yearbook of Inner Mongolia (1990), Beijing: Statistical Press of China. (in Chinese) Statistical Bureau of TAR (SBT), ed. 1989, 1996, 2007, Statistical Yearbook of Tibet (1989)(1996)(2007), Beijing: Statistical Press of China. (in Chinese) Tan Fangzi, 1940, "Yunnan's Tea Trade to Tibet," Bianzheng Gonglun (Discussions on the Affairs of Frontier Regions) vol 3 (11) (in Chinese) Todaro, M.P. 1985, Economic Development in the Third World. (3rd edition), London: Longman. Wang Seng, 1984, Xizang Fojia Fazhan Shilue (History of Buddhist Development in Tibet), Beijing: Press of Chinese Social Sciences. (in Chinese) Wang Xiaoqiang and Bai Nanfeng, 1986, Furao de Pinkuen (Poverty of the Rich), Chengdu: People's Press of Sichuan. (in Chinese) Weber, M. 1963, The Sociology of Religion, Boston: Beacon Press. Wei Zonghui. 1989. Statistical Yearbook of Guangxi (1989). Beijing: Statistical Press of China. (in Chinese) World Almanac and Encyclopedia, (1898) to (1904), New York: The Press Publishing Co. the New York World. Wu Zhongxin, 1953, Xizang Jiyao (Summary of Mission to Tibet) Taipei: Central Antique Press. (in Chinese) Ya Hanzhang, 1988, "On Feudal Serfdom in Tibet," Xizang Yanjiou (Tibet Studies) 1988 (1): 2-15. (in Chinese) Zhang Yuxin, 1983, "Main Reasons for the Long-term Underdeveloped Economy in Tibet during the Early Qing Dynasty," Xizang Yanjiou (Tibet Studies) 1983 (2): 32-36. (in Chinese) Zhou Benjia, 1985. "Monastery Economy before Democratic Reform in Tibet," Xizang Yanjiou (Tibet Studies) 1985 (2): 39-50. (in Chinese)
No comments:
Post a Comment