In Chapter 14 of this book, the author has discussed the comparison of Westernization Movement of China and Reform of vassal states of Japan.
One common misunderstanding for many Chinese is that they regard westernization movement and Meiji Restoration as the same type of social reform. As a matter of fact, these reforms’ social background differs from each other. When Meiji Restoration began, bourgeoisie of Japan had been powerful while feudal autocratic governance of Tokugawa Shogunate had been overthrown. On the contrary, China was still under the rule of feudalism and authoritarianism during the westernization movement. The movement was leaded by feudal bureaucrats.
In fact, the counterpart of the westernization movement in Japan is Reform of vassal states which was promoted by Japanese seigniors. One distinguished representative is Shimazu Nariakira, the seignior of Satsuma. Not only he attach importance to heavy industry, same as Chinese westernizationists, but also he think highly of light industry, which made the reform go further and finally pave the way for capitalism development. Paying too little attention to develop light industry, along with government-supervised and merchant-managed form, are two substantial flaws of westernization movement of China, for limiting the dynamism and self-develop ability of China’s economy.
The fundamental cause of this difference lied in the degree of authoritarianism between two nations. Compared with Japan, China had much higher centralized feudal autocracy system. Under this circumstance, governors like Tseng Kuo-fan, Li Hung-chang, and other westernizationists, don’t have enough decision-making power and were held back the elbow to carry on the movement. Accordingly, the westernization movement came into a transformation of compromise and underdeveloped.
