The contrast in the rate of growth between Western and Eastern societies since 1800 has caused Asian societies to be characterized as backward and resistant to change, though until 1600 or so certain Asian states were technologically far in advance of Europe. The Rice Economies , drawing on original source materials, examines patterns of technological and social evolution specific to East-Asian wet-rice economies in order to clarfiy some general historical trends in economic development. "This is a magnificent book, which deserves special praise for having achieved a truly exemplary balance between scholarly and practical significance."--Paul Richards, "New Scientist Wide-ranging both historically and geographically, The Rice Economies brilliantly addresses a subject of abiding interest to anthropologists, economists, and historians as well as those concerned with development issues and Asian studies. It is the first work to formulate a logical, historical dynamic of development in Asia's rice economies up to the present day. The comparison of mechanized Western farming methods with the more labor intensive, less environmentally destructive Asian methods is of value to environmentalists and economists concerned with the need for sustainable development. In a new preface, the author reflects upon the increasing relevance of the concerns of the book to international environmental issues. Francesca Bray is Professor of Anthropology at University of California, Santa Barbara and author of Agriculture , Volume VI, part 2 in Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China (1984). The Rice Economies: Technology and Development in Asian Societies By Francesca Bray University of California Press Copyright © 1994 Francesca Bray All right reserved. ISBN: 0520086201 Introduction Eurocentric models of historical change European historical methodology has understandably been profoundly marked by the growth of capitalism, but it is doubtful to what extent models derived from Europe's highly specific experience are applicable to other parts of the world. Historians attempting to interpret Asian history find themselves wrestling with such intractable categories as 'feudalism' or 'peasants' which, despite their reassuring vagueness, rarely seem to fit the case exactly. Evading the issue entirely, one long-standing Western tradition recognises the essential 'otherness' of Asian societies by attributing to them a timelessness and unchanging quality encapsulated in the concept of the Asian Mode of Production. Others, recognising that all societies change eventually, and faced with the necessity of accounting for such awkward facts as the development of commerce and commodity production in pre-modern India and China, or industrialisation and the emergence of capitalism in Meiji Japan, have preferred to think of Asia as following basically the same path as Europe, but less successfully and less rapidly. Thus Marxist historians in China and Japan categorise a vast span of Chinese history (from about 200 BC to 1911 or 1949) as feudal, with 'sprouts of capitalism' emerging intermittently during the past four or five centuries but withering before they bore fruit (see Grove and Esherick 1980; Brook 1981). Non-Marxist historians too, especially when explaining the failure to develop capitalism (or the contrary in the case of Japan), usually measure off Asian societies point for point against a European model of development, to see where they are lacking (Elvin 1973; Tang 1979; Yamamura 1979; Jones 1981). Both of these methods are essentially negative, the one denying the occurrence of any significant change, the other obscuring the specificity of non-European societies. If we look only for what is typical of Europe, the significant features of a less familiar society may simply escape our notice. Over the last four centuries European society has been completely transformed, and advanced capitalism has accustomed us to a breakneck pace of change. By comparison it is not surprising that Asian societies seem to have stood still. Yet where adequate documents exist it is not difficult to show that in Asian societies too the forces of production were expanded and relations of production transformed—though not always in the way one might expect. The difficulty lies in accounting for the nature of such changes: if the dynamics of change differ from those we have identified as operating in European history, then it is not surprising that our traditional models fail adequately to interpret change in non-European societies, or even to acknowledge its existence. While it is easy to appreciate that eurocentric models will generally prove inadequate to explain the evolution of non-European societies, it is not so easy to construct appropriate alternatives. One important obstacle is our failure (in the main) to recognise the relativity of our conception of technological progress. Changes in technology are