Influence of List on the Chinese Economists
List and his theory were embraced by the Chinese just when China was grappling with the huge peril of colonization following the western intrusion.The replacement of the imperial system by a republic in the early 1910s was no immediate cure for the economic peripheralization and social decay.On the contrary，the setbacks in national resurrection and the consequent frustrations nurtured radicalization of the popular sentiments，leading to further chaos and disintegration of the nation.All this went far beyond what List ’s theory could readily provide for.
However，the key themes of the theory，notably industrialization，tariff protection and state intervention，cut to the very core of the challenges that China faced.Sun Yat-sen，the founding president of the Republic of China，for instance，asserted that “the life-or-death issue for China hereinafter boils down to one thing only，i.e.，the development of its industry”.He proposed that “to advance industrialization，China should dispel foreign products and protect local products by following the protectionist policies of Germany and America”.[14] Economists like Ma Yinchu felt that the strategies of List were among the most useful ones for China，since Chinese industries could never get developed without recovering the tariff right in the first place.Without protective tariffs imposed for industrialization，“China would forever be a supplier of raw materials and a consumer of manufactured goods”.[15]
It is interesting to review in somewhat detail the thoughts of Chinese economists regarding tariff and related development issues，so as to discern the actual influence of List ’s theory on the Chinese political economic thinking，and some of its adaptations to the Chinese context.
Firstly，Chinese economists focused more on “recovering the tariff right” than on enforcing strict trade protection.Partly due to the “reverse discrimination” against the Chinese businesses on the Chinese soil，and partly due to their conviction that Chinese businessmen were competitive enough to deal with their foreign counterparts when put on a level field，Chinese academics and industrialists in principle did not call for high import tariffs，and did not even believe them to be that necessary.[16]
Secondly，Chinese economists realized in a balanced way that free trade and protection each had its application scope，with the former fit for advanced industrial powers and the latter fit for industrial latecomers.China as a latecomer should，of course，discourage imports and promote exports given the persistent trade deficits；and to promote industrialization，import rates should be set differently on different categories of products，inversely proportional to their extent of processing and manufacturing.[17]
Thirdly，considering the lack of inventive activities at home，Chinese economists knew well that imports were conducive to Chinese industrial improvement and even to social evolution，as already proven by the opening of the “treaty ports”，although imperialist oppression was the other side of the story.For the purpose of industrialization，foreign trade should be encouraged，imports of capital goods should be greatly facilitated，and with it，export of primary products should not be restricted，at least not for the time being.[18]
Fourthly，Chinese economists claimed that they were in theory also supporters of free trade and international cooperation，except that the prevailing practice of international trade presented all too sharp a contrast to the free trade doctrine.As argued，with the western powers returning to protectionism，China could only resort to trade protection to survive.But in the long run，emphasis should be put on the growth of productive forces.With this aim in mind，reciprocal trade was deemed a better option than restricted trade，and by the way，agriculture should not be protected，as was also argued by List.[19]
Fifthly，Chinese economists noted that，given the incompleteness of the Chinese sovereignty，mass boycott of foreign goods would be a more practical and effective tool to protect the local market and local industries.Indeed，many regarded this non-tariff means as the only feasible weapon for a weak but populous country like China to cope with the unfair competition from the strong.[20]
Sixthly，Chinese economists maintained that trade and economic development demanded，aside from some tariff protection，the removal of various other barriers in finance，transportation，business practices，internal governance，and so on.It was thus emphasized that any development strategy，be it trade protection，government intervention or economic planning，should not go to the extremes，particularly for a large-scale country like China.[21]