2P - Economic developments: industry and agriculture
Learn how China moved from Soviet-style planning to the Great Leap Forward, why industrial and agricultural policies became destructive, and how the leadership began restoring production after economic collapse.
The First Five Year Plan
The First Five Year Plan, 1953–1957, aimed to turn an overwhelmingly agricultural country into an industrial power. The state directed investment, production targets and supplies. Heavy industries such as coal, steel, electricity and engineering received priority because they supplied machinery, infrastructure and military strength. Soviet loans, specialists and technology helped develop major projects, including steel production at Anshan and vehicle manufacture at Changchun.
Ownership changed alongside output. Banking and much large industry were already under state control. During the plan, remaining modern private businesses were brought into joint state–private enterprises and then effective state control. Handicraft workers also entered cooperatives. Socialist transformation therefore meant more than building factories: it changed who controlled production and investment.
The plan created a substantial industrial base, but its priorities generated tensions. Heavy industry absorbed resources while agriculture had to feed a growing urban workforce and provide produce for export. Selling agricultural goods abroad could help pay for imported machinery. State procurement of grain at controlled prices transferred resources from the countryside, but weak agricultural growth restricted what could safely be taken.
The Library of Congress country study, economic history chapter records the expansion of heavy industry and the imbalance with agriculture. Industrial success should be judged by usable capacity, not treated as proof that every sector or social group benefited equally.
Stages of collectivisation
Collectivisation developed through several arrangements whose differences matter. Land reform had distributed land to peasant households. The subsequent transition gathered their resources into larger units.
| Arrangement | What was shared | How household autonomy changed |
|---|---|---|
| Mutual-aid teams | Labour, tools and animals for particular jobs | Households retained their land and much independent decision-making. |
| Lower-stage agricultural cooperatives | Farming was organised collectively | Families could receive income for both labour and the land they contributed. |
| Higher-stage cooperatives | Land and major productive resources became collective | Income depended mainly on labour; individual ownership lost its economic importance. |
| People’s communes from 1958 | Multiple cooperatives combined production with local administration and services | Larger units could redirect labour and resources across villages. |
Early cooperation could be attractive where pooling animals and labour solved genuine shortages. Officially voluntary participation nevertheless occurred under party leadership. From 1955, Mao pressed for faster collectivisation against leaders who feared disruption. Political pressure, classification of resistant peasants and local coercion made the later transition increasingly compulsory in practice. By the end of 1956, collectivisation had become overwhelmingly widespread.
Collective ownership could coordinate irrigation and spread tools, but size alone did not guarantee better farming. Farmers needed incentives, locally informed decisions and time to adjust. Rapid administrative transformation could undermine these conditions before its promised benefits materialised.
Collectivisation
The organisation of agricultural land, labour and equipment into units managed collectively rather than through independent household farming.
Great Leap aims and communes
The Great Leap Forward, launched in 1958, promised faster development than conventional Soviet-style planning. Mao believed China could use revolutionary enthusiasm and its large labour force to overcome shortages of capital and advanced machinery. Industry and agriculture were to expand together. Central targets remained ambitious, but local authorities had greater responsibility for mobilising production.
The people’s commune was intended to make this possible. It combined farming with local industry, administration, education, militia organisation and welfare. Communal kitchens and childcare were supposed to release labour, including women’s labour, for production. Large teams could build dams, canals and reservoirs while other workers produced iron in small furnaces. Propaganda encouraged competition and presented spectacular production claims as proof that political commitment could transform material conditions.
These aims were not irrational simply because they sought cooperation. The danger lay in assuming that mobilisation could replace technical knowledge, realistic resource allocation and reliable information. A village could not simultaneously supply unlimited labour for harvesting, irrigation construction and furnace work. Allocating the same workers to competing priorities produced opportunity costs even when everyone appeared politically enthusiastic.
The Leap sought simultaneous industrial and agricultural growth by mobilising labour. Its promise depended on that labour being available, properly organised and supported by workable techniques.
Production and resource failure
The backyard-furnace campaign illustrates the gap between reported production and useful output. Unskilled workers used inadequate equipment and fuel. Much of the resulting metal was unsuitable for industrial manufacture. Tools and household metal objects could be sacrificed to meet targets, while collecting fuel damaged woodland. Resources were consumed without creating an equivalent supply of usable steel.
Agriculture suffered when workers were diverted from normal cultivation and harvesting. Projects built rapidly without sound engineering could damage land or fail to control water. Agricultural techniques, including excessively close planting and deep ploughing, were promoted without adequate attention to local soils and crops. Large communal arrangements also weakened the connection between effort and household reward.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account