Of course, I do agree with the point that closing the door to the outside world was not the complete solution during that time given the condition that the economy of the country was in shambles. The merchants who had trade relationships with the outsiders were greedy and they wanted to go to any means to make money. However, China, forgetting its own tradition and rich lineage of indigenous knowledge, was fighting hard to combat the western economies that were richly structured. On the other hand, China’s other foreign business partners were much experienced and seasoned travelers. China feared that its lack of outside exposure would make it a weak trade partner. This motivated China to close the doors to the outside world.
However, the dynastic rulers could have created a balance between trading with the outside world and taking good care of its internal affairs instead of completely abstaining from globalization. The downfall of the dynastic rulers was more attributed to unrest within China since farmers had to face frequent drought and flood. Towards the end of the dynastic rule, China’s expanding population was putting pressure on the limited arable land reserves. In fact, China was growing without any development (Fairbank and Goldman, 1998). Taking care of the needs of the population would have contributed to the farm production, which in turn would have given China an upper hand in trading with its foreign partners. Thus, China that initiated globalization during the earlier days would have really benefited from the efforts of the dynastic rulers had it continued with its globalization efforts. The trade income would have rightly helped the rulers to improve the internal infrastructure facilities, educate the new generations, and feed the millions.
Reference
Fairbank, J. K., & Goldman, M. (1998). China: A New History.Cambridge: Harvard University Press
