IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v23y2020i1p114-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interpreting the Maritime and Overland Trade Regulations of 1882 between ChosŠn and the Qing: How logics of appropriateness shaped Sino–Korean relations

Author

Listed:
  • Jung Mee Park

    (University of Arizona, USA)

  • Chun-Ping Wang

    (University of Southern California, USA)

Abstract

Prior research on Qing China’s relationship towards ChosŠn Korea in the late 19th century suggested that China’s influence over Korea was a continuation of the tribute system. However, the Qing’s awareness of Westphalian laws altered Sino–Korean relations. In 1882, Qing China signed the Maritime and Overland Trade Regulations with ChosŠn Korea. Unlike the previous treaties that China signed with western states, the Qing negotiated terms economically beneficial to China in the agreement. The Qing officials determined much of the terms found in the Regulations. The Qing officials had leverage over ChosŠn officials partly because China had amassed cultural capital through centuries of tributary exchanges. The logics of appropriateness (LoA) or ‘bounded rationality’ of the tribute system shaped the Qing’s and ChosŠn’s responses, even in treaty negotiations. We argued that the Regulations reflected the Qing’s attempts to ‘modernize’ tributary relations with Westphalian LoA in light of the Qing’s own domestic crisis. Domestic insurrections such as the Taiping Rebellion led members of the self-strengthening ( Ziqiang ) movement to focus on foreign affairs and adopt Westphalian international laws. The Qing’s goals to self-strengthen via an unequal agreement with ChosŠn, however, failed when westerners criticized China’s perceived suzerain authority over Korea. The criticisms highlighted the cleavages between the tributary and Westphalian systems as individuals attempted to justify their roles within these institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jung Mee Park & Chun-Ping Wang, 2020. "Interpreting the Maritime and Overland Trade Regulations of 1882 between ChosÅ n and the Qing: How logics of appropriateness shaped Sino–Korean relations," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 23(1), pages 114-132, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:23:y:2020:i:1:p:114-132
    DOI: 10.1177/2233865919871704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2233865919871704
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2233865919871704?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. von Glahn,Richard, 2016. "The Economic History of China," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107030565, October.
    2. Brandt, Loren, 1985. "Chinese agriculture and the international economy, 1870-1930: A reassessment," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 168-193, April.
    3. von Glahn,Richard, 2016. "The Economic History of China," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107615700, October.
    4. March, James G. & Olsen, Johan P., 1983. "The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(3), pages 734-749, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Kai-sing Kung, 2022. "On the Origins and Persistent Effects of the World’s First Meritocratic Institution," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 64(4), pages 563-581, December.
    2. David de la Croix & Matthias Doepke & Joel Mokyr, 2018. "Clans, Guilds, and Markets: Apprenticeship Institutions and Growth in the Preindustrial Economy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 1-70.
    3. Deng, Kent & O'Brien, Patrick, 2017. "How Well Did Facts Travel to Support Protracted Debate on the History of the Great Divergence between Western Europe and Imperial China?," MPRA Paper 77290, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Jacques Melitz, 2019. "Some Doubts about the Economic Analysis of the Flow of Silver to China in 1550–1820," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 105-131, February.
    5. Kumon, Yuzuru, 2021. "The Deep Roots of Inequality," IAST Working Papers 21-125, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    6. Deng, Kent & O'Brien, Patrick, 2021. "The Kuznetsian paradigm for the study of modern economic history and the Great Divergence with appendices of literature review and statistical data," Economic History Working Papers 108563, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    7. Jiarui Wu, 2023. "Review of Margherita Zanasi, Economic Thought in Modern China: Market and Consumption, c.1500–1937, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020, 252 pages, ISBN: 978-1-108-49993-4," Post-Print hal-03727085, HAL.
    8. Ronald Findlay, 2018. "Asia and the world economy in historical perspective," WIDER Working Paper Series 85, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Lisa Blaydes & Christopher Paik, 2021. "Trade and Political Fragmentation on the Silk Roads: The Economic Effects of Historical Exchange between China and the Muslim East," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 115-132, January.
    10. Roland, Gérard & Jia, Ruixue & Xie, Yang, 2021. "A Theory of Power Structure and Institutional Compatibility: China vs. Europe Revisited," CEPR Discussion Papers 15700, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Zan, Luca & Deng, Kent, 2017. "Micro foundations in the Great Divergence debate: opening up a new perspective," Economic History Working Papers 68944, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    12. Duncan Freeman, 2022. "The EU and China: policy perceptions of economic cooperation and competition," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 245-264, September.
    13. Ronald Findlay, 2018. "Asia and the world economy in historical perspective," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2018-85, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    14. Chen, Ting & Kung, James Kai-sing, 2022. "War shocks, migration, and historical spatial development in China," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    15. Deng, Kent & Shen, Jim Huangnan, 2019. "From state resource allocation to a 'low-level equilibrium trap': re-evaluation of economic performance of Mao's China, 1949-78," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101127, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Deng, Kent & O'Brien, Patrick, 2021. "The Kuznetsian paradigm for the study of modern economic history and the Great Divergence with appendices of literature review and statistical data," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108563, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Deng, Kent & Shen, Jim Huangnan, 2019. "From state resource allocation to a 'low-level equilibrium trap': re-evaluation of economic performance of Mao's China, 1949-78," Economic History Working Papers 101127, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    18. Michael D. Bordo & William Roberds, 2022. "Central Bank Digital Currencies: An Old Tale with a New Chapter," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2022-18, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    19. Xingyuan Feng & Weisen Li & Evan W. Osborne, 2017. "Classical Liberalism in China: Some History and Prospects," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 14(2), pages 218–240-2, May.
    20. Deng, Hanzhi, 2021. "The merit of misfortune: Taiping Rebellion and the rise of indirect taxation in modern China, 1850s-1900s," Economic History Working Papers 108564, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:23:y:2020:i:1:p:114-132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.