Suchergebnisse

Abstract
To call the period from Qin Dynasty to Qing Dynasty a "feudal society" is a misrepresentation of China's historical reality. The fengjian system only occupied a secondary position in Chinese society from the time of Qin. It was the system of prefectures and counties (junxianzhi) that served as the cornerstone of the centralized power structure. This system, together with the institution of selecting officials through the imperial examination, constituted the centralized bureaucracy that intentionally crippled the hereditary tradition and the localized aristocratic powers, and hence bolstered the unity of the empire. Feudalism in medieval Western Europe shares many similarities with that of China during the Shang and Zhou dynasties, but is quite different from the monarchical centralism since the time of Qin and Han. Categorizing the social form of the period from Qin to Qing as "feudal" makes the mistake of over-generalizing and distorting this concept. It runs counter to the original Chinese meaning of fengjian, and severely deviates from the western connotation of feudalism. Moreover, the decentralized feudalism in pre-Qin dynasties and the later centralized imperial system from Qin onwards influenced the generation and evolution of Chinese culture in vastly different ways.

Introduction -- Part I Fengjian (Feudal) -- Chapter 1: Composition of the Classical Chinese Term "Fengjian" -- Chapter 2: The Zhou Fengjian System of Decentralization and the Qin System of Monarchical Centralization -- Chapter 3: The Concept of Hōken (封建)in Early Modern Japan -- Chapter 4: A Discovery of the Similarities between Fengjian and Feudalism -- Chapter 5: Establishment of the Concept of Feudalism in Western Europe and Its Encounter with Feudalism in East Asia -- Chapter 6: The New Term "Fengjian" in the Late Qing and Early Ming Dynasties -- Chapter 7: The Alienation of the New Term "Fengjian" -- Chapter 8: Generalization of the Concept of "Feudalism" -- Chapter 9: The Truth about Marx's Theory of Feudalism -- Chapter 10: Criticism of Generalized Feudalism by Chinese Scholars -- Chapter 11: Patriarchal Landowners' Authoritarian Society and the Age of Imperial Power -- Part II Jingji (Economy) -- Chapter 12: The Classical Meaning of "Jingji": Governance for the People -- Chapter 13: Jingji as Envisaged in the Studies for Practical Solutions in China and Japan in the Near-Ancient Period: The National Economy and the People's Livelihood -- Chapter 14: The Evolution of Ancient and Modern Meaning of Economy in the West until It Was Finally Settled -- Chapter 15: Translation of Economy into Keizai in the Late Edo Period and during the Meiji Period -- Chapter 16: Modern Japan Doubted about the Translation of Economy as Keizai and Tried Other Alternatives -- Chapter 17: The Rejection of Japan's Translation of Economy as Keizai by Chinese Scholars in the Late Qing Dynasty and Their New Alternatives -- Chapter 18: The Early Republican Period: Establishment of "Jingji" as the Translation of Economy in China -- Chapter 19: Examination of Jingji in Its Present Sense. .

China's sustainable development goals and carbon neutrality targets cannot be achieved without revolutionary transitions of the agricultural sector. The rapid development of digital technologies is believed to play a huge role in this revolution. The ongoing prevention and control of COVID-19 has greatly boosted the penetration of digital technology services in all areas of society, and sustainable transformation driven by digital technologies and services is rapidly becoming an area of innovation and research. Studies have shown that the rapid advancement of digitalization is also accompanied by a series of new governance challenges and problems: (1) unclear strategic orientation and inadequate policy and regulatory responses; (2) various stakeholders have not formed a sustainable community of interest; (3) information explosion is accompanied by information fragmentation and digital divide between countries and populations within countries. Meanwhile, current research has focused more on the role of digital services in urban governance and industrial development and lacks systematic research on its role in sustainable agricultural and rural development. To address the realities faced by different stakeholders in the process of digital transformation of agriculture, this paper aims to propose an inclusive analytical framework based on the meta-governance theory to identify and analyze the demand, supply, actor networks, and incentives in the digital technology-and-services-driven sustainable agricultural transformation, starting from the goals and connotations of sustainable agricultural and rural transformation and the interactions among different stakeholders in governing information flows. This analytical framework is further applied to analyze the cases of China and the EU. Although China and the EU represent different development phases and policy contexts, the framework is valid for capturing the characteristics of information flows and actor networks along the flows. It is concluded that a common information platform based on the stakeholder network would benefit all stakeholders, help reach common framing of issues, and maintain a dynamic exchange of information. Depending on the country context, different types of stakeholders may play different roles in creating, supervising, and maintaining such platforms. Digital infrastructures/products as hardware and farmers digital capacity as 'software' are the two wings for digital sustainable transformation. Innovative incentives from different countries may inspire each other. In any case, farmers' actual farming behavior changes should be an important criterion for evaluating the effects and effectiveness of digital transition governance.