408
in Guangdong eventually shifted back to paddy cultivation or went over to the growing of vegetables. But what is important to note is that their decisions were made only after prolonged hesitation and after having incurred repeated losses in the sugar market. It is clear in retrospect that the decline of the sugar trade since the 1890s had been an irretrievable one. Back in those times, however, it was well-nigh impossible for the average peasants, who had little information about overseas market conditions, to predict whether demands and prices would rise or fall in the coming year. When the trade recession began to set in, it was just natural for them to entertain hopes that the situation would soon improve. And more often than not, they suffered losses before giving up hope and changing their production plan. Compared with the cane-cultivators, the mulberry-growers and silkworm-rearers admittedly fared better because the boom in the silk trade was more sustained, at least so right up to the turn of the present century. Though Guangdong raw silk began to lose ground relative to the more standardized Japanese silk and the new, competitive artificial fibres (rayon) in the world market, its export did not fall off sharply. There was again a boom in the period 1919-1923 after which the price of Guangdong raw silk progressively declined although export was maintained at a fair level until the world depression set in, producing unprecedented hardship for the sericulturists who found it impossible to switch over to another product because their capital was locked up in mulberry plantations.
There is yet a further question regarding trade increase and peasant livelihood. It is beyond doubt that cash-cropping increased the peasants' income-earning opportunities when market conditions were favourable. But even assuming that such conditions prevailed, the question remains as to whether the benefits derived from such opportunities were necessarily reaped by the average peasants, be they owner-cultivators or tenants. In view of the dearth of investment capital and the lack of credit/marketing systems operating in their interest, the average peasants presumably stood at a disadvantage to those who had the necessary cash, marketing knowledge and useful connections. The merchants, in particular, fared better because they possessed what was required for operating effectively in the primary markets and for providing the connections with the secondary and terminal markets, although their fortunes would equally be affected by the vicissitudes of the market. Thus, we should direct our attention not only to the question of whether cash-cropping was profitable, but also to the question of how differential access to opportunities might have affected rural income distribution. I think