TYIELIBRAR

|| llHl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

llllllllHilllllllllllllllllllll!“Hill

3 1293 0159

v 'v‘ ‘3'"

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

FAMILY ECONOMY AND DIVIDION:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE FAMILIAL RESPONSE
TO ECONOMIC CHANGE IN A RURAL TAIWANESE COMMUNITY

presented by

Ross Chiffelle Gardner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MA (1 . ANP
egree 1n

 

 

Major professor

Date 25 Sept 86

\

0-7639 ~ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IVIESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
L13RARJES remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

K.—

 

FAMILY ECONOMY AND DIVISION:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE FAMILIAL RESPONSE
TO ECONOMIC CHANGE IN A RURAL TAIWANESE COMMUNITY

By

Ross Chiffelle Gardner

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Anthropology

1986

4/

ABSTRACT

FAMILY ECONOMY AND DIVISION:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE FAMILIAL RESPONSE

TO ECONOMIC CHANGE IN A RURAL TAIWANESE COMMUNITY

Ross Gardner

This study focuses on the changes in the socio-economic organization
of rural-based Taiwanese families since the 19505. The research.
concerns itself with the impact upon families when agriculture ceases to
provide the primary source of income for families. Specifically. the
paper examines the changes that have taken place in the family economy
when farm property and farming become secondary to the ownership and

operation of off-farm businesses and other kinds of off-farm work. And.

because family property is enmeshed in the division of family assets.

the paper also examines the changes that have taken place in the nature
of family division. *
Drawing from data collected in Taiwan. the paper traces the changes

that have taken place among twelve rural-based families as they become

less reliant upon agriculture for a livelihood. The findings indicate

‘ that as involvement in non-farm work becomes more important to family

members. the availability of cash becomes the overriding concern of

family members rather than the farm estate itself.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

I am deeply indebted to Bernard and Rita Gallin for generously
providing both their field data and long hours of patient advice. As
teachers and researchers they both excel above and beyond the call of
duty. I would also like to express my thanks to my committee members
Joseph Spielberg and Iwao Ishino.p They served as terrific sounding boards
off of which I could bounce my ideas. Finally. special thanks go to my

wife. Shu-man. who put up with my incessant questions about Taiwanese

society and infernal moods.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......0..0.00......0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOiv

LIST OF FIGURESOO0.0....0.0.0.000...O0.000.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOv

CHAPTER I:

Introduction.........................................................1
The Problem..........................................;........
Limitations...................................................
A Note on the Romanization....................................
A Note on Terminology.........................................
_The Chinese Family...............................................
: Family Economy................................................
Family Division...............................................

The Extended Family and the Importance of the Estate in
,Pre-1949 China................................................ 16
Family Farms.................................................. 16
Family Business............................................... 19

l-‘kOWNNUIH

CHAPTER II:
The Economy and Family in Change..................................... 25
The Village of Hsin Hsing........................................ 26
Economic Change.. ............................................ 26
Family Economy and Family Division............................ 31
Rain Hsing in Comparison......................................... 46
How Important is Family Economy as a Factor in Familial
Social Organization?.......................................... 51

CHAPTER III: ..
Family Economy Family Division Nexus................................. 59
' A Guide to the Case Studies................................... 60
Family Economy and Division: Three Possible Types................ 63
Estate-Based Family Economy................................... 65
Budget-Based Family Economy................................... 73
Time/Place Variation and its Affect on Diversified Economies..... 76
The Effect of Parental Authority and Property Acquisition on
Family Division.................................................. 77

81

DiSCUSSionOICOOOOOOOOOO00....0..0..0....OOOOOCOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0...

89

APPENDIXOCIO0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOO.

REFER‘ENCES.O.0..00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO 123
127

GlossarYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

iii

LIST OF TABLES

 

CHAPTER II:
Types of Businesses Located in Hsin Hsing Village. . . . . . . . . . . 28
Occupation by Sex and Entrepreneurs by Family Type. . . . . . . . . . 29
Reasons Given for Division in Hsin Hsing. . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

LIST OF FIGURES

 

CHAPTER I:
Map of China................................................ 2
Some Chinese Family Forms................................... 12
A Typical Farm Compound of a Divided Family................. 14

CHAPTER III:
Occupations of Family Members in Taiwan and China........... 61
Three Possible Variations of Family Economy in
Hsin Hsing. Taiwan.......................................... 66

APPENDIX: V p A
Map Of Taiwan...00......OOOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOOOOO0.000.000.0000. 89

-1-

INTRODUCTION ‘

 

THE PROBLEM

 

With the end of World War II. Japan had laid the foundation for
Taiwan's future development (Amsden 1979:348). and paved the way for the
application of American aid and an American political force that was
bent on proving to the world that swift and broad-based development of
China could be achieved without the socialist methods employed by the
People's Republic of China (PRC). In 1949. under pressure from the
United States Government.-the newly exiled Kuo Ming Tang (KMT) enacted a
land reform program which. by 1953. had succeeded in expropriating. with
compensation. the holdings of landlords and restricted the population
to ownership of maximum amounts of acreage. Within that short period.
landlords as a class were virtually eliminated and replaced by a large
majority of small-owner cultivators. Land reform. coupled with
improvements in seed. fertilizer and cultivating techniques. helped
boost agricultural production to record levels by the early 19603.

Amsden (1979). in her accdunt of Taiwan's economic history. points
out that while the success of agriculture was due to direct
actionfarmers' associations. hybrid rice and cash crop seeds). the
government also actively extracted surpluses from agriculture once
production levels had increased. The government. having successfully
eliminated the only politically powerful force (i.e.. landlords). had a

direct link to. and control over. farmers. Once control was established.

1

9......
-. DOC:

H.H MHDMHW
$56 so .2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

z<moo

o.n.o<m

 

 

            
 

soc-c
\

M

 

8 db 4.. 5° < I I
. «.dcuzcz
i... If. 90..

Esoutzn o no on on. f
9.1.2.2.... so. 9 .. 0% \Sooo

coo-o oooo...ool\u(\ C {I o

o... no. a a v. a
«W 9?
0.0.0000...

 

 

 

3

the state was able to squeeze farmers by implementing a rice-fertilizer
barter system which required farmers to exchange a set quota of rice
for fertilizer. an exchange that was unfavorable to cultivators.
Surpluses from agriculture were then used to build Taiwan's
infrastructure (roads. public works and schools) as well as to help
finance new government-owned heavy industries.
Taiwan's industrial development. although at first urban-centered.

gradually affected the rural areas.

In 1956. 732 of Taiwan's rural labor force was employed

in agriculture. while slightly less than 7% was

employed in manufacturing. By 1966. agriculture

employed just 542 of the rural labor force;

manufacturing 10%; commerce 5%; and services 19% (Ho

1979:81).1
Begining in the late 19505. industry gradually spread from the major
urban areas to secondary cities and suburban areas. finally reaching
rural districts by the late 19605 and early 1970s. Industry
decentralized for a number of reasons. Some maufacturing. for example.
was dependent upon raw materials in the countryside and on markets
located there (ibid.:81). jIn other instances. industrialists moved
some of their operations out of the cities into the countryside to find
cheaper labor and to establish systems of contract manufacturing with
small. independent and labor-intensive satellite factories (most of
which employed only family labor or no more than 10 to 20 wage laborers)
(Anderson & Leiserson 1980:230).

While the gradual movement of service. manufacturing. and

commercial industry out of the cities to secondary cities and rural

4

areas was facilitated by the near absence of physical and
infrastructural barriers (the bulk of Taiwan's rural population is
located along the westen coastal plain) - it was the growing rural
under-employed which provided the greatest incentive for that movement.
According to Ho. by 1970. some "44% of the farms on Taiwan contained
less than .5 hectares of cultivated land"(l979:88). Although the dearth
of jobs in the countryside had the immediate effect of forcing young
family members into the cities in search of work. this trend was stemmed
by the outward movement of jobs and capital into the secondary cities
and rural areas. As the amount of work to be found close to family
farm compounds grew. increasing numbers of sons and daughters remained
at home and started a business or commuted to work in a nearby factory.
In sum. the KMT enacted policies in the 19505 which initially
promoted urban industrial and commercial development at the expense of
agriculture and economic development in the countryside. Confronted
with limited jobs and a declining land to man ratio. many rural
inhabitants left their farming families and migrated to the cities in
search of employment. By the 19703. however. the movement of jobs and
capital to the rural areas. enabled many migrants to return to their

native villages and work.

Given the dramatic changes in Taiwan's countryside. in this thesis I
will consider the ways in which the organization of rural-based
Taiwanese families change in response to the pressures of the changing
economy in which they are enmeshed? More specifically. to better
understand the responSe of rural-based families to economic change I

will examine two questions:

5

1) What is the relationship between the changes in Taiwan's rural
economy since the 19505. and family economy (defined below)?

2) What is the relationship between changes in the family economy
and changes in family structure?

Essentially. the first question will examine the changes that take
place in the family economy when farm prOperty and farming become
secondary to the ownership and operation of off-farm businesses and
other kinds of off-farm work. And. because family property (both fixed
and liquid) is inextricably entwined in family continuity and the
division of family assets. the second question will address the changes
that have taken place in the nature of family division (explained

below).

LIMITATIONS

 

On a general level then. this paper will examine changes in the
structure and function of rural-based families during the transition
from a traditional agriarian based socio-economic system to one based on
industrial capitalism in Taiwan (Medick 1976:292). Given the magnitude
of of such an examination. the paper has a number of limitations:

1) It deals primarily with anthropological data collected on Taiwan
(from 1950 to the present. These several decades. I believe. provide a
long enough period from which to see the transition from a farm-based
economy to one based on industrial capitalism. The approximatley 35-year
time period also is relatively unmarred by political. economic. or
social upheaval on the island.

2) The study is restricted to primarily rural-based extended (stem

and joint) families. Because of limited data available. I have

6

presented only a brief history of ten families. These ten case

studies are presented to better acquaint the reader with the kinds of
work families are involved in and. where possible. the nature of their
economic and social organization and relationships. Although I often
'refer to the case studies to illustrate points or as examples. I remind
the reader that I also draw extensively from other data not mentioned as
part of the case studies.

3) Although I use secondary data collected from a number of
communities around the island (so as to better round out my analysis of
the family). I nevertheless reserve my conclusions and observations for
only one rural community. Hsin Hsing. with suggestions for their
possible application elsewhere. The Hsin Hsing data are. by far. the
most complete information I have on families in Taiwan. so that village
is the primary community to which my observations best apply.

4) Because of my interest in the economic organization and functions
of the family. I have focused my attention on the type of work family
members (primarily males)2 are involved in and the economic ”
relationships that exist between them. I concentrate on the nature of
family preperty and how that property is used (if at all) for I
productive purposes. I also give attention to the use and management of
the liquid assets (primarily cash) that a family may accumulate over

)time.

5) Finally. in my concern with the nature of familial social
structure. I examine how the distribution of family assets among male
heirs through the process of family division is influenced by and a

reflection of the changing conditions of family economic life.

7

-In the rest of chapter one. I define the terminology used in this
paper. I follow this with a general discussion of family economic and
social organization in rural pre-1949 China.

-In chapter two I discuss selected families in the village of Hsin
Hsing. For comparative reasons. I also introduce the views and opinions
of several other social scientists who have studied the family in
Taiwan.

-Chapter three offers my anlaysis of family division and family
economy. followed by a short discussion.

-The Appendix offers ten case studies which I use to help illustrate

points made in my analysis.

A NOTE ON THE ROMANIZATION
This thesis will use the Wade-Giles system of romanization. Where
Chinese is used in quotations. I will use the romanization system of the

author followed by the equivalent Wade-Giles form.

In 1980. 40 New Taiwan Dollars (NTSAO) was equivalent to approximately

US$1.

A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY

In the anthropological literature that has come out of China and
Taiwan over the years. a number of terms and labels used to describe
the socioeconomic lives of the Chinese have emerged. Some of these
terms are widely used and commonly understood by researchers. while
other labels remain rather obtuse and confusing to most everyone. I

believe the terminology used in what follows is for the most part

8
generally understood and accepted by the majority of researchers who
have done work on Taiwan.

Two of the more important concepts used in this paper are "family
economy" and "family division." While both terms are explained below. I
would like to point out that the former term is a label created and used
by western social scientists to describe a familial or domestic social
and economic phenomenon foreign to ourselves. while the latter is a
translation of the Chinese term fen-chia used when a family divides

into its component household units.

9

THE CHINESE FAMILY

 

The family (5221) has generally been described as the basic unit of
Chinese society. The ghia. writes Rita Gallin. was traditionally based
on an authoritarian hierarchy "of gender. generation. and age" which
dominated the lives of family members (1985:77).3 Males held the
highest status. as did those who were of the older generation; women. as
Gallin points out. regardless of age. had the lowest status of all. The
social ideology of filial piety or hgigg. legitimized the hierarchy of
the family. A son or daughter who was filial. was a person of good
character. a child who had £2i2.£§ié£ (family teaching). To be filial
meant obedience and respect for those of the older generation. caring
for ones parents in old age. and continued veneration of the parents

after their death through ancestor worship.

FAMILY ECONOMY

 

Throughout history the family has also been characterized as a
self-sufficient economic unit. consisting of those who are related by
blood. marriage. adoption. and have a common estate and a common budget
(Cohen 19QEzl84). In essence. a family's common budget and estate
constitute the base for what is called the "family economy." and.
depending upon the particular economic pursuit of family members.
individuals will make use of the estate and budget to varying degrees.

The budget. for example. is a common account into which the liquid
assets (primarily.cash savings) of a family are placed. The budget is
managed and administered by the family manager or £213 ghggg (who is

frequently one of the older male members of the family). This chia

10

$2335 (with or without the help of family members) decides when. how.
and on what and whom the budget will be used. For the most part. funds
in the budget are used by the family to pay for food. rent. medicine.
clothing and other household expenses. religious festivals and rituals
such as burials and weddings. Accumulated cash is also used for
investments in such things as land. buildings. farm equipment and
livestock. In cases where there is enough of a surplus. investments are
frequently made in a small businesses or a son's education. The common
account is then replenished by productive family members to the degree
that. I

when all the members are farmers tilling the household

soil. this expresses itself in a joint cultivation of

the land and joint reaping of the harvest. When some

member of the family has a side income or when he lives

apart and has a different occupation. it is his duty to

place in the household account all clear profit

accruing from these activities; that is. to hand it all

over to the household accountant (Shiga 1978:112).
cream.

The family estate. in contrast. refers to that body of fixed assets
that legally belongs to the (male) members of a household. and to "which
the process of family division is applicable" (Cohen 1976:59).4 What
‘this means is that the ghia_estate is that property which is jointly
used by the family and which. when the family divides. is distributed to
the male heirs. Among agriculturally—based families. estate property
(synonymous with inheritable property ) might include farm land (either

owned or tenanted). the farm house. outbuildings. tools and livestock.

11

For wealthier families or merchant families. common property would most
probably include land, a business(es) owned by the family. buildings.
and business stock.

For those families with very little property or accumulated liquid
assets. the matter of budget or estate is obviously not an issue. But
for the many families with accumulated assets. it is important to note
that both the budget and estate were (and continue to be) used (or
exploited) in accordance with the particular type of economy undertaken
by the family or family members. As we shall see. families that are
dependent upon farming or a business or wage labor for an income are
likely to use the family estate and budget in different ways. For
families primarily involved in farming for example. the estate is most
important because of the land. The budget (cash). on the other hand.
becomes more important when the family or family members enter off-farm

occupations which require cash investments or expenditures.5

FAMILY DIVISION

The family. according to Levy. can include "a father and a mother.
all their sons. their unmarried daughters. their sons' wives and
children. the sons of theirxsons. the wives and children of the sons of
the sons. and so on for many generations as possible" (1949:48). As a
rule. sons remain a part of the ghia and daughters marry out to join
families of the husbands.

The Chinese family is also cyclical. When the first son in a
conjugal family marries. family becomes a stem type (composed of the
parents. one married son and his wife and children. and unmarried

brothers and sisters). Following the marriage of the second son the

12

family reaches the joint stage (a family with parents. more than one
married son. and their wives and children)(see figure 1.2). Eventually.
for any number of reasons. the large family will divide into several
units which may include conjugal. stem. and even joint. depending on the
size of the_original family. But "the precise point in time when

division takes place is not fixed and has no direct connection with the

death of the father of the household" (Shiga 1978:116).

Conjugal I Stem «; fr? Joint
\‘_ ‘ _—

I“ I“

i ..- .1 . .
, “f; 3,- as If};
I A O ‘1‘ "" A ‘ ’ J .0
- I . v A

 

 

A Cg Ari-0A. <5 £02500
fl "GA ol

SOME CHINESE FAMILY FORMS

 

Ideally. a formal family divison involves an elaborate legal
process. "Family divison was a jural act;" writes Cohen "together with
the partition of property theie was termination of many kinds of
' obligations" (1976:74). Once a family agrees to divide (if the father ‘
is alive he must first give his consent). an arbiter is often called in
to mediate in the equitable division of the family estate.6 The
family land. business (if any). livestock. tools. buildings and
residence are all divided among the male heirs. Also divided are the

family's eating arrangements. Each new family builds its own kitchen

13

where they take their meals alone (see figure 1.3 of a Chinese farm
compound).
Once division has taken place. the cycle begins again with sons and

their wives and children setting up new chia (each conjugal unit is
‘3: fl .

referred to as £é§é_while undivided). and over time expanding to a stem
or. perhaps. to the joint stage. The parents frequently share living
quarters and meals with their sons' families. often on a rotating basis;
families of this type are often referred to as rotating stem families.

As a rule. a "formal" or "de jure" (as described above) division
occurs in those families that have property to divide. In some
situations. however. family division may also occur among those families
with little or no preperty. Or. on the other hand. families wigh
.property may not "formally" divide their property. but instead. its
members may choose to separate from one another (perhaps taking those
family assets useful to them) over a period of time leaving division to
resemble a kind of "de facto" separation. Whatever the case. family
division occurs at different times and. perhaps. in different forms; it
(does not always resemble an ideal type.

Finally. it is also important to point out that the wealth and
income generated by a family varies in accordance with the family
cycle. Conjugal families. for example. are labor poor while stem and
joint families are labor rich. In larger families. the greater number
of productive individuals outweighs the number of nonproductive family
members (children). leaving more cash to be spent on investments.

Ehy_dgwfamiliesddiyidel_ According to Freedman. the answer is
complicated because division is usually due to a number of

interconnected "economic. legal. moral. religious and. in a restricted

14

.onoa cmsoo "moumom

QZDCLICU C<—«—-Zm—.r < “_C 25.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.flmmcmEou Epmh mH~Emb Hmofimxk <

m.H mwmwfim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ \InloZbu-Bt Ju-OI/ .

A}... new»; so:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15
sense. psychological"(1979:236) problems. These problems translate
into conflict between brothers. fathers and sons. and mothers-in-law and
dau ghters-in-l aw . Nigeria .parti calms. ,, have.-..qften..-ho.rne.,the. brushing.--
the criticism for‘bgeaking”HRmiamiliesa Freedman has said that "when a
married woman fought. she fought for herself. for her children. and for
her husband" (1966:46). and when she was not fighting she was accused of
scheming to sever the bond between her husband and his family.

Nevertheless. Freedman argues that the root of most disputes
(leading to division) in the family are based on Sgggggigwpgpblegg,
Often. arguments arise between brothers. with each accusing the other of
not contributing enough labor or remittances to the family economy. In
other instances. a daughter-in-law might be reprimanded if a
mother-in-law believes she is not doing her share of the cooking.
cleaning. or work in the fields. Also not uncommon. are disputes over
how and on whom the money in the budget should be spent. Siblings
frequently level complaints against each other over children who eat too
much. the cost of a nephew's education. or the amount of medicine or
clothing purchased. Again. family division may be the only way for a
family to resolve the conflict.

Of course. tensions in a family need not result in division. A
strong and authoritarian father might be able to hold a family together
well into the joint stage. In such cases. children restrain their
bickering in deference to the parents. choosing to cooperate rather
than fight. Eventually however. upon the death of a father. sons would
divide.

In sum. then. although I agree with Freedman that family division is

for the most part caused by economic problems in the family, I believe

16
it is important to look in more detail at the relationship between the
nature of family economy and the nature of family division. Ideally we
should also keep in mind that families run in cycles. that families
may divide at any stage in the cycle. and that division may happen on

both a formal “de jure” or informal "de facto" basis. ‘

THE EXTENDED FAMILY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ESTATE IN PRE-1949 CHINA

I have chosen 1949 as an arbitrary date separating two periods of
Chinese social history. This is not to say that all that occurred
before the Chinese revolution was "traditional" and all that followed
was "modern." But it is necessary to establiSh a baseline in order to
distinguish between those who wrote about the family in
pre-revolutionary China (for ,example. Kulp 1925. Fei 1939. Lang 1946.
Levy 1949. Freedman 1958) and those who have observed and studied the
family in Taiwan since that time.7

The following discussion on traditional China is limited. To
establish some kind of baseline against which I can compare the changes
in the family in Taiwan since the 19505. I have prepared a very brief
overview of the social and economic organization of rural agricultural
based families before 1949. I will talk about family economy and family
division. placing special emphasis on the relationship between the

family estate. budget. and intrafamilial social organization.

FAMILY FARMS
Let us first consider how the estate. and its primary asset. land.

fits into the social and economic organization of the

l7

agriculturally-based family. We find that in an agrarian society "such
as traditional China. landed property constituted the main resource of
the domestic economy [family economy] and its role thus loomed large in
determining the pattern of domestic organization" (Chen 1984:163). Land
provided life for the family. and so it also became the most important
form of wealth and property. Land took on both economic and symbolic
value to the degree that "families would relinquish their holdings only
when there was no other option for survival left" (Baker 1979:13).

Throughout the literature on traditional China. we frequently find
references about the importance of land to the family. Rawski wrote
that in Fujian Province "absentee landlords did not invest in land for
profit so much as to ensure a stable income and reaffirm deep cultural
value in owning land. Opportunities for accumulating wealth were much
higher in activities such as moneylending and overseas trade"

(1972:86). But as long as a family held land. "its members were secure.
and other villagers held that family in high esteem" (Meyers 1970:97;
see also Freedman 1966:33).

Although having land to farm was the most immediate concern of the
family. there was always a degree of anxiety about a family's ability
to hold on to it for the next generation. Househbld heads endlessly
worried about maintaining the family line. With the continuation of the
family name. ancestor worship would be maintained. thereby ensuring (for
one generation at the least) that the after-life of the parents and the
ancestors before them would not sink into oblivion. This need for
continuity. and the fact that the older generation also worried about
being taken care of in old age. led Myers to conclude that "the Chinese

peasant believed that acquiring land was the most dependable way a

18

family's fortune could be improved and security provided for the sons.
The more land a household head could transfer to his sons. the easier it
was for sons to acquire land" (1970:115).

In contrast to the Japanese system of primogeniture in which the
majority of land is given to the eldest son. the Chinese system of
family division provided the mechanism for equitable distribution of
land to all sons. One important advantage of this system was to spread
wealth to many heirs in the hope that at least one would survive.
prosper. and continue the descent line. While family division did not
necessarily ensure a sufficient amount of land for several sons. it
usually enabled all of them to establish a subsistence foothold.
Depending upon access to other forms of work. farming and/or
entrepreneurial ability. a small piece of land might enable sons to
expand their holdings and accumulate capital (Greenhalgh 1984:534).

According to Rawski (1972). landed owners (and those with top-soil
tenant rights) in selecred coastal areas of pre-20th century Fuchien
Province thrived primarily because of increasing land values. rapid
market expansion. and the ability to diversify out of agriculture into
occupations that gave them a higher return for their labor. Lin
(1948). a Chinese sociologiSt. compiled a detailed family history of a
Fuchien family from the late 1800 to mid 19005 that in many ways mirrors
the conditions that Rawski has written about. This particular family
(Hwang family. see Appendix. case 1). was able to become quite
prosperous because it had access to the lucrative river trade between
the port city of Fuchiu and the inland districts of the province.

Access to good markets and success in business also allowed the family

to diversify into other non commercial areas (such as government) that

19

were sources of increasing wealth and power. But the family's good
fortune would not have been possible had not one of its enterprising
family members left farming in his early years to sell peanuts to
travelers along a country road. Had this individual not had the support
of a family with access to land. it is doubtful that he could have
become an entrepreneur.8

Suffice it to say. that for propertied agriculturally-based
families. the estate (based on land) not only formed the backbone of the
family economy but also was highly valued as inheritablelproperty; For
many peasant families. land was critical to the continued survival and
reproduction of future generations. And. where there was enough land to
be distributed to sons. the jural process of family division was
employed to equitably provide a means of subsistance for each male

heir.9

FAMILY BUSINESS

 

If land was so critical to the maintenance of a family and so
important to its future success in off-farm activities. what happens
when land becomes secondary to business property or interests? Put
another way. what happens to family organization and the process of
family division when family members work and participate in a
business-based family economy?

As seen with the Hwang family (Appendix case 1). there were many
rural agrarian based families that experienced upward mobility. Many \

families managed to accumulate enough capital to make an investment ing

 

some sort of off-farm enterprise. thereby allowing them to raise their

l

standard of living.

20

The data from this era suggest that several things can happen to the
family economy and family social organization when an off-farm
enterprise begins to provide the bulk of a family's income. In terms of
the family economy. the composition of the family estate and budget can
change dramatically. Business property and assets which can take all
forms and range widely in value are added to the estate (which may have
only previously consisted of farm land. buildings. tools and livestock).
On the other hand. the family budget (which may have previously
functioned to do no more than pay for household expenses. weddings.
burials and religious festivals) of these new business families. becomes
very important for the continued maintenance of the family business. In
contrast to before. the family budget may now serve as a resevoir in
which cash income is accumulated. eventually to be used for investment
in the family enterprise. Having a family budget becomes the one means
by which family heads can accumulate and control the flow of income
coming into the family. investing it where needed.

With such dramatic changes in the family economy can come equally
dramatic changes in family structure and family division. The existence
of business property can frequently complicate relationships within the
family and help create confusion over ownership and rights to property.
What happens for example when sons do not get along in the family? Are
they likely to push for division as they might be inclined to do if the
family economy were based on farming? Or would they. as Freedman has
suggested. be less likely to push for division because a business cannot
be divided without seriously damaging or destroying it altogther
(1958:30). Business property. unlike farm property. is composed of cash

and business stock which. if divided. may cause the ultimate destruction

21
of the business upon which all family members depend. As a result. sons
would be less inclined to separate and more inclined to cooperate since
division would only result in less for all.

Undoubtedly. such reasoning went through the minds of sons. who. no
matter how unhappy they were living in joint families (that were
dependent upon off-farm enterprises). decided to let things go on as
they always had without pressing for division. Yet. one wonders whether
such economic rationalizing on the part of sons was enough to overcome
the friction that often developed in complex families. In The Golden
Wigg. for example. Lin (1948) pointed out that unhappy family members
may insist on division regardless of the consequences. Such was the
case when Dunglin's nephew pulled his share of the operating capital out
of the family enterprise. seemingly in total disregard for the theory of
utility maximization.

Whether sons chose to divide sooner or later in the business
families of traditional China is not the major issue here. Instead. my
point is to show that family economy and family organization changes
and. often times. become more complex when the family becomes involved
in off-farm work. Traditionally. family division has worked quite well
as a fairly equitable means of distributing agricultural assets.
Nevertheless. once a family is confronted with a new means of production
(or a new means of earning an income). both the estate and budget
change. further complicating the process of dividing property.

In the next chapter attention turns to what happens to families
when their economies transform from an agricultural base to one based on
off-farm work. Since most of the data come from field studies done in

Taiwan since the 19505. it is important that we keep in mind how change

22
in the island's economy affected the importance of. as well as the way
estate and budget were used. Once we begin to see the changes that
start to take place in the family economy. we can then begin to
speculate about how those changes are reflected in the chnaging nature

of family division for rural based extended families.

23

 

1 The balance of percentages are unaccounted for by Ho.

2 My analysis concentrates on males in the family primarily because they
are the ones who inherit property and who play a prominent role in the
economic affairs and decison making of the household.

3 (Baker 1979:15 has interestingly arranged the pecking order in terms
of generation. age. and sex).

4 Division also applies to the budget when it contains enough
accumulated assets to be divided among sons.

5 Ebrey (1984) has found that Yuan Tsai. a scholar on the family in the
Sung period. referred to the family as having immovable property or
fixed assets (ship) and moveable property or liquid assets (Eggi). With
each kind of property there usually existed several methods of
management and division.

6.In many cases the eldest son might be given a slightly larger share of
the family property since he has been contributing his labor to the
family for the longest period of time.

7 1949 was of course the year the ruling KMT fled to Taiwan. While few
social and economic programs were enacted in that year. the early 19505
proved to be a time of great change on the island.

8 Bray (1983:25) has made an interesting analysis of rice-growing
cultures and the development of capitalism in Asia.

9 In some ways land lends itself well to division. In other words. land
in predominantly rice growing areas. can be divided again and again and

still provide subsistance for successive generations (see Geertz 1966

24

and his work on agricultural involution and Bray 1984).

-11-

THE ECONOMY AND FAMILY IN CHANGE: HSIN HSING. TAIWAN:

 

19505 TO THE PRESENT

Since the mid 19505. considerable research has been done on Taiwan
by anthropologists. many of whom are from the United States. Much of
the work has consisted of ethnographic village studies. the cumulative
effect of which is a large collection of descriptive and interpretive
material on the Chinese family.1

Two of these researchers. Bernard and Rita Gallin. have conducted
research in the small agricultural village of Hsin Hsing on the west
central coast of the island. Their work in that village has covered
almost a thirty year period starting with their first trip in the late
19505. My own research is based on the Gallins data. Although their
research about the nature of family economy and family division has not
focused on the specific questions I pose. their data set is broad and
extensive enough to answer them.

In this chapter. I will first discuss the social and economic
changes that have occured in the families of Hsin Hsing since the
19505. I then briefly review the work of four anthropologists who have
done research on the family in Taiwan. Two of these scholars. Cohen
(1976) and Harrell (1982). are considered here because they have
concentrated on the analysis of the structure and function of families
in rural communiites. They also offer some interesting family histories
from the villages they have studied - some of which I have included as
case studies in my appendix. Although the observations of these men do

not directly address the questions I have outlined in this paper. I
25

26

believe that parts of theirwork are germane to my discussion and that
they both significantly contribute to our knowledge of family economy

and family division in Taiwan.

THE VILLAGE OF HSIN HSING:

 

ECONOMIC CHANGE

 

Hsin Hsing is a small agricultural village located in Changhua
county not far from the coastal town of Lukang - a once prosperous port
that declined with the silting of its harbor (see DeGlopper 1972). The
people of the village are Hokkien (or Taiwanese) descendants of peoples
from the Amoy region of Fujian Province on the mainland.

In the late 19505 when the Gallins lived in Hsin Hsing. the village
was land poor. Although the Land Reform Program of 1953 reduced tenancy
from a previous 58% of land cultivated to 272 by 1956. there was still
only an average of .12 $2252 of cultivated land per person in 1957-
(Gallin & Gallin 1982a:209). Yet. agriculture provided the main source
of income for the people of Hsin Hsing. The villagers normally grew two
crops of rice and one crop of sweet potatoes. Vegetables were also
grown for sale in the regional markets. A mixture of rice and sweet
potatoes with little or no meat made up the daily diet of most people.
"Only during festival occasions - religious or life cycle - or on
occasions when harvesting or transplanting labor teams were fed did
villagers eat poultry or more substantial amounts of meat and
fish"(1982a:209).

In the late 19505 and early to mid 19605. however. conditions began

to change in Hsin Hsing. Increasing population pressure. diminishing

27

amounts of land to give to sons. and a dearth of local off-farm jobs to
absorb the underemployed. caused a large number of villagers to migrate
to the northern city of Taipei (and some to the southern city of
Kaoshiung) in search of jobs. "For most villagers. the initial move to
the city. whether motivated by pure economic necessity or by the desire
to diversify the family's economic activities. [was] made to supplement
the family's income from the land or from farm labor" (B. Gallin
1978:267). and it was expected of all migrants who still had families in
the village to send money home whenever they could.

By the late 19605. the village was better off economically. not?

{_t
’I

because of greater returns to agricultural production. but primarily
because of increasing genittance§,from relatives in the city.
Nevertheless. it was only in the early to mid 19705 that the local
economy began to develop. due primarily to "(1) the abolition of the
rice-fertilizer barter system in 1972. (2) the implementation of the
guaranteed rice price in 1973. and (3) the development of government
policies to stimulate farm mechanization and rural industrialization
that began in 1973"(Gallin & Gallin 1982a:211).

On a return trip to Hsin Hsing in the late 19705. the Gallins found
over 30 small enterprises in the village. with 40% of the local
pOpulation working for themselves. and 55% working as salaried or wage
laborers for entrepreneurs either in the village or within commuting
distance (ibid.:216 & 217). In 1979. approximately 85% of the incomes
of local villagers were derived from non-farm work. as opposed to the
1958 figure of only 15% (ibid.:215). And. of the 30 or so enterprises
in the village. retail and service shops comprised 28% of the
total.heavily dependent on family labor and were very labor intensive

(see Table 2.1).

28

Table 2.1

TYPES OF BUSINESSES LOCATED IN HSIN HSING VILLAGE
JANUARY - JUNE 1979

 

Type

Satellite Factories
Toy and Novelty Items
Iron Grill Work and House

Structure

Machine Stamping
Iron Springs
Gloves
Sweaters
Nylon Bags

Shops-Sales and/or service
Retail Groceries
Barber Shop
Tailor Shop
Chinese Medicine
Motorcycle Repair shop
Plumbing and Electrical
Rice Drying

Other Businesses
Rice Mill
Puffed Rice
Cement and Tile Flooring
Truck Delivery
Construction/Masonary
Pig Raising

All Others

Number

1

HHNHHHw HHHHHH

NNbHr-‘H

Total

10

11

19.0

28.0

30.6

22.1

 

Total

36

99.7

 

Source: Gallin & Gallin 1982a p.215

29

Although returns from agriculture were higher in the 19705 than in
the past. farming was still considered unprofitable. primarily because
"agricultural profits simply cannot compare with the money to be earned
as an entrepreneur or worker. and people attach higher importance to
increasing their income than to farming"(1982b:150). Nevertheless. many
of the older generation (both men and women above the age of 50).

fcontinued to farm the land because. among other things. "it was a source
(of food." and taxes would be levied against unused cultivatable land
2(Gallin & Gallin 1982a:218); in addition. those who continued to farm
probably had few skills or were too old to sell their labor elsewhere.
Younger men were rarely involved in farming by the late 19705 (see Table
2.2).

Table 2.2.

OCCUPATION BY SEX AND ENTREPRENEURS BY FAMILY TYPE
IN HSIN HSING 1979

Total # of1 Total # of? Males over 16 1 Females over 161 Entrepreneurs

 

 

 

 

Families 1 People 1 Farm Non Farmfi Farm Non Farm? Males

Nuclear 33 163 12 4O 13 29 17

2 45.2 30 23.1 76 31 69 42*
Stem 27 194 17 31 6 l7 7

2 36.9 35 35 64 26 73 22*
Joint 13 186 9 46 3 12 28

2 17.8 34 16 83 20 80 60*
Totals 73 543 38 117 22 58 52

Source: Gallin and Gallin. field notes and interviews.
* Percentage of males involved in non farm activities. Here entrepreneur
is defined as those who own and manage an enterprise.

A significant amount of population movement also accompanied
changes in the local economy of the area. In 1966. roughly 37% of the
villagers lived outside of Hsin Hsing. most having migrated to the
northern capital of Taipei. But by 1979 that figure had drOpped 10

percentage points due. in part. to migration back to the village. and to

the decisions of some young people not to move away from home to seek

30

[jobs. Approximately 20% of the returnees to the village between 1970
y’and 1979. said that they were unable to make a living in the city; by

i 1979. over 30% of those who returned had already become entrepreneurs
[\(1982az225). The Gallins wrote. that for many migrants.

the city began to lose the aura of El Dorado and the

countryside began to acquire one of promise. Some Hsin

Hsing people lostflintereat in migration—when

nonagricultural ventures became practiggbleueng.

offrfarm,jqbs becamezavaiIAhle in thegrpgal.azga. Some

Hsin Hsing villagers found attraction in remigration

when: (1) job security in the city became questionable

and employment possibilities in the country

demonstrable or (2) skills learned. contacts

established. and capital accumulated in the city became

actualizable in the country (ibid.:225).

31
FAMILY ECONOMY AND FAMILY DIVISION IN HSIN HSING

 

The 19505:

Without a doubt. Hsin Hsing was not unlike most other agricultural
villages in Taiwan in the 19505. Very much a "traditional" community.
the village had been somewhat insulated from areasanot within its
immediate marketing domain. mobility of its population was limited. and.
of course. agriculture figured prominently in the social. economic. and
political organization of the area. Many of the recurrent or cyclical
religious festivals. for example. were connected with the agricultural
cycle (Gallin 1966:255). and all villagers knew the importance of
cooperation within and between the household (fig). the lineage (SEE or
incipient lineage). and the village. "Cooperation among villagers
frequently reflected collaborative efforts in the irrigation and
exchange of labor systems. Similarly. village politics often were
entwined with issues such as the management of the irrigation system
(under the control of the Water Conservation Association) or the
operation of the Farmers's Association" (Gallin & Gallin 198Za:209).

It was the small lineage (or Egg. as the villagers referred to the
kin group). however. into which most peOple were grouped (note: Hsin
Hsing is a multi lineage-village). and on which most people relied for
help (Gallin: 1966:1127-136).t

The £§g_functioned as a ceremonial group. drawing its
members together for ancestor worship and life-crisis
rituals. But. the SEE also had political importance.
The more powerful £§g_within the village formed

‘coalitions in an attempt to coordinate and to control

village affairs and succeeded. in that elected offices

32

tended to be held by members of the larger Egg.
Unrelated families who had the same surname as an
influential Egg often tried to identify themselves with
the group to gain some of the socio- political benefits
and security that accrued to its members. attesting to
their power (1982a:208).
In the 19505 therefore. extensive kinship ties were quite important to

the farmers. as were the more intimate connections of family.

It is not surprising then. that up to and around the time of land
reform when agriculture provided the main means of support for
villagers. sons were still highly dependent upon their family estate for
support and an occupation. If sons were fortunate enough to have
parents with land they could get married and have children. and when the
family divided each would hopefully have enough land to farm. In a
very few cases. where a father was particularly adept at management and
at keeping the peace between family members. there was the possibility
that the family might survive to the joint stage. For the most part.
however. sons with little or no land to inherit would often have to‘
postpone marriage; in addition. because there were so few job
Opportunities within the family context or in the village. they were
often forced to leave home in search of jobs. skills. and capital.

What was the condition of the family budget? For the most part the
data reveal that most family budgets contained little in the way of
assets. The meager surpluses from production that could be accumulated
were placed in a common account from which all household and farming

expenses were paid (this could include weddings. taxes. funerals.

33

fertilizer. etc.). There rarely was enough of a monetary surplus in the
budget for investments in business or even new farm machinery; the money
was just not to be had.

In sum. the farm-based family economies in Hsin Hsing lacked the
ability to produce much of an income for its members. But. because
other avenues for employment and job security were scarce. family
division remained the means by which property was distributed; property
(land) could. perhaps. provide a foothold for a son who could work that

property and make enough of an income to support a family.

The 19605: A Period of Heavy Migration:

As the economy gradually improved in Taiwan. the cities were the
first places to offer jobs. Seizing the opportunity to break out of the
economically depressed countryside. many villagers left for the larger
cities (mostly Taipei). leaving their families behind. On their first
trips to the city. married men from stem or joint families left their
conjugal units in the care of the larger £223! sending home money
whenever they were lucky enough to work (Gallin 1978:267). If the
migrant met with some success he would usually send for his wife and
children. Unmarried men who went to the city would also send money
home to their parents whenever possible. While in the city they would
go from job to job. gaining skills and in some cases a wife. For many
migrants. Taipei would eventually become a permanent home.

But for some migrants. on the other hand. farming remained an
important means of livlihood. while off-farm jobs in the cities only
acted to supplement family coffers. Finding it difficult to separate

themselves from their natal homes in the village. men would frequently

34

return to farm when little urban employment was to be found or when
planting and harvesting had to be done. This continued attachment to
the ghi§_explains Gallin. was caused not just by an economic
dependency. but also by the many social and psychological needs which
could not be met "without the help and relationships of familiar people
from the village" (1978:277). .

Despite all the doubt and uncertaintly during these times. the lives
of the villagers began to improve. For those families which chose not
to divide. remittances from migrants and slightly better returns from
agriculture enabled the family economy to expand. For once. the family
budget held more than a minimum of cash. perhaps enabling the family to
help finance an apprenticeship for another son. tqurovi e travelling
EQQEX”£9I_At29§entialflmigrant. or for the purchase of a new piece of
farm machinery. Needless to say. the family estate. which for most
families consisted of farm land. did not loose its value in the eyes of
even migrant family members. Land remained critical to the welfare of
these people because it represented the only buffer between failure in
the city and abject poverty. As a result. while the opportunites of
earning much more money in the cities acted to pull sons away from the
poor life in the village. the security offered by farming necessitated

that some kind of connection be maintained in the village.

The Effects of Migration on Family Division:

The push-pull effect on migrants to work in the city but remain
attached to the village had a definite effect on the family In a
sense.mthe forces of migration presented some of_the,first challenges

t9__the family's agriculturally-based_social and economiq_9rganiZ§Pi9"-

35

Migration. after all. was indicative of the economic problems in the
village and the lack of confidence people had in the farm family as an
economic provider. But. as noted above. many migrants had a difficult
time severing ties with the natal ghig.

How then. given this situation did the family economy function?

What were the effects on family division for the periods of heaviest
migration? An examination of the nature of family division during the
mid-19505 to mid-19605. should provide answers to these questions.

In interviews done by the Gallins over a 25 year period. family
members were asked when division in the family took place as well as the
reasons for the separation. 0f the approximately 24 family divisions (4
dates are unknown) in the village between 1956 and 1966, 11 occured
between the years of 1956 and 1961 and 9 between 1962 and 1966 (see
Table 2.3). In the one category that singles out migration as a
participant in family conflict (col.5 table 2.3). and leading to
division. four of the interviewees expressed anger toward a brother or
his family for not sending back enough remittances to the natal ghig. or
for keeping too much money as "private money." Since the "accused" were
living away from home. no one in the family could really keep track of

how much money was earned of spent.

 

 

 

Table 2.3

REASONS GIVEN FOR DIVISION IN HSIN HSING (1950-1966)

1 2 3 4 5
Years No Conflict Conflict No Hardship Conflict Result of

in Family unrelated to* Reason Son(s) Migration Totals

1956-1961 3 2 1 1 4 11
1962-1966 5 1 1 1 1 9
Division Tot. 8 3 2 2 5 20

Source: Gallin and Gallin. field interviews and notes.
* migration.

36

Nevertheless. while most of the complaints about migrants came from
those who lived in the village. it is doubtful that members of
village-bound families were necessarily the ones who pushed for
division since they benefited most from whatever remittances were
sent. Excerpts from field interviews suggest that it is more likely
that migrants in the city believed division was in £hgi£_best interest
for two reasons. First. division guaranteed rights to a portion of
farmland in the event of failure in the city. Migrant's land (after
division) could continue to be farmed and maintained (usually by
relatives) in their absence. and they could also benefit directly by
receiving a nominal "rent" for its use. Were migrants to remain members
of undivided households. it is likely that they would not receive any
of the proceeds from family members farming the estate land.

Second. migrants might favor division because it could release them
from the burden of having to contribute their earnings to the family
budget (controlled by the chia chang in Hsin Hsing).3 In the 19605
families in Hsin Hsing still needed cash to support the family. It was
highly unlikely. therefore. that a migrant would have any hope of seeing
much in the way of a return on the money that he remitted to the family
economy. Unlike some of the larger diversified households in other
Taiwanese villages (see case 5). remittances to the familymbudget by
fggilxseghezggqgld, havesveatually-.-heaefite.d. sesbersheseuse. itflwsvgld
hgixfiiaxsstediinitheirmenterprises. Nevertheless. for many families in:
Hsin Hsing of the 19605. cash was still not plentiful enough to be used
for investment purposes that could be beneficial to migrants; instead

such cash was directed toward immediate consumptionfimneeds)A

37

Although the interview material on family division does not provide
us with any absolutes - it does demonstrate that migration out of the
village presented new problems for the functioning of the family ecomony
(and specifically for common budgeting). Since the natal (or primary)
family in Hsin Hsing had little to offer to these migrants in the way
of money. the migrants themselves had to find work and generate their
own financial base in the city. But because wages were low and
expenses high. many migrants could barely save money. let alone remi
any surplus savings to the family budget in Hsin Hsing. As a result. it
is possible that much of the division that took place in the late
19505 and early to mid 19605 was not so much a product of sons' need of
farm land (either for an income or just as a buffer against failure at
an off-farm job). but a reflection of their desire to remove themselves
from the obligation of remitting money to the family economy.

In sum. division of family property continued to be practiced in .
Hsin Hsing in the 19605. And. while the aim of division continued to
be the distribution of land as in "traditional" China. land was
nevertheless increasingly less valued as a means of providing an
income. It appears. then. that family division during this period might
have also served for some migrants as a way of terminating obligations
to provide money to the family budget. With the family divided.
migrants would be able to conserve the cash from their wage labor jobs.
and. at the same time. still have a piece of land that could be used in

case of failure at an off-farm occupation.

The 19705 to the Present:

Although the increasing outflow of Hsin Hsing migrants coincided
with an increase in the number of families dividing before reaching the
joint stage. this phenomenon did not necessarily signal the beginning of
the end of the Chinese complex family. In the 19705..the Gallins found
that the family regained its importance relative to the individual
because it began to transform itself in response to changes in the
economy. The extended family (joint-stem) once again became important.
22; in a form different from the "traditional" family. The large unit
appeared to have modified. often with sons and daughters living and
working away from home. earning an income. and remitting only that
amount of money to the family budget that they could afford (i.e. there
were no longer_the extream demands made on sons to remigw§11ugffltheir
surplus income_Gallin & Gallin 1982b:148). This new flexibility in
living and accounting was due to the fact that. "villagers believed that)
this type of family [modified joint as the Gallins call it] was an
excellent mechanism for socioeconomic success in a changing world" and.;
in Hsin Hsing. "joint families managed to maintain themselves as single:
units by consciously modifying the structural arrangements of the
family" (Gallin & Gallin 1982a: 231). Family members realized that

economic diversification and extensive relationships
with people outside the area still were considered
requisites for achieving wealth and social status.
Thus. a family that consisted of many potential
workers. as well as other members who could perform
those tasks necessary for the functioning of the family

(i.e.. supervision of children. care of land. and so

39

on). had a better chance of diversifying economically

than did a family of small size (Gallin & Gallin

1982a:231). -
Modification of the way the family structured its finances gradually
gave individual family members (sons) greater freedom and opportunity to
earn and keep the money they obtained from the off-farm jobs. And. if a
son was in need of financial help. then the natal ghig would be there to
either bail him out of difficulty or provide him with the necessary
capital to start out in life. This modification. according to the )
Gallins. allowed the profits to remain with the conjugal unit. but "the if
losses of failure were [to be) shared by the joint family and its 4

treasury" (1982a:234).

The case studies from Hsin Hsing bear out this modification in the
family. In 1969 for example. Li Seh-ming (case 6) opened his small
spring manufacturing operation in the village with a brother-in -law
who had just finished an apprenticeship in nearby Chang-hue city. At
first. Li's lack of knowledge cf machinery made work quite difficult.
But by the mid-19705. his business operation had become more
sophisticated. and local villagers increasingly were hired to bend Li's

prings on a part-time. piece rate basis.

While only one example. Li's small factory represented a new
Opportunity to the young on the local level. Many larger factories also
opened in the area. enabling sons to work. to gain skills. and to save
a little cash before entering the army. Following their service.
instead of migrating to the cities. many sons for the first time were

able to remain at home and work. For some this meant commuting to a

wage labor job in a factory nearby. returning home to their extended
families in the evening. Sons who were involved in the wage-labor
sector found it much easier to save money when they lived with a larger
family - sharing with other members the cost of food and other minor
expenses. while not having to pay for rent.

But most sons in Hsin Hsing who had gained valuable skills in the
army or as apprentices or factory workers were not content with working
for someone else. Of this group. many of whom were not yet married.
there existed two options for future employment. They could either
choose to start a small business away from their natal home or chose to
remain with their larger family and Open a business there. Either way.
because initial capital outlays for these new businesses were relatively
small. fathers were willing to help their sons by offering some kind of
financing using money from the family budget. a rotating credit club. or
a loan (i.e. from the local Farmers' Association).

In many cases. sons were encouraged to remain at home and work and
to take advantage of the family budget and estate by using its buildings
as a starting point for small enterprises. Family support enabled a
few sons to become large-scale capitalists with enough business property
to be able to offer their own sons (the third generation) managerial
positions and shares in the operation they themselves built. n case 9.
for example. Shih Yen-shan's son built his gasket business pretty much
on his own. Although the father put up the initial capital. the
business was never considered a "family enterprise.". The money given
him by the family is regarded as no more than a loan. and the elder son
is obligated to pay it back to the parents. Aside from the debt he

has incurred and the responsibility to care for his parents in their old

41

age. the first son really has no other responsibilities to his natal
2333. This does not mean. however. that the first son did not feel
pressure from the family to help his younger sibling find work; he
offered his brother a job in his factory (a position that all knew would
nor last long because the first brother had outside partners so that the
second brother would never have any shares in the company). There is
little doubt that the first son considers his factory a family
operation. but it will be one that the sons of his own conjugal family
(£333) will help run and eventually own. not his brother or his
brother's sons. Simply put. although the family budget helped finance
the oldest son's faCtor‘. that money was not invested in a family
enterprise."

Although larger capitalists such as Shih often rely on relatives to
help manage a business. there seems to a clear understanding that actual
ownership remains in the hands of the one who created it. The property
is very much "acquired" (see Sung 1981). in the sense that rights to
ownership are limited only to the person who has established it.
Nevertheless. at an earlier period. there might be some dispute over
ownership in a business that was started with the funds from the natal
ghig. In the case of Huang Dung-lin (case 1). it was well understood
that a portion of the business stock (exactly 1/2) was the property of
his nephews. Because Hwang Dung-lin had started the business when he
had not yet divided from his brother. he had used family funds (no
matter how meager). and he ate the food provided through the efforts of
his older brother.

But while some people in Hsin Hsing had realized great success. few

families were able to accumulate enough resources or to obtain

42

sufficient access to the commercial and industrial centers of the island
to become owners of medium or large—scale capitalist enterprises.
Nevertheless. some fathers continued to encourage their sons to take up
different occupations. And. if sons chose to remain at home. they could
take advantage of the intrafamilial economic. working. and living
arrangements offered by a diversified and "modified" (Gallin & Gallin
1982a) type of family economy. In the case where a Hsin Hsing family
chose to diversify its economy (as did the Kang's case 12). for example.
the family head realized that adjustments had to be made and concessions
given so that sons. armed with skills and. in some cases. their own
savings. would not be alienated from the family because of too strict a
family hiearchy or pressure to remit all profits from their work (see
also Hu 1984:119).

Still. what about the fate of the family economy when sons chose to
leave the family and seek an education or start a business away from
home (see case 7. 9. 11)? First. the estate was not important to
migrant sons as a place for starting a business. nor was land as
important to them as insurance against possible failure at an off-farm
job. This was because a great number of better paying jobs were
available to sons in the mid to late 19705 than in the 19505 at 19605.
Thus. there was less likelihood they would return home to farm. In this
sense. it appears that land (as a valued asset) may have entered its
third and most tenuous phase as inheritable property.

Second. as in the 19605. migrant sons needed cash to establish
themselves in their new urban environment. In contrast to the 19605.
however. the natal ghig usually was not as dependent on remittances

from migrant sons to survive. As a result. the family economy remained

43

important to the younger generation as long as something could be
extracted from it. I will explain this new development in the next

sub-section.

The Need for Cash:

Theoretically. in traditional China. when a father spent money (or
even when he didn't) on a son's education or when a son was given seed
money to start a business. that son was under some obligation to remi
all of his disposable income left over from his earnings at a job or
from a business. Remittances from sons enabled the family budget to
remain liquid. Liquidity meant investments could be made in new or
existing household enterprises. thus. insuring the continued str ngth of
the family economy.

In Hsin Hsing during the late 19705 and early 805. however. the
practice of remitting disposable income to the family budget seems to be
happening with less frequency. This is not because sons are less
filial. Instead. the family believes that the ideal of maintaining a
family economy may be neither practical nor necessary. This is because
high living expenses and other costs in the city are making it
increasingly difficult for sons to maintain their own families away from
home and to remit money to the family. As a result. some sons remit
only enough money for their parents to use. thus meeting the
responsibility to their parents.

The demand for cash by those sons starting out in life and the
necessity of holding on to cash by those sons already established. is
"squeezing" the family economy. Increasingly. for some families. a

father's income is not enough to provide the necessary financing for

44

sons who want to continue with school. get married. or start a small
enterprise. As a result a father and son can do a number of things to
remedy the situation. The first. and perhaps least equitable way of
handling the matter of cash distribution to sons. is for a father to
give sons whatever is necessary as they grow up. Unfortunately. in a
big family. this often leaves younger sons without any financial help
when they reach adulthood because the cash that has gone out to sons
over the years has not been remitted back into the family budget with
equal vigor. As a result of their unregulated expropriation of the
family's cash reserves. most older brothers may feel an
”obligation"(i;gg) toward their younger siblings and therefore pool
their savings or give a loan to finance a youngerbrother's marriage.
education. or enterprise. In case 9. for example. we see that the older
brother felt an obligation to his younger siblingl he lent him capital
and provided him with business contacts to start his own gasket
operation.

Giving away money to sons as soon as they reach adulthood apparently
does not always appeal to the family head; this results in another and
increasingly popular method of financing sons. In at least three cases
(7.9.12). fathers have loaned their sons cash or helped their sons
obtain loans instead of offering cash. Kang (case 7) borrowed NT$45.000
from another villager and used NT$20.000 of his own savings to finance
his second son's motorcycle shop. Kang Chingfikun and Shih Yen-shah also
borrowed money so that they could help their sons start a trucking
busihess and an oil gasket business. respectively. All of these loans
have to be payed back to the parents.

Most likely. the offering of loans to sons is a response to a number

45
of economic and social factors. arents want to help out a son any way
they can. But because a large portion of their property may be tied up
in land and other fixed assets. they may find it difficult to gain
access to the amount of liquid capital needed to help a son start a
business. In some of the interviews. parents have also rationalized that
giving a loan instead of cash gift to a son builds responsibility.

Finally. we have to assess the nature of family division for this
time period. By the mid-19705 (and after) no formal or (de jure) type
of family divisions took place in the village. Even when all sons
remained at the family residence. working in wage labor or in their own
samll enterprises. family division served no practical purpose . For
the most part. sons were not in need of family property to provide them
with a means of production. Instead. most only wanted a place to live
and a room or two in the family residence to conduct their work.

In Hsin Hsing today. the question of remaining part of a joint
family becomes a relative one. which actually brings us back to the
Gallins' concept of a modified joint family (Gallin and Gallin 19823).
complex families that have modified their social and economic
relationships to the point where they no longer really mutually
participate in the family economy are. in reality. not complex families
at all. Although there has been no formal division of property.
brothers. much like their American counterparts. have slowly drifted
away from each other. The parents. perhaps living with each son on a
rotating basis. form a rotating stem family with each son with whom are
living. The only money that may be exchanged between each son's
conjugal unit and the rotating stem unit is cash that is to be used by

the parents.

46

Is what we have seen in Hsin Hsing unique? To what degree do data
from other areas in Taiwan support the Gallins' findings? In the next
section. attention turns to the findings of other social scientists who
have studied the family in rural Taiwan. The work of these researchers
has provided a wealth of comparative data (some of which is included in
the case Studies in the Appendix) as well as some insightful
observations concerning the relationship between family economy and
social organization in Taiwan.

HSIN HSING IN COMPARISON

The Village of Yen-liao. Taiwan:

Myron Cohen. an anthropologist who first went to Taiwan in the mid
1960s. conducted research in the south-western Hakka village of
Yen-liao. The majority of the community's 68 families (population of
705 in 1965) were owner cultivators. farming two crops of rice per year
and in most cases a crop of tobacco. In contrast to Other small
agricultural communities in Taiwan. most Yen-liao families are licensed
to grow tobacco. a cash crop that provides high returns and is protected
"from market fluctuations by the Taiwan Tobacco and Wine Monopoly
Bureau. a government agency in total control of tobacco production" and
marketing (Cohen 1976:48). Cohen found that "in comparison with other
major crops in Yen-liao. tobacco production requires by far the heaviest
labor input"(ibid.:48). but "the cash returns for crops comparatively
high in value but more demanding in labor will largely be a function of
the degree to which the work force is composed of family members"
(1976:50).

Cohen contends that the timing of division is not necessarily preset

47

to occur when a family reaches its complex form (i.e.. after sons
marry). Instead. family division was often put off especially where
"the continuation of family unity was encouraged by situations where the

advantages. especially economic. derived from such unity outweighed

 

those forthcoming for the parties concerned in the event of
partition"(ibid.:73 emphasis added).

According to Cohen. rich and poor families adopted a number of
Strategies to avoid division. In the case of wealthier families. a
household head might choose to diversify the family economy. Such
diversification allowed sons either to remain with the primary ghig and
operate a business in a semi-autonomus fashion. or to leave the ghig
residence (to disperse) and operate a business away from home; sons may
also pursue an education or become involved in politics. a government
job. or academic position (see Cohen 1976:79).

For poor families. in contrast. dispersion of sons away from the
phi; was often a necessity since there were few opportunites for sons to
make a living at home. In many cases children from poor families
failed to find enough work and accumulate sufficient cash to send home
as remittances (Cohen ibid.:81). But there was always the hope that one
day remittances would begin. or that perhaps a successful son might
return to invest his accumulated knowledge and wealth back into the
family (Cohen 1976:80. Tang 1978:165). Whatever the outcome of a family
members sojourn. the ghig was distinguished "by the potential of its
membership to rejoin the ghig economy and household. as well as the
possession of an estate" (Cohen 1976:81).

Certainly. in traditional China and. to some degree. in contemporary

48

Taiwan (see case #5 for Yen-liao and cases 1 and 10 for additional
xamples in Appendix). sons from wealthier families had little to say
about their future occupations because fathers controlled the family
purse and property. Nevertheless. as late as the mid 19705. Cohen
found that the ghig in Yen-liao "continues to possess a very real social
and jural unity even under the conditions of economic and residential
fragmentation"(Cohen 1976:113).

In the final analysis.this unity has as its focus the

ghig estate; adult ghig members not directly linked

to the estate share with those who are. a deep

interest in the joint holdings. for it is important to

all of them that the maintenance of the common body of

holdings be compatible with their own interests

.(ibid.:113).

One of the best examples of this unity. is the Huang family (see
case #5) of Yen-liao. Although the family is partially dispersed and
each son is involved in his own enterprise (the role of the second son
as farmer of the family land does not usually constitute a separate
enterprise). the Huang group nevertheless functions as a close unit
economically. with the profits pooled in a common pot and redistributed
where needed.

True. the Huang family's success in diversification into
non-agricultural enterprises was due in part to Huang Yu-lai's role as
a shrewd manager of both family assets and sons. But Cohen's main point
when talking about this family. is to stress the interdependencies in
the family economy. such that the family estate can be exploited by

father and sons through the investment of capital and labor. The

49

Huangs. like many complex families. benefit more from the availability
of accumulated capital that can be used for investment in preexisting
and new enterprises than would otherwise be the case if division had

occurred (Harrell 1982).

Ploughshare. Taiwan:

The small village of Ploughshare. located just south of the city of
Taipei. was the site for a community study undertaken by Harrell (1982)
in 1973 and in 1978. In 1973. mining ranked first as a source of wages
for men. with factory work a distant second. The village was
relatively agriculturally poor (land was insufficient and of poor
quality) and cultivation of rice was at most a sideline occupation for
a handful of people., Only a few families owned land and in 1973 a mere
16 men out of a total of 149 of employable age were involved in some
kind of agriculture.

By 1978. coal mining gave way to work in small factories. The
number of people who owned and operated their own businesses also
increased dramatically. Most of these businesses were knitting
factories; operations ranged from small (2 to 3 family workers working
one knitting machine) to large ones. with several dozen hired workers
working ten or more machines. .Harrell credits the increase in the
amount of factory work for raising the economic standards of the village
(by providing wage labor jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities for a
community that. before the 1970s. was quite poor by Taiwan standards).

Harrell (1982) found Cohen's observations about family economy and
organization particularly relevant to Ploughshare. According to him.

Cohen has demonstrated that family members will remain together longer

50

"when there is clear economic advantage for them to do so" (1982:153).
But Harrell also adds that there is another side to this "model". that
is families will divide sooner if it is to their economic advantage.
Like Cohen. Harrell argues that brothers who remain together until the
joint stage do so because they are all engaged in a common enterprise(s)
that required capital investment; those families without a shared
economic enterprise. would divide almost as soon as possible
(ibid.:159).

To support his argument. Harrell contrasts the Cui (case 3) and Ong
families (case 4). He predicts the Cui family (which consists of wage
earners) will not last to the joint stage because none of its members is
investing in the family economy. The Ongs. in contrast. are an
entrepreneurial family that operates a knitting factory in which most
family members are involved and all profits are invested in the family
enterprise.

An important point made here (discussed in more detail in chapter
III). is Harrell's analysis of the joint family that has little shared
enterprise or investment. In two of the examples he gives of families
that divided. both did so because of the divisive forces of migration.
He says that because these families did not change from being a group of
wage-earners to a group of capital investors. brothers left the village
in search of work. never to become active in family affairs again
(ibid.:lél).

In both cases. economic opportunities elsewhere
precluded brothers from remaining together as joint
families. Neither of these was a case of absolute

necessity or possible starvation. for there were always

5l
jobs available in the coal mines and on the pushcart
railways when the brothers were growing up. and it
would have been perfect-y feasible for them all to take
such jobs. remain in the village. and form joint
families. But the point is that there was no
particular advantage in their staying (ibid.:162).

Thus. according to Harrell. when applying a model of economic
advantage "to family organization in any particular community. we must
consider the specific types of family economy found there. together with
the pressures for early or late division that the economy can
produce"(1982:154). There is

basically no difference between agriculture. commerce.
and industry. The difference . rather. is between
complex joint famil'. and those other types of economy.
such as tobacco growing (Cohen 1969.165-ff . sweater
knitting. or a whole range of economicically
diversified types. in which there is clear benefit in
staying together(ibid.:l70).

There is an "interrelationship between family organizati n and work"
(ibid.:154) that. in the final analysis. reveals that brothers who remain
members of their families to the joint Stage. do so primarily because they
H

are involved in "an enterprise that requires investment of capital

(ibid.:159). 5

HOW IMPORTANT IS FAMILY ECONOMY AS A FACTOR IN FAMILIAL SOCIAL ORGANIZATION?
Cohen and Harrell's economic dialectic is very insightful. Yet. what

are the other explanations of why families organize as they do? What are

52

some of the non-economic factors which account for the presence or
absence of family division?

Sung (1981). claims that family organization is affected more by
how and by whom a family obtains property rather than the composition
of the family economy. Inherited property is corporately owned by the
descent line "whose membership extends to deceased ancestors and future
agnatic descendants" (Sung 1981:365). The family head. theoretically
acts only as the trustee of the property and not as the owner. For
example. if a father inherits land that has been in his family for a
number of generations. that land belongs to the descent group (i.e.. all
males before and after him) and. therefore. the father is obligated to
distribute the property evenly at the time of division.

(ibid.:366). This acquired property. or what was referred to as far
back as the Sung dynasty as "individual property." (Ebrey 1984:104)
contrasts with common or inherited property in that it is distributed to
heirs with "reference to effort rather than geneology" (Sung 1981:367).
As a result. very few or none of the rules that govern the transmission
of inheritable property apply to the transmission of acquired property.

Oddly enough. Sung feels that among families with more acquired
property (as Opposed to inherited property). there is a greater
likelihood of friction between family members which. may in turn. lead
to an early division. He says. "brothers are less likely to quarrel if
they are guaranteed equal shares by descent and do not need to negotiate
the division of property acquired through joint but not necessarily
equal efforts" (1981:377).

If. however. it is the family head who has managed to accumulate

most of the property for an estate as. for example. Hwang Dung-1in had

53

done. would not this fact bring him greater authority and therefore
greater control over the family? Would not sons feel it is in their
best interests to cooperate with each other so as not to anger the
family head and possibly jeopardize their share of the estate? It would
appear. that acquired property might cause the greatest tensions when

fathers and sons have collectively contributed to the acquisition of

 

that property. thus both helping to build the family estate and budget.
In such a case. the father's authority over his sons may be undermined
because each son was an active participant in gaining family wealth. and
would in turn be more vocal about whom and in what quantity property
should be divided. Similarly. the father's authority is greatly reduced
in cases where sons are working at off-farm jobs. and are no longer
dependent upon the father as chief provider of an occupation; this is
especially so when the land. formally the most common form of
inheritable property. becomes less important to sons.

The question of acquired and inherited property is beyond the scope
of this paper. Nevertheless. it is important to acknowledge the fact
that social relationships within the family are greatly influenced by
the kind of property acquired and by whom. I believe that in Cohen's
and Harrell's research. not enough emphasis was given to this question.
As a result. we are forced to accept the ever popular. but increasingly
less plausible notion that all property. regardless of the way in which
it was accumualted. is inherited through prescribed rites of family
division.

Another view on the matter is that of Tang (1978). a Chinese
sociologist in Taiwan. who has found that parental legal authority

functions to inhibit partition of the joint family. In his studies he

54

found that fen-chia was usually prolonged because several fégg (each
married son's conjugal unit within the extended family) may have already
been living separately.so that "the domestic conflict which stems from
having a common residence does not have to be resolved by such a final
division" (1978:137). These £535 which. for the most part. have
separate budgets. (although they "may continue to share in the estate of
the ghig"(ibid.:137)). leave the impression of being autonomous

units. In reality. however. these £353 represented what he called
"pseudo smallness." whereby the "older generation aims at ensuring the
continuation of amenities by retaining control over the economic
resources of the family"(ibid.:138). This. he maintains. can be done
because of the parent's legal authority over estate property (parents
often provide the housing for their children as well as small
businesses that were started by them). thus preventing division until
the parents see fit (ibid.:154.160).

In illustrating his point about parental legal authority. Tang uses
the case of Hwang Dunglin (case #1) and the troubles he encountered in
maintaining a joint family in the face of increasing pressure from his
nephew to divide. Although Dunglin was for years the family head and
had made the family rich through his efforts. he had no more rights over
his nephew's share of the estate (which included the family business)
than he would otherwise have had if his brother was still alive. His
lack of legal authority prevented him from stemming the breakup of the
family. and his nephew well knew (and took advantage of the fact) that
Dunglin could not lay claim to any more than half the shares of the
family business. Tang writes that although "the presence of family

resources may serve to induce the sons to remain with the chia as a

55

matter of self interest." it is actually the "power of the parents.
reinforced by the state. which can actually deter them from dividing"
(1978:148).

Essentially. Tang questions whether sons do have such far reaching
rights over family property as is commonly believed by researchers.
Pointing to the legal codes in the Republic of China as of the 19705.
Tang found that the state does not recognize "a joint trust in which the
heirs have an inviolable equitable share so long as the parental members
of the family survive" (ibid.:lSl).

Tang believes that for most families on Taiwan. the level of
economic security of the ghig depends on its structure. Families strive
to "utilize whatever resources are available in order to increase the
-margin of economic securityH(ibid.:91). Families can "utilize marginal
employability of individuals for which there would be little or no
demand in a competitive labor market. and for whom basic wage minimums
would have to be met if nonfamily personnel were used" (ibid.:98). As a
result. he points out that family property. such as buildings. are
frequently used not only to house family members but also to provide
sons and their family's with a place for business. Some family members.
fully aware of their weak position in the labor market often have no

choice but to remain at home and take part in the family economy.

In the next chapter. I present an analysis of selected families in
Hsin Hsing by employing many of the ideas presented above. My analysis
pays close attention to the relationship between family economy and
family division as they often appear in different occupational

contexts. In analyzing the linkages of both of these elements. I

56

believe it is easier to understand the response of families when their

mode of production shifts from agriculture to that of off-farm work.

57

Notes
1 I would like to point out in this section that many of the views
presented are in a sense extensions and/or modifications of those
sinologists who preceeded them and wrote about "traditional" China on
the mainland. At the time. Taiwan of the 19505 and 19605 was very
similar to the mainland during the preceeding several decades. In
addition. those anthropologists who did not and could not work on the
mainland. had little choice but to draw upon the observations and work
of the earlier China scholars to better understand social behavior in
Taiwan. To date. this situation seems to have inhibited any radical
departure from the old school's thinking about the nature of Chinese
society. even when applied to Taiwan.
2 One 2221 equals 2.4 acres.
3 Unfortunately I have little in the way of evidence for this assertion.
Sons would understandably be reluctant to admit that they no longer want
to contribute money to the family. Nevertheless. the possibly exists
that this may have been one reason for wanting division.
4 In his research of urban migrants in Tainan. Parish found that only
about 52 of the respondents (as opposed to 80% in rural areas)inherited
their occupation from their fathers. Thus. "persons who have migrated
to the city. even more than other city dwellers. tend either to have had
nothing to inherit. or have given up the opportunity to inherit their
father's land. store. local clientel" (1978:303). If anything. what
these findings might illustrate is the probable lack of family
businesses and lack of farm land available to sons. Instead. conscious
of the fact that there was little economic opportunity to keep them in

the villages. young men went to the city to find employment on their

58

own.
5 Cook (1984bz22) has found that larger families in Oaxaca. Mexico

bring more material advantages than disadvantages in labor intensive

regions.

-III-

 

THE FAMILY ECONOMY FAMILY DIVISION NEXUS:

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CASE STUDIES AND DISCUSSION

 

In this chapter I present a more detailed analysis of family estate
and family budget as they might appear in varying economic contexts.

By making an analysis of this kind. the changes in the relationship
between family economic organization and the nature of family division
become more apparent.

We have to remember that the rapid changes that have taken place in
rural Taiwan tend to blur many of the "ideal" images that we may have of
Chinese families. And. because families are always changing in
composition it is very difficult to categorize and label them. For
better or for worse. I have disregarded my better judgement and gone
ahead and organized three possible variations of family economy. My way
of organizing is not meant to be definitive or comprehensive. rather. it
is intended to offer some kind of framework from which we can get a
better idea of how various economies are organized and function given
the variations in the nature of work. With that done. I then integrate
my findings concerning the nature of family division found in the
presence of each economic type. With both these elements side by side.
we perhaps can get a better idea of what kind of relationship exists
between the two.

Again. all this chapter attempts to do is show that family economy
is complex and demands more attention from scholars who write about the
socio-economic relationships of the family. Basically as an example of

this complexity. I want to draw attention to the fact that there may be

59

60

a definite relationship between family economy and family division (or
the lack of it). and that some of the criteria that scholars have used
in explaining this relationship may no longer provide an adequate
explanation of how or why families change in contemporary Taiwan.

A GUIDE TO THE CASE STUDIES LISTED IN THE APPENDIX

 

I have prepared a listing of family members from the cases
considered in this paper and listed in the appendix (see figure 3.1). to
help the reader better visualize the occupational makeup of each group.
In the first column (1). if we look at only the Hsin Hsing families. we
find salaried positions are not held by very many individuals. This is
probably because few such postions exist in Hsin Hsing village itself.
and because such positions when outside the village. require the most
education and the ability to pass government or company examinations.
With the exception of the present younger generation in the village.
educational possibilities past high school had been out of the question
because of the expense of an education and because. at an earlier time.
sons were needed to supplement the income of a family. Whether or not
people with higher educations are found more frequently in complex
families cannot be determined here; yet I would suspeCt that in some
cases the parents in larger families might have the resources to direct
a promising child toward a higher education at the expense of his less
fortunate brothers and sisters who would have to support him (see Case
1. 5. and for Hsin Hsing Case 12).

In column two (2). wage workers in families are primarily unmarried
sons. or unmarried daughters and wives. working in either small village

factories or larger factories within commuting distance. As many of the

61

 

 

FAMILY CASEISALARIE'.W CE TENTREW WEU?.S EINTEEEEENEURS.rARMINCJENIEEDR SE
NAME 0 I 1 Y 2 iW/O w. LL £03 3 :d/W. LAB OR 4 LI 5 uTYPES 6
Ewan? J 01?13 S 1 'her $353 2 TENZS3S€Rice+Fish
CUI J 93735 fiHlZASéS Slow Y 1 YKnitting
ONG J #5? Y 1 YEIZSIDWlSWS #Y? TNeaving Co.
HUANG J #5?15 1 Y3SAS Y 123 TBrick.Trucking
LI. C #61 1 7 YHWDS 4 733p TSpring Co.
K'ANG C #7? THlSZD $2523 1 ' Th; IMotcy.Repair
SHIH S #9?1D Y ? 11515w 100 THE fiOil Seal
SEEN J#101 Y $152848 73383 TEESp TR.Mill.Drug Wh.
A TFrogs
HUANG Jéllf 1 TlSlSW 23435 1 TH? YTradCo.Iron3ar
K'ANG JGIZSEIS 7 SZS3S~SZS~3$w Y1$¢ 6 Thp , Sewing,Electr.
TTrucking.Motor cy.
1Pigs.Peas.Chickens.
Key:
*=army 13=eldest son
p= part time D=sec. eldest daughter
f=full time H=household head
N=nephew W=head's wife
L=§ of laborers 15W=eldest son‘s wife

$=family business

owned or operated by more than one family member

Sources: Case Studies Liszed in appendix

#1 (Lin 1948). 03.4 (harrell 1982). #5 (Cohen 1976), #6 and below (Gallin & Gallin:
field interviews 1979. 1982)

Figure 3.1
OCCUPV IONS OE F.2MI EY NEVEERS IN TAIWAN AND CHIN

GUIDE I3 Cr.SES LISTED IN TEE PPENEI

 

 

62

cases indicate. unmarried sons often work in factories or apprentice for
a trade before being drafted for their required two years of military
duty. Following the service. many continue to build on their skills and
save enough money so they can start their own small enterprises and
marry (Stites 1982:141-146; notes that few men continue to be factory
workers unless they are in a special foreman postion). In practice. a
married woman's earnings would be used only by her family unit
(husband's fang if living in a stem or joint arrangement); but if the
entire family is experiencing financial difficulties. the disposition of
her earnings is more in question. As a result. a woman who is able to
work will make additions to her private money (ssu-fang chian or
sai-khia in Taiwanese)1 drawing from it whenever she or her fans need
money for investments. clothes. and sundries (R. Gallin 1985:83). In
1979. this stood in contrast to the earnings of husbands who. as members
of families with a common budget and sharing a common residence. were
required to contribute a portion of their earnings to the joint family
for living expenses. ritual and ceremonies. and maintenance.

The third and fourth columns (3) (4). that of family enterprises
with and without wage labor respectively. are perhaps the most important
categories to this study and unfortunately. ften the most difficult to
document. Unlike the single family type of enterprise controlled by
Huang Dung-lin (case 1). many of the small businesses in the Taiwan of
today are not as well deliniated as to who owns or manages or even works
in those enterprises. This is mainly because many complex families have
highly diversified economies and residentially dispersed groups. so that
many of the sons operate businesses in a semi-autonomous fashion. while

still belonging to undivided family units.

63

FAMILY ECONOMY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO FAMILY DIVISION:

THREE POSSIBLE TYPES

A quick look at the families in figure 3.1 actually reveals very
little about the organization of rural families in Taiwan. These
families can be either closely bound economically or they may share only
the slightest amount of economic contact. For some families. sons may
remain highly involved in the economic affairs of the family and the
fathers may dominate and manage family members as though they were his
employees in business. In other families. sons may rarely participate
in the family economy once they have reached adulthood and fathers may
never have to do more than decide when a daughter should marry.
Likewise. in some families. individuals may decide to divide from each
other as soon as each son is married. while in others. sons may never
even consider family division a relevant issue.

What accounts for this wide variation in family structure and
function? Cohen (1976) and Harrell (1982) point to the "economic"
factors motivating family unity. Essentially. they feel that sons
weigh the costs and benefits of remaining involved in the family economy
before reaching a decision bn whether to divide. Tang (1978) and Sung
(1981) on the other hand. tend to stress the "cultural and political"
factors responsible for familial social organization.

In this chapter. my own approach to the family may also seem
decidedly economic to the reader. Yet. by examining the nature of
family economy in varying economic contexts (such as agriculture.
business. etc.). I hope to be able show in greater detail the

relationship between the changes in Taiwan's local economy and family

64
economy as well as the relationship between changes in family economy
and family structure ( as indicated by the changes that occur in family
division).

If you recall. my short definition of family economy in chapter one
mentions the existence of a family budget (which indludes the cash
savings liquid assets of a family) and a family estate (a family's fixed
assets). I also said that depending upon the nature of the occupations
of family members. both budget and estate may vary in the way they are
used by family members. In addition to this it is necessary to mention
at least three other factors to be taken into consideration so as to
better understand the nature of family economy. First. an individual's
occupation does not always remain the same throughout life. nor do
members of a family always share the same kinds of work. Second. people
must be responsive to the economy (local. regional. national. and
global). What this means is that the family budget and estate
frequently fluctuate; changing as a result of design or circumstances.
For example. the family budget and estate for any one 5233 changes
when family members enter into a new occupation. change occupations.
accumulate or spend cash. and buy or sell land or a business. Third.
family income and expenditures (family wealth) vary in accordance with
the family life cycle. Conjugal families. for example. are less able to
earn and save money because of the smaller number of productive adults
and the larger number of young children. A large portion of the family
income has to be used for consumption needs leaving little for savings.
Stem and joint families. on the other hand. usually benefit from having
a proportionately larger number of workers. enabling the family to

accumulate capital and make investments. As a result. more complex

65

families have been able to accumulate more property and start their own
businesses than those families which are just in the formative stages of
the family life cycle.

In figure 3.2. I have layed out the particular nature of. and
relationship between. the family estate and budget within a broad
occupational context. I have then designated two general categories of
family economy (l.Estate-3ased and 2. Budget-Based) under which fall
three subtypes ("farm-based economiesg" "business-based economies;" and
"diversified economies" ). I have settled on these two categories.
primarily because they mirror the importance of the estate and budget
for the three subtypes. This is not to say. however. that estate-based
family economies (BBFES) lack a budget or that budget-based family
economies (BBFEs) lack an estate (this I will explain below).

Having discussed the relationship between the budget and estate. I
then talk about their relationship to family division for each economic
category. I discuss whether family division is likely to occur on a
formal level ("de jure") or whether division is more likely to happen
informally over the life cycle of the family or be ignored all together

("de facto").2

1.35TATE-BASED FAMILY ECONOMY:EBFEs

Generally. family economies which are estate-based display a
specific economic and organizational character. In EBFEs. the estate
forms the primary means of livlihood (or production ) for most if not
all family members.3 Family members also function as a collective and
coordinated labor unit working the family estate and the estate. in

turn. provides an income. and in many cases. future employment for the

1.ESTATE-BASED FAMILY ECONOMY

 

Farm-Based Economies:

EI Estate (land for farming) is important for production and is

easily partitioned.

Bl Budget (liquid assets) serves the major purpose of pooling
income for the payment of expenses. but is not important for
investment in the estate.

DE Division is de jure and usually occurs earlier in the family
cycle.

Business-Based Economies:

EI Estate (the family operated business) is important for
production and and other commercial activity but is not easily
partitioned.

BI Budget important for investment in estate and for the
maintenance of the family business.

DL Division is de jure and usually occurs later in the family
cycle.

2.8UDGET-3ASED FAMILY ECONOMY

Diversified Family Economies:

E1 Estate may be important as a place for entrepreneurial activity;
it exists on a unitized level and is easily partitioned.

BI Budget is important and is sometimes used for invesrment in the
family estate.

dE Division is de facto and usually occurs earlier in the family
cycle.

Family Estate

Family Budget

Higher level of importance
lower level of importance
de jure division '”
de facto "

early division

late division

Figure 3.2
THREE POSSIBLE VARIATIONS OF FAMILY ECONOMY
IN HSIN HSING TAIWAN: 1950-1980

67

younger generation. Because of the nature of their work and common
living arrangements. the family must have a manager/boss (a chia
chang/lau ban) or one person who organizes the family workforce and

makes the important business decisions in the family.

Farm-based families:

Whenever alternate means of earning a livlihood are scarce. the
dependence upon land for an income (subsistence) in agrculturally-based
families has. in part. helped to create a rigid hierarchy of patriarchal
authority. Because the senior male in the family manages the family
estate (land). he also manages and controls those who depend upon land
(i.e.. family members). This family head (chia Chang) not only
delegates work to family members but he also strictly controls the
family budget. Since family members are usually not paid a "salary."

individuals may have to approach the chia chang and ask not only for

 

pproval to purchase commodities but also for the cash with which to do
it.

Although the budget is controlled by the family head. the amount of
cash or liquid assets (accumulated assets can also be in kind. rice.
wheat. etc.) held are usua-ly not large. As a result. the budget often
holds barely enough to pay for taxes. festivals. living expenses. and
the purchase of basic commodities. hose families able to accumulate
extra cash might invest in land or a small business; such upward
mobility would often launch the family into another category of family

economy (i.e. business-based. diversified. etc.).

68

The farm-based economy is almost always associated with the kind of
economic conditions that existed for most rural families in "traditional
China." Similarly. for many Taiwanese families in the 19505 and early
19605. farming continued to provide the majority of income for xtended
households. Even today. we can find that within some families. the same
kinds of traditional economic and social relationships persist
especially where sons are directed into farming by their fathers while
other sons are encouraged to take off-farm occupations. The sons
involved in agriculture. however. rarely enjoy the same kind of economic
freedom as their siblings who are not farmers.

The second son of Huang Yu-lai (case 5) and the third son of Shen
Hue-yen (case 10). for example. were the only married sons in these two
families to become farmers while their brothers. some of whom also lived
at home. were involved in off-farm work. Unlike their brothers.
however. the farming sons shared an intimate working and economic
relationship with their fathers (the ghig chang) who were also farmers.
As was frequently the case in traditional farm families on the mainland.
the father (as head of the "farm" economy) did not give his farming sons
a salary or even pocket money for such mundane things as cigaretts.
Their siblings on the other hand. not having gone into farming did not
have their fathers interfering in their work nor did their fathers
necessarily demand every cent they earned. Instead. at the very least.
fathers would allow sons involved in off-farm work to keep enough of
their earnings so that they could purchase medicine. clothing. and
other small items for their own conjugal units.

What are the implications for family division in the presence of a

69

farm-based economy? On a general level. where there was a lack of job
opportunities in off-farm work (as in certain areas of traditional China
and Taiwan in the 19505). agricultural production on the family farm
provided the main means of livlihood for the family. This dependence
upon the family land (estate) as a provider of income and a occupation
for sons once they reached adulthood. necessitated that some kind of
equitable and jural divsion of property be enacted when the family
decided to separate. Even where a family may have developed well into
the the joint stage. sons would inevitably split. and that separation
would require the careful accounting procedures and property
distribution that a formal family division would provide. Since the
estate could be easily partitioned. the family does not hesitate to
call in an outside arbitor who would settle debts. and make a legal and.
usually binding division of the family property (e.g.. land. rooms in a
farming compound. tools. and. of course. eating arragements). Because
of this type of division. I have given it the label "early de jure".4

If this kind of division were more likely to happen in traditional
China or in the Taiwan of the 19505 and 19605. what about division in
families that continue to be farm-based today? Unfortunately. there are
few examples of extended farmfbased families where more than one son
continued in farming. I would expect that if there were such cases.
then a de jure type of family division might continue to be important.
But. for those other families that are partially farm-based (families
with two-tiered economies) or where sons have already left the ghig
(such as the Huang's (case 5) or the Shen's (case 10). I doubt that
division would be so important to sons. especially where most of them

are already involved in their own off-farm jobs. In cases such as

70

these. the father has essentially left the farm or even a small business
to one son. and since most farms are small and nOt terribly lucrative. I
doubt there would be any objections from the other brothers who have

other means of livlihood (unfortunately the limited avaliable data from

Hsin Hsing do not provide enough information on this issue).

Business-based family economies:

What distinguishes this second subtype from the farm-based economy
above is the that a single primary off-farm business (there can also be
secondary businesses linked with the primary one) provides the majority
of income for the family (see case 1 and 4). But. as with many
farm-based groups. business-based families are also operated as
financial units with family managers (usually the family head). who
assign tasks to family members and who control the family budget.

Business-based family economies are usually started by the family
head and often grow large enough to: 1) absorb most if not all of the
family labor. 2) offer sons the opportunity of an occupation that can
support their own conjugal families after they are married. 3)
discourage sons from seeking off-farm work elsewhere because other types
of off-farm work would not bring such high returns. 4) employ a number
of wage laborers. The business usually requires keen management skills
as well as knowledge about specialized equipment: unlike an estate
composed primarily of farm land. the business estate may be made up of
business stock (e.g. toilet paper. paper towels. wine. watches. video
cassetts. washing machines). and/or machinery (e.g. arc welders.
mechanics tools. lathes. metal Stampers. ohmmeters). Consequently. such

an estate is a much more complicated operation to own. run, and divide.

71

In families in which members share a residence as well as work. the
budget is organized to handle the usual domestic (household) expenses;
in this regard. the budget differs little in the way it is put to use
in agricultural families. But. unlike agriculturally-dominated family
economies. the family budget also serves to accumulate cash savings to
be used for investment in the family estate. Accumulated cash is
primarily used to purchase more land. reinvest in the family enterprise.
in other off-farm businesses. or in a son's education. Even for those
sons living away from home and earning money. all disposable income
earned. is to be remitted to the family; after all. sons are investing
in the family enterprise and expect to get their share of the family
estate at the time of division. Suffice it to say. when a family's
budget becomes something more than just a means of holding money for
consumption needs and becomes an important means of producing more
wealth through the investment of liquid assets. then. the family budget
itself may become as valued as the estate as a means of capital

acquisition.

What about family division in business-based families? In families
that are dependent upon a primary business for their income. family
division may not be such a clear-cut or uncomplicated matter. For one
thing. because the family has a single major enterprise that supports
most. if not all. family members. there may not be an easy way to divide
the estate without destroying the enterprise itself. Wong (1985:65)
believes that usually family enterprises of this sort are the creations
of self-made entrepreneurs coming from the less complex family type

(i.e.. heads of their own conjugal households). He says. gradually. the

72

young successful businessman builds his buisiness and family to become a
father-entrepreneur; such a man. Wong continues. has total authority
over his enterprise and is unhindered by relatives (since it was he who
started his enterprise after separating from his natal ghig). After the
sons have reached maturity. and "after the father-entrepreneur has
relinquished control. the centralized family firm enters the third phase
of its evolution and gradually becomes segmented"(1985:64).

Wong points out. however. that the move toward segmentation is
dependent upon "what is being divided - whether it is the ship estate
itself. the profits that it yields. or the responsibility for managing
it" (1985:64). Sons who are active in. and dependent on. the family
firm for a livlihood would probably resist the division of the family
and (business) for fear of loosing valuable business capital.5 Wong
states.

Industrial and commercial assets are usually in the
form of integrated entities that would cease to
function once split. Even where subdivision is
feasible. efficiency and productivity will suffer as a
result becauseof an economy of scale is often involved
(1985:65).

Essentially. it is Wong's belief that control over the estate lies
primarily with the family head. Unlike most farm land. business

property in this context is often acquired by the chia Chang (see Sung

 

1981). giving him more control over the sons. Firmer control over the
estate. coupled with the fact that sons might be less anxious to divide
business assets. leads to a situation not conducive to early family

division. or. in fact. any kind of family division as drastic as that

73

for agricultural families. Nevertheless. the stakes are too high for
most sons not to want to distribute the family assets at some point
(most likely after the fathers death). making a late "de jure" type of

division inevitable.

2.BUDGET BASED FAMILY ECONOMYzBBFEs:

Contrary to the label applied to this category. many BBFEs do have
an estate of some sort. Many families have assets in land and land may
provide some income for the family. Nevertheless. the income generated
from farming is usually secondary to income generated by off-farm work
(in the form of home-based businesses or income from wage labor). As
a result. the estate may become more important for its farm buildings
and residences because it can provide a plggg for entrepreneurs in the
family to do buisness.

What then is the difference between BBFEs and Business-based family
economies? In BBFEs. there is the absence of a primary productive unit
for which most family members labor. Sons in the family. often with the
help of the older generation. use whatever they can salvage from the

eatate to establish for themsleves a small business. In this sense. th

 

entrepreneur creates his own occupation (means of production) where
there had been none before; he does not rely on the family estate to
provide him with an occupation as might be the case in farm-based or
business-based family economies.6

Without a doubt. the value of an estate as a place for doing
business is important for those just starting out in business or for
those who simply wish to keep their living expenses at a minimum.

Nevertheless. having access to and sharing a common budget may be a

74

more compelling reason for sons to remain together as part of a family
economy. Unlike the estate the budget has no physical boundaries. It
can be used by those who wish to remain at the family residence or those
who choose to work and live elsewhere. Accumulated capital held in the
budget is particularly useful in a industrializing capitalistic economy
because it can be used to finance the many activities and occupations
which necessitate the use of cash. Having cash or access to a source of
cash in Taiwan's increasingly capitalist economy. provides a greater

chance of upward mobility than having access to a farm estate.

Diversified family economies:

In the literature available to us. sinologists frequently talk
about the diversified family economy in both traditional and
contemporary contexts. From Cohen's writings (1976) in the village of
Yen-liao in the mid and late 19605. we get a good idea of what a

iversified family must have been like in traditional China and in
Taiwan of the 19505 and 19605.

Cohen mentions that among wealthier families. the family head would
often decide to diversify the family economy rather than concentrate his
family's producrive effort on only one business (as in a business-based
family economy). Such a strategy would entail directing sons into
different occupations which could be based either at home or in a nearby
town or city. As a result. occupational decisions made by Yen-liao
fathers on behalf of their sons often have

crucial bearing on the £233 group's subsequent
residential and economic arrangements. Many of these

decisions concern the son's education. which in some

75

cases can be terminated because of his father's poverty
or need for labor; in others the education can be
managed so that his future employment will be assured.
while at the same time family expenditures will be
minimized (1976:99).

In the case of Huang Yu-lai's family (case 5). the eldest son was
encouraged to continue school. with his tuition paid with funds from the
family budget (the second son was directed to help his father with the
farming in order to help the family meet their expenses). Huang's third
son. after having failed his exams. was eventually given a new brick
factory to run. The fourth son. also acting as family manager of sorts.
was put in control of a small transport company.

In this particular case (5). the family started off with very little
in the way of an estate that was particularly useful for business.
Instead. whatever estate existed served most importantly to provide the
initial means of obtaining the necessary capital from which to invest in
the first son's education. Once the son became established in his
government job. his salary was then put back into the family budget and
invested in small enterprises for the next son. With the added profits
from each additional enterprise. the budget was again used to invest in
an enterprise for the remaining sons. establishing. if you will. a small
estate for each son to own. operate and provide occupational security
when they become older and have families.

Cohen points out. that even those sons who lived away from the ghia
residence (here we should stress any male family member). would. in the
long run. serve to spread a family's assets and reduce financial risks.

and frequently functioned to build a political power base for the chia

76
(Cohen 1976:78-80). The linkage between the dispersed family member and
the ghi§_was maintained. in part. because all family members were
required to remain in close economic and social contact with the natal
family. For most. there was also the stipulation that all surpluses

from wages or profits from a business or wage must be remitted to the

family head (chia chang). and that no one individual would make an

 

important business decision without first consulting with other

members.7

TIME/PLACE VARIATION AND ITS AFFECT ON DIVERSIFIED ECONOMIES

Located near one of the largest manufacturing and marketing zones in
the island (Kao-hsiung/Fing-tung region). individuals in Yen-liao were
able to open small-scale businesses (many of them satellite factories
and shops) at home while others could commute to wage labor jobs in
nearby factories. As a result. there was rarely any need for
individuals to leave their natal ghig to find work. Instead. the family
could remain as a residential unit sharing living expenses. labor. and
the profits that they made. Basically. it made good sense for sons to
remain together in an economic unit and it made very little sense for

them to divide and try to make a living independent of the chia.

In Hsin Hsing of the 19605. the Gallins had also found that many
of the diversified families organized their economic lives in a manner
similar to diversified families in Yen-liao. But. as mentioned in
chapter II. a lack of off-farm employment opportunites in the village
forced most Hsin Hsing family members to leave the village to find

work. As already mentioned. demands for remittances on the part of the

77

natal £223 forced many migrants to live on the margin of poverty.

For most migrants who remained part of a diversified family there
was the added problem of not being able to see a likely return on their
"investment" in the ghig_economy for some time to come. As a result.
many of these migrants continued to favor division because that would
mean an end to their obligation of having to remit funds back to the
family budget (remittances would continue however to cover the expenses
of the parents).

By the mid 19703 however. the Gallins noticed that more employment
opportunites in the village marketing area lured migrants back from the
city as well as encouraged sons just reaching adulthood to remain at
home and work (see case 12). The Gallins also found that many
'diversified families had "modified" their social and economic
organization (1982a). They noted that there was rarely the requirement
that family members remit all of their disposable income to the family
budget. This greater flexibility in budgeting removed the obligation to
contribute one's disposable income to the family budget and therefore

helped to eliminate one of the primary reasons for family division.

THE AFFECT OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION ON FAMILY
DIVISION

Generally speaking. the senior generation in a family has always
wanted to remain in control of a family's economic activities. This not
only ensures greater prestige in the eyes of their peers but it also
helps to ensure that parents will have a greater say in what is done

with them in their old age. Diversification of the family economy can.

78
however. create problems for the older generation because it removes the
younger generation from a dependence upon the estate for a livlihood.
8

As a result. some parents in Hsin Hsing in the 19705 used their
control over the family budget as a means of maintaining that control.
By offering sons money to start an education or to establish a business.
sons are obligated to show deference to their parents. Parents have
also been known to use money from the family budget to purchase a
residence in the city where their migrant children work. The children
unwilling to pass up free rent. go and live in the residence bought by
the parents (see case 7 and Tang 1978). By purchasing property which is
useful to migrant sons, the parents can retain some authority in the
family.

On the whole. however. it appears that the authority of the parents
is greatest when their children are just starting out in their
professions. They can provide them with a place to do business if they
remain at home and they can provide cash or help them obtain loans when
they need financing for an education or buiness. But once sons begin
earning their own income. however. parental authority may begin to
decline. Even when sons live at home and Operate a home based-business.
there is no guarantee that they will stay once they manage to accumulate
enough money to live on their own. In case 12 for example. Kang's third
son took his wife. children and electrical business away from the natal
ghi§_after he had become quite successful. This was done. I believe.
primarily because the business in Hsin Hsing was limited and he could
function quite easily on his own without having to share living expenses

with other family members.

79

Is there any confusion over property rights when a entrepreneur in a
diversified family economy creates his own business enterprise? As far
as I know, property created through entrepreneurial effort is considered
acquired property (see Sung 1981). In other words. no one in a family
has a claim to prOperty acquired or created by someone else in the
family. Even in cases where the family has helped a son establish a
business (cases 5. 7. 9. 11. 12). there does not appear to be any great
worry over who will get what part of the estate; basically. what you've
earned. managed. or built is what you get. If a son has met with little
or no success in business. then that does not mean that we will be given
a share of another sons operation. Instead. that son is more likely to
be helped out by his siblings who might offer a loan to get started
again in some other kind of work.

In sum. what happens to family division in a diversified economy?

By the 19705. family division for such families seems to have been
considered too bothersome and complicated (mg fag) for anyone to want to
go through. Because the family estate has generally lost much of its
value for sons and because of changes in the budgeting arrangements.
most individuals feel there is little to be gained by going through the
process of a formal division.§ We have to remember. that for family
members in Hsin Hsing (many of whom are eager to leave the village in
search of work elsewhere). cash has become one of the most important
things one can inherit. But. because sons usually need cash as soon as
they reach adulthood. family money is given out gradually. By the time
all sons are provided for. there is usually little or no cash left in
the family coffer making division of liquid assets unnecessary. It is

primarily for these reasons. I have labeled division for this economic

80

subtype as "de facto."

.In concluding this section. the reader should remember a number of
important things about the technique of labeling and categorizing used
here. First of all. the three types of family economy mentioned are
not meant to characterize every type of family economy. Secondly. while
some families seem to share characteristics of one type of family
economy as well as the characteristics of another. we should not dismiss
them as deviant types or attempt to fit them them into a single category
where they do not belong. It is the nature of family economies to
change and to adapt to their own constraints and demands. as well as

the constraints and demands imposed from the economic world exterior to

Q
tan-on
tum...

81

DISCUSSION

 

The data collected by the Gallins in Hsin Hsing in the last thirty
years tend to be supported by many of the observations of Cohen.
Harrell. Tang and others (Sung 1981. Hu 1984. Freedman 1958) presented
in chapter II. Cohen was one of the first to illustrate the important
connections between changes in the economy and changes in family social
organization. It is Cohen's belief. relates another anthropologist.
that the perpetuation of the complex family

depends on whether inclinations to separate are
overridden by the economic disadvantages of partition.
Family division would be particularly disadvantageous
where the family estate consists of separate
enterprises managed by specialists. Only when families
remain an economic unit can capital and labor be
shifted easily and economically (Pasternak 1981:153).

I would hesitate to say. however. whether Cohen would go so far as
Harrell and embody his views under the rubric of an "economic model"
(Harrell 1982: 15A). where family organization is dittated primarily by
economic constraints. Harrell's "cost-benefit" rational. I believe.
tends to trivialize family relationships. His insistence on making
investment the critical factor in determining whether or not families
continue to remain together after the joint stage seems to ignore the
'point so well illustrated by the Gallins: that the family has over time
modified its social and economic organization thereby allowing family
members to stay within. and take advantage of. familial social and

economic networks and support systems without having to "invest" all

82

fruits of their labor in the family economy.

Closely tied to this idea of shared investment is the question of
family division. Harrell (1982) believes that in the absence of capital
investment or family-run enterprises. there is little reason for the
family to stay together: therefore they would divide. Certainly in Hsin
Hsing of the 19505 and 19603. the absence of a strong family economy and
the pressure from the natal ghig for remittances from migrants worked
against family unity. In the 19705. however. few family divisions took
place in the village. but not necessarily because of shared capital
investments or because there was a family enterprise at stake.

Because of the changes in the nature of family economy in the 19703.
there is little evidence that sons had much of a vested interest in the
economic activity of their natal families. Few families had investments
large enough to warrant any interest on the part of sons. Even in the
case where a brother (managed to build up an enterprise (such as the
gasket business case 9). other family members (of his generation) hold
no rights over that property. Today. when sons start businesses with
family financing. the estate (the business) they create is considered
acquired and not inherited property (Sung 1981). It is only when a
father has built a business of his own (as with a business-based family
economy). that sons might feel they have some kind of vested interest in
the family economy. and would therefore choose to remain part of the
family economy.

Suffice it to say. the increase in off-farm work has led to dramatic
changes in the family economy in Hsin Hsing. These changes in family
economy. have in turn. resulted in changes in the nature of family
division .

Briefly. the data indicate that when family members are dependent

83

upon the family estate for an income as with a farm or family-owned
business. the estate remains important as inheritable property. And,
because the estate is valued by heirs. the estate will have to be
divided at some point in the family life cycle. making the jural process
of family division inevitable.

But. where farming is the most important mode of production for the
family. family division may be much simpler to execute and may occur
earlier than when dividing a business. The reason for this lies in the
fact that: a) a single family business often cannot continue to function
when its labor. management and budget are fragmented. and b) a father
who has built up a business through his own effort usually enjoys
greater authority over family members and can easily delay the division
of the family property for as long as he wishes. Farm land. on the
other hand. is much more malleable than a family business and can be
put to productive use even after it is divided among heirs.9
Division of land in farm families may also occur at an earlier period in
the family life cycle. Unlike business property. land is often passed
down from generation to generation (all males are coparceners of land).
As a result. parents often act as only the trustees of the family land
and not necessarily as the Owners of land. This particular status. in
turn. often limits the degree of authority parents have over sons and
therefore limits their ability to stave off division.

Still. what happens to family structure when the estate ceases to be
of importance to family members? Interestingly. family division may
continue to be desirable to some family members especially when migrants

feel it is in their own best interest to remove themselves from having

to contribute to the family budget (as was the case in Hsin Hsing during

84

the 19605). Only in the 19705 do we find a marked absence of family
division in the village. The reason for this change was due to three
factors: a) land no longer was as important to sons as a hedge against

failure at an off-farm joo. b) there was a lack of large family-run
businesses inmthe village. c) extended families had modified their
budgeting arrangements so that sons could keep the money they earned
without having to contribute all of their savings to the family budget
(Gallin & Gallin 1982a).

Finally. with the gradual decline in the importance of the family
estate came the gradual increase in the importance of the family
budget. Cash was used to finance an education for sons. and. by the
19705. was increasingly used to finance small off-farm enterpriSes. In
this way. the family budget. and not the estate. provided the means by
which the unemployed or underemployed could create their own means of
production.

The need for cash on the part of family members has. without a
doubt. necessitated some kind of social and structural adjustments in
the family. Certainly. family members become less and less dependent
upon each other once each has become established in his own occupation.
Still. for many individualsiin the countryside (and urban areas) today.
economic security remains illusive. Small-scale entrepreneurs. for
example. often barely make enough money to finance their operations
because competition from other small-scale producers is so great.
Operating on a piece-work basis. many satellite factories remain
vulnerable to fluctuations in both domestic and international markets.

And. because these small businesses operate independently. center

factories are not hampered by a unionized work force. nor for example.

 

85
do they have to provide medical benefits for their sub-con racrors. As
a result. many family members remain socially and economically
interdependent. because there is simply not the extra margin of security

available to members in times of hardsnip.

86

Notes:

1 Ssu fang chian is money given to a young woman by her parents before
marriage. The money is meant to be used only by her. however. she may
frequently use the money to help her own conjugal unit.

2 Not coincidentally. the reader may also notice that in the various
stages of Taiwan's development. there may only exist certain kinds of
work for rural-based families. Complex families that were bound to an
agricultural existence in the Taiwan Of the 19505. for example. tended
to organize their social and economic relationships along more
traditional patterns. But. as Taiwan's economy changed so did the kinds
Of work available to farmers. enabling many to become involved with
wage labor and small enterprises. As a result. the patterns Of familial
economic and social organization that may have been in place previously.
had tO change to accomodate the changes in work. or there would be the
chance that relationships between family members would suffer (Gallin
and Gallin 1982a).

3 Here I am primarily referring to males in the family and sons in
particular.

4 When the estate begins to loose its importance for those sons who have
found a means Of livlihood not based on the use Of the esrate. a
father's influence and authority over his non-farming sons may decline.
For this reason. fathers perhaps believe that there may be at least two
means by which they can try and maintain the status-quo. One method is

to gently guide (or coerce) a son into taking up the plough alongside

the father. By having at least one son involved in agriculture so that

87
is dominant. paternalistic relationship with his son.

Another means by which a chia chang can maintain some authority. is

 

to transform or to build an estate that is attractive (or "marketable"
in that the estate would have to Offer a job Opportunity and/or the
possibility Of inheriting a business or part of one) tO sons. In
contemporary Taiwan especially. sons who no longer want tO be farmers
may only consider remaining part of an extended family when the family
has something to Offer in the way Of employment or help for a future
Off-farm occupation. And. if a father should be so lucky as to
establish a lucrative business that can absorb the labor Of his sons as
they grow up. those sons may find it difficult not to remain a part Of a
family economy which gives more economic rewards than anything he can
hope to find in the "outside world". This argument of mine may in some
ways parallel that given in R. Gallin:1985.

5 Wong's argument goes into a deeper exploration of Freedman's querries
about what happens to business-based families when it comes time for
division. In his article he basically supports Freedman's claim that
'families with business property tend to remain together longer than
those based upon agricultural property (also see Cohenzl976).

6 BBEEs found in the 1960s perhaps come the closest to what Cook calls
"endofamilial" accumulation. he points out that "in many small r'ra
industries Of the Oaxaca Valley [Mexico]. the capital/labour
relationship has developed to a point where simple capitalist
accumulation occurs but usually in such a way that the wage level. as
well as the level Of accumulation. are so low as to require

subsidization from the workers' household units to ensure soci

88

and Friedman 1984 for some interesting interpretations on the
relationship between capitalism and households).

7 It is important to note that diversified family economies are not
exclusively based upon entrepreneurs living and working at a common
residence. Family members may also work in wage labor jobs in nearby
factories or they may work as managers in trading companies in the
cities. What makes these individuals part of a diversified economy is if
they remit most. if not all their disposable income to the family budget
or if they remain active in economic transactions with fellow family
members (such as giving or receiving loans. investing in a brother's
firm. etc.). In other words. there has to be more involvement in the
economic affairs Of the whole family. than just occasionally sending
home money every month to help support the parents.

8 Parental authority is in part based upon having an estate which is
valued by sons.

9 Huang (1984) points out. that most farm families are dependent upon a
vast network of ”horizontal" (nonfamilial) relationships to help in the
planting and harvest seasons. So. regardless of whether families are
large or small. most units will enlist the help Of fellow villagers

during periods when extra labor is needed.

89

Approximate Locations Of Three Community Studies in Taiwan

"“3

   
 

IJQQQ

\
,CS....

tit-thud 1"—

_ moth-£4034!!! ‘AlN
IAIUVAY

C8653

 

 

Hoimvug

1' cinn-

V

‘..'..... A? onguon'
WC:- .' \,

..........\)

'.
\

 

9 2‘: do
.A==Ploughshare Village B= Hsin Hsing Village C= Yen Liao
Figure 4.1

MAP OF TAIWAN

 

90

Case #1
Family Name: Hwang*
Location: Fuchien Province. People's Republic of China

Set in the late 18005 and early 19005. Lin (1949) has documented the
history of the Hwang family over a fourty year period. During this
time. the author was able to follow the family through two family
divisions. providing us with a very sensitive portrayal of family life.
The family was located in a small agricultural village near the Min
Chiang River about 80 miles from the port city of Fuchien Province in

China.

Lin begins his study with the death of the father and grandfather of
two young brothers. Dungmin (the elder) and Dunglin (the younger).
Although the brother's father was the first to die. the family did not
divide until the death of the family head. the Old grandfather. The
farmland acquired by the grandfather was divided among the surviving two
uncles. with their two nephews taking the third share.

Following division. seven people were left to farm one-third Of the
original land. Family members now consisted of Dunglin. Dungmin. their
mother and Dungmin's wife. two small boys and one girl. For a few years
following the division. family fortunes declined because of an ever
increasing demand on their land brought on by a growing family and the
lack of family labor.

In time. however. the yet unmarried Dunglin struck out on his own by
first selling peanuts to travelers in the village. Within a few years.
Dunglin entered into a partnership with his older brother-in-law Chang

Fenchow. selling wine. peanuts and traditional medicines in the port

91
city of Hukao only two miles from his village. The small shop was
financed by the savings of both men. Fenchow (the older of the two)
served as general manager and dispenser of medicines and Dunglin was
in charge of selling the other commodities. Fenchow's oldest son served
as an accountant and a apprentice/cook.

Agriculture soon ceased to be the only means of support for the
Hwang family as the Hukao store gradually expanded it's business.
Nevertheless. “as the family had not been officially divided. the
capital and money income of the store. as well as the family lands and
their produce. were still held in common property" (Lin. 1948:13) and
both brothers (Dungmin and Dunglin) took an interest in the other's work
and behaved as equal partners in managing the family finances.

At the age of 24. Dunglin was married and soon had a young son and
baby daughter. Shortly there after. the two brothers decided to divide
their households. even though the new division would mean extra work for
both families (Lin has not told us however of any problems either
between brothers or wives that may have prompted a seemingly financially
undesirable division).

A year following the division between the two brothers. Dun min
died. His wife. two young sons and two young daughters were left without
their main means of support. so the family was reunited as one
household. This left Dunglin "as the only adult man to whom a family of
three women and six children could look for support" (1948:16). and
forced him to rent most of the family land while he worked hard at the
Hukao store. Although the family was hard pressed. all members
contributed to generate extra income through the weaving of cloth from

hemp and selling what handicrafts they could make.

92

The family. now led by Dunglin was to continue to expand but remain
as a unit for many years to come. The store also developed by adding
more lines (selling rice and salted fish). while more extensive business
contacts were made in the city of Fuchiu. Dunglin's two nephews were
soon old enough to start farming. and so there came to be less of a
burden on Dunglin as the number of family members reached productive
age.

Dunglin's sons were all younger than those of his brother's. and.
therefore. did not enter into the family workforce as soon as their
cousins. The oldest of Dunglin's four sons was to have an academic
career. and eventually went to college in Foochow. The second and third
eldest sons were more or less groomed to be farmers so that they could
take care of farm production and manage family affairs in the village
along side their older cousins. As with the eldest son. the youngest
boy was encouraged to pursue an education; he too spent much of his
time in school an eventually went to college.

The division of labor among all the adult (old enough to engage in
productive work) males in the Hwang family did not necessarily relegate
anyone to a specific occupation. Dungmin's oldest son (Dunglin's oldest
nephew). although primarily a farmer. also managed most of the farm
operations as well as serving as head of the Hwang household while his
uncle was in the Eukao store. Eventually however. he was able to remove
himself from the responsibilities of farming and go work at the store in
Hukao. Dunglin's second and third sons were also primarily occupied
with farming during their early productive years. but their positions
never seemed to be terribly crucial to the family fortune. Following

the next family division. their services were soon desired elsewhere in

93

activities which were probably more important (profitable) to the
family. The eldest son of Dunglin. although more involved in the
academic world. was nevertheless important for establishing a number of
important relationships with the wealthy and powerful of Fuchiu.
Following the division between Dunglin and his nephews however. he too

became more involved in the family business.

Division between Dunglin and Dungmin's fagg:

Increasing tension between brothers and cousins and
dissatisfaction about the way family capital was being spent led to an
eventual split between Dunglin's household (or £323) and that of his two
nephews. A short passage by Lin sums up the situation quite well.

ldest fig (Dunglin's eldest nephew) now could well

stand upon his own feet. He began to demand that.

instead of following his uncle's desire to build up an

ever-larger and stronger family. the family should now

be divided. so that he could obtain a large portion of

the (family) property and set up for himself. Eldest

92 was of course the first-born of Dungmin. who was in

turn the eldest sea. In that division of a family the

firSt born had a legal right to an extra portion of the

joint property as a special recognition of his

primogeniture"(1948:123).
Another reason for the nephew's desire to divide arose from his concern
that Dunglin's youngest son would use up much of the family capital in
pursuit of his education.

An arbiter was called in to help negotiate the division which was

 

theoretically between Dunglin and his dead brother Dungmin. Farm land
(more land had been accumulated as family wealth increased). household
possessions. living quarters. and farm buildings were all divided
between the two families. Although both families were to continue to
live in the same house. they would set up two hearths (lit. feng hwo or
separate fire) and eat separately with only Dunlin's old mother as a
common link.

Aside from the partitioning of farmland and households. there were
also two other important matters which were to prove to be a source of
conflict. The first involved the division of shares in the Hukao
store. Demanding his rights of primogeniture. the oldest nephew
insisted on an equal partitioning of shares even though the business
was founded and originally financed by Dunglin. The business like land.
was considered by the nephew as common property -- but unlike land. a
business cannot always be parcelled out and still maintain it's
productive capacity.

The second matter concerned the division of accumulated capital.
Dungmin's nephew. fearing that too much money had already been siphoned
off on the education of his younger cousins. moved that all cash savings
be divided equally. If the family's cash were to only be used to
finance farming and ceremonial matters (some of the most important needs
for money by a farm family). then there probably would not have have
been much objection to the division of cash. Dunglin. however. was a
businessman and he knew the store could function more effectively with a
larger cash reserve. The availability of capital meant that a retailing
business could make quick purchases when prices were best. Lack of

capital would give the business. in contemporary terms. a cash flow

95

The Hwang family continued as it had right up until the Japanese

invasion made it's presence felt in the city of Fuchiu. But. before

this war was to totally disrupt and finally break he famil . we are

v

q
'

able to obtain a c-ea

'1

picture as to how members of the Hwang family
responded to the changing nature of their family econom‘. Land and the
opportunity to farm it was to prove to be the base upon which Dunglin
could start his business. Following his brothers death and the
reunification of the family. Dunglin had to maintain the family on his
store receipts. yet if his business failed the land would have still

been there as insurance against starvation.

*Source: (Lin 1948)

 

F ,
to . 2:3

Dun-“LLMJ '

 

 

O
[>—
E)..
L)
[\—
)
’ L?-
(J
[>—
I?-
k)
L7...
L)
O

. fflhuv ”U3

Oz’,‘ D‘thZA' l'.‘ HZCEL 6:)“

‘/ but.

 

96

Case #3
Family Name: Cui*
Location: Northern Taiwan

Unlike the many other villages being studied at that time.
Ploughshare's economy was based primarily on wage labor jobs offered
in the local coal mines and. more recently. upon factory work in and
around the community. Because of Ploughshare's hilly location. tea had
originally been (early 19005) the main source of work for most of the
villagers. Tea production. however. soon gave way to a series of other

low profit cash crops. and eventually with the changes in market and
price demands. coal mining rose as the more important means of
employment up until the mid 19705.

Harrell characterized many of the families in Ploughshare as having
been quite poor before the addition of small-scale factories and wage
labor jobs in the mid 19705. One of the families described by Harrell.
had no land when Ciu Ar i. an adopted daughter-in-law. married her
"brother". a coal miner in the early 19005. The couple had four sons.
yet misfortune prevented them from having a joint family. The oldest
son died shortly after marriage. the second son died before he was able
to marry. and the third son "rather than taking in a wife. followed a
course common to many poorer people in this area: he married in to his
wife's family" (1982:160). After the death of the father in the 19405.
the mother remained with her fourth son. The . and his wife and children
(she eventually had six boys and one girl).

By 1973. "their household income depended entirely on wages. Tho
worked the coal mines"(1982:161). his eldest son worked in a knitting

mill. the second son was a laborer in a paper factory in a nearby town.

97

and the third son was encouraged to continue school because of his
scholaStic ability. The fourth son was apprenticed to an electrician in
a city to the south while the remaining children stayed at home because
they were too young to work. Earning NT$6.000 a month. the family was
quite poor by Taiwan standards.

When Harrell returned to Ploughshare in 1978. "increased labor power
and higher wages"(l982:161) had improved the family's economic
position. The father and eldest son were working in the coal mines
(coaling brought slightly higher wages than weaving). while the son's
wife worked on a weaving machine he had recently bought. The fourth son
gave up his apprenticeship and was now working in the mines with his
father and elder brother. and the fifth and sixth sons had begun work in
factories close to the village. While the family had not yet divided at
this stage. Harrell concluded that "unless they change from a
wage-earning to a capital investing family economy. there will be no
compulsion for them to remain together for long" once they have reached

the joint phase (1982:161).

*Source: (Harrell 1982)

 

98
Case #4
Family Name: Ong*

A second family Harrell chose to describe was. unlike the first.
quite wealthy. Although quite poor as a young man. Ong Cui-hieng (the
family head) managed to turn his small savings into one of the larger
knitting Operations in Ploughshare. Ciu-hieng was lucky enough to have
sons. and clever enough to know how family labor could be used to the
fullest.

In 1961. Cui-hieng sent his two sons (recently returned from
military duty ) to learn the knitting trade at a factory in San Chung. a
Taipei suburb. Eventually they returned home after earning enough money
to purchase one knitting machine; which they then worked around the
clock. By saving most of what they earned. the family soon expanded
their operation by purchasing twenty-two machines. a truck. and a retail
outlet (1982:95).

One son used the truck to transport the yarn from the manufacturer
and the finished product to an exporter or to the family retail store in
Taipei which was operated by an unmarried daughter. A second son
knitted and managed the other knitters. while a third son provided his
supervision and labor to the enterprise. With a business that was also
quite seasonal. Cin—hieng's wife and a daughter-in-law found their place
in the enterprise by taking charge of a "large group of village women
who worked upstairs in the house for low wages. sewing pieces of cloth
into finished garments that were to be sold to exporting firms during
the summer months"(1982:69). During the busier winter months. the
family was able to sell their clothing to buyers in their Taipei store.

while work was frequently put out to other village families on a piece-

99

rate basis.

Profits from the business . were more than enough to sustain the 19
or so family members in a more than comfortable way. Surplus capital
was used for Operating costs. expanding the business. and for financing
debts on several five story shophouses in Taipei. -

Like many other wealthy families. family division has not yet
happened (this was in '78) nor was there any implication of division in
the near future. Following some of the same rational as Cohen. Harrell
sees division as being detrimental to the family business and that a
split would only mean the deterioration of each brother's standard of
living. Also. because the family business is only £33 enterprise. it
would be difficult for each brother to sort out his particular role in
the operation let alone continue to operate as a separate business unit
(1982:165). He concludes.

If the brothers were to divide. they would have to
sort out these roles somehow. but it is doubtful
whether any of them would be able to earn as much
money or manage their affairs as efficiently with
four budgets. four separate household economies.
and four smaller buSinesses. It seems safe to say
that they will stay as a joint family for many

years to come (1982:165).

*Source: (Harrell 1982)

100
Case #5
Family Name:Huang*
Location: Southwest Taiwan

The farming village of Yen-liao in southwest Taiwan. was the site
of Myron Cohen's very important study of Chinese families. His research
lasted for one year in 1964. returning several times in the late 19605
and early 1970s.

Cohen was interested in the organization and the economies of
larger more complex farm families - of which Yen-liao seemed to have
more than it's share when compared to similar communities in Taiwan.
Yen-liao was an agriculturally rich area where "most members of
Yen-liao's local agnatic groups reside in U-shaped compounds. as do
similar groups elsewhere in Mei-mung" county (1976:21).

Yen-liao. in Hakka means tobacco-house. reflecting the predominance
of Tobacco production in the area. First introduced to Mei-nung cOunty
in 1938. 37 of the 60 landowning families had taken up tobacco
cultivation (rice still is the major crop for most families) by 1964.

In comparison with other major crops grown in Yen-liao. tobacco requires
by far the heaviest labor input. and in turn pays some of the highest
cash returns to farmers (tobacco is proteCted from market fluctuations
by the government's Taiwan Tobacco and Wine Monopoly Bureau). Likewise.
Cohen found that the cultivation of tobacco "results in a very
substatial increase in the economic value of the those family members
who work the family farm"(1976:50).

One such well-to-do family involved in tobacco production was the
Huang family. Like other families with moderately successful

agricultural enterprises. Tobacco offered an avenue or base for the

 

 

101

family to accumulate wealth. Cohen claims that

"in the final analysis it is the series of

opportunities provided by the ghig estate that provides

the framework and support for a stem household's

transformation into one of a joint form. and the

continued development of the family is most assured in

situations where the ghig estate expands as the £533

group grows more complex (1976:126).
Thus. the father. Huang Yu-lai. "owes his his family's prosperous
condition to a lucrative job landed by his eldest son during the
Japanese period" (ibid.:126). During the later years of the Japanese
occupation. Yu-lai allowed his son to continue his education as far as
possible (the second son was old enough to help his father in the
fields) and in time. the son was able to find a government position in
nearby Pingtung county. The first son in turn. remitted a large portion
of his salary to his father who would use the cash to invest in land
and small enterprises for each of his sons.

While the two older sons worked the third son was pushed to con inue
on with his studies. but he unfortunately failed the examination that
would have propelled him on to a higher-level school (ibid.:130). Cohen
explains that the exhauSted son had become "ch u-kons" (book crazy) and
that he became incapacitated for several years. In the meantime. money
was being saved and invested because of the first son's job. farming
revenues and the expanded work force provided by the older son's wives
also contributed to family pot. Eventually the third son recovered
providing the father an other opportunity to use his capital by building

a small brick factory and placing the son in charge of its operation.

 

102

Upon completion of his education at agricultural school (following
the end of the Pacific War). the fourth son was ready for a position in
one of the family enterprises. The family decided upon starting a
transport company "with the purchase of two trucks. and the managemen
of this operation was given over to the fourth son"(1976:130). At about
the same time. family capital was also used to buy land near the firSt
son's home in Pingtung county upon which they built a dormitory for
students at a nearby agricultural school.

The logistics of managing and coordinating the family enterprises
were handled mostly by the fourth son. Since all of the sons except the
oldest lived in the family compound (this is inferred). the fourth son
also acted as the "main liaison between the primary household and the
branch established by the first son in the south"(1976:133).
transferri.g funds and information by motorcycle between the two
households. Management of the farm on the other hand. increasingly fell
to the second son as Yu-lai became older.

Nevertheless. Yu-lai as head of the family. has remained in firm
control (resposibilities have decreased with age) of the family funds.
As his four sons turn over the income gained from each enterprise they
manage. Huang disrributes toash as required by each for his business or
for other large expenditures. Although many of the smaller business
decisions are handled by the father or (later by the fourth son). the
more important business decisions are almost always made by joint
agreement between sons and father (due to the father's lack of knowledge
about certain types of business). While this kind of economic
organization may appear to leave sons with little autonomy - Cohen has

found that the brothers involved with non-agricultural enterprises are

 

103

still able to function without day-to-day allotments of cash for living
expenditures. Such is not the case however with the second farmer son.
Unlike his brothers. he shares an even more intimate economic
relationship with his father (who also is a farmer). such that he does
not have any access to cash for even the most mundane things.

Interestingly enough. in Cohen's description there is little mention
of an impending family division. Instead. there is the constant
reaffirmation of how financially interdependent (for investment
purposes) these four sons are. and that if there were a partition
capital would be split four ways. "None of the resultant families would
have the (financial and maybe labor) wherewithal to make the
contemplated investments on its own. It is safe to say that the limited
investment possibilities would not bring total returns as great as those
derived from the unified investments of the family as now constituted"

(1976:224).

* Source: (Cohen 1976)

104

Case #6
Family Name: Li*
Location: Western Taiwan

Fourty-six year old (in 1979) Li seh—ming is the head of a conjugal
family in the village of Hsin Hsing. During World War II his father
died in a forced labor camp in South East Asia leaving he and his two
younger brothers to be raised by a relative in the village. In 1960 he
married. and one year later he and his brothers divided the family.
Shortly thereafter. his two brothers moved to Taipei leaving Li in
charge of .2-.3 £235 of undivided rented land (land that he continues to
farm to the present). In 1979. Li had three teenaged children; an 18
year old daughter. and two sons aged 15 and 13.

Sixteen years ago (1969). Li entered the spring manufacturing
business with a brother-in—law who had recently apprenticed in a spring
factory in Chang-hua city. To start the company little capital was
necessary because the two planned on starting with only a few home made
pieces of machinery and no hired labor. The more technical knowhow in
the form of machining and tool designs. came from a engineering shop in
a nearby town. About 4 or 5 years ago his partner. left the company to
start his own spring business in Yung ping county; both men said they
parted on good terms.

In a interview in 1979. Li said that in the early 70's it was
difficult to get enough workers to help out in his business. He said
people wanted to get away from the heavy work. because it was too much
like farm work. so they either migrated to the cities or got better
paying factory jobs in nearby towns. Li commented that he was also

hampered by his own lack of technical skills (and probably capital) at

105

the time. and so did not feel comfortable enough to buy more
sophiSticated machinery.

During the late 70's. however. Li had about six people working in
his factory making springs on a piece-rate basis. Two to three of his
workers were relatives or family members; his wife and children helped
out whenever they could. a nephew was paying off a monetary debt that
his father had incurred. and another nephew was just interested in
learning a skill before entering the army. The other workers (mostly
from Hsin Hsing). either worked at the factory or at home. Wang
Tsai-t'ien for example, has a few simple tools in his home and his
family bends springs after their regular work during the day. Wang
says that few people want to work in a small factory the size of Li's
because they do not get payed enough nor do they get health insurance or
the other benefits that larger factories give.

The larger factories that Li subcontracts for are located in the
cities of Taipei and Taijung to the north. These companies deliver the
raw materials (wire) and specifications by truck only to return at a
later date to pick up the finished product. The primary destination for
the springs was the United States market.

In follow up interviews in 1982. the Gallins found that the Li
factory had been hit by the economic recession as had numerous other
factories in Taiwan. He seemed to have lost a few workers. possibly
trading in the higher costs of labor for some new automatic machines he
had just purchased. Unlike some other small manufacturers. however.
Li's business was quite solvent so there was no immediate threat of
bankruptcy. The Gallins noted that his success and that of a few other

small manufacturers in the village might be due to being well informed

106

of trends in foreign markets as well as just good business sense (Li and

:II

).

’.l
(1.

his friends were all well versed in the economic af airs of the wor

Although information about Li' s tn 0 other brothers is quit
sketch“. the Gal.‘ ins we cable to catch up with the third son's wife wh

had moved from Taipei back to hsin hsin o in 1982. Sne said that her

a
husband (the youngest brother) ran a rather lar e electric switch
manufacturing company in the city. A few yea rs a go, he an d a friend
started the factory but were now con ider ing moving the operation to
Indonesia (lower labor costs) where he was now negotiat ing th .e details.

Since family divisi n in 1961, Li has nor had much contact witn his

0

brothers. What contact they do have (economic or otherwise) is rather

d. and, as we can see th the nephew 'ho s payinn off his

(I)
H.
:3
(D

father's debt. the borr wing of cash by a relative is not taken

Q 0

tr .e relat'l ons

f!

lightl". What seems clear from this family is tha nip
between brothers after division remain fair-v oiStant. and. because

.-o their businesses after division

H-

these brot..ers entered

a?
O

A
't)
'1
O
'0
(D
'1
(I
.1

l“
H

rights are limited only to the la..d that was passed down by the

father). the businesses t‘a each son has built retain under their own
administration.

* Source: Gallin & Gallin. Fieldnotes from Hsin Esing. Taiwan

3
u\
I;

107
Case #7
Family: K'ang*

K'ang Shui-Po (age 48 in 1979). a mason/construction worker. lives
in Hsin Hsing with his wife and two daughters. He also has three sons.
two aged 24 and one 21 year old. and a daughter aged 27. When very
young K'ang's father adopted him from a man in the village surnamed Shr.
In 1950 K'ang married and in 1958 he and his five brothers formally
divided leaving each with about .3 ghig of farm land.

While living in Hsin Hsing in the 19505. K'ang was doing
construction work in the village (odd jobs. brick work. etc.) but
business was always slow. One day. an old friend in the construction
business from Taipei asked K'ang to help him organize a construction
team in the city. In the late 19605 he and his wife took up the offer
and moved to Taipei where they shared a small apartment with three other
migrant families from the Hsin Hsing area.

The work group that was finally formed was composed of five masons.

all of whom were related to each other as either ching-chi or

 

hsiagg-ching (relatives or from the same village). These men worked as
freelance construction workers or subcontracrors by bidding on a portion
of a masonry job on a construction projeCt. When the group gets a job
they then hire a number of day laborers (floating laborers who sometimes
live in the uncompleted building until the building is finished) to help
them them do the work.

K'ang says there are a number of construction work groups that
compete for bids throughout the city. Each group gradually builds a
reputation for itself because of the quality of its workmanship and

being able to get a job done on time. Construction companies at times

 

108

prefer one group over another despite lower bids if it feels good
raftsmanship is important. he says this often leaves many groups with
so called "urine jobs," especially when business is off.

In the mid and late 19703, the K'ancs like many temporary migrants
returned off and on to the village. finally settling permanently in
their ancestral house in Hsin Hsing. They said that in the late 705
there were many more construction jobs in the rural areas because new
factories were being built and more people were putting up new concrete
one and two story houses. The upswing in rural construction coincided
at that time with the movement of businesses to the countryside in
search of cheaper labor.

By 1979. K'ang's eldest daughter was working in a textile factory in
Taipei sending home most of her earnings to her father so that she could
save money for her dowry. One of his 24 year old twins had finished his
apprenticeship as a baker and was working in a bakery in nearby Lukang.
At that time he was still living at home and gave all of his earnings to
his father. The other 24 year old had also recently finished a
motorcycle repair apprenticeship in nearby Hsi-Hu village. Wanting to

be his own boss (tang lac pan). the twin had just negotiated to buy a

 

motorcycle repair shop in a suburb of Taipei that a riend (also in the
motorcycle repair bus.) had recommended. K'ang Sh i-po loaned him the
NT$65.000 needed to purchase the business (NT345.000 was borrowed from a
wealthier fellow villager and the remaining NT$20.000 came from K'ang's
own savings). The son is responsible for the debt and therefore sends
money home to pay the loan off and so that his father can save some
money for his marriage.

The third son. also having recently completed a motorcycle repair

109

apprenticeship (but waiting to go into the

Q

second son in his shop.
together in a Taipei apartment

Q

yet construCted. Like many buyers of new

individual starts payments on the property

last payment will be made upon completion of
From the interviews, it appears that the

property and not the property of the three who will live there.

my). was to help

Apparent-y botn men and their

with the agreement that

the

O 0“
5131281" Will

gut by their fatner but not

apartments in the city. an

the

the building.

apartment is family

Unlike

the motorcycle shop, the apartment is being payed for from family funds

and the children will not have to pay rent.
the children send home remittances.
likely that the children's "payment " will
they are all just gettin
Gallin & Gallin,

* Source: Field notes and

For the meantime.

be relativel

Instead. the parents hope
however. it is

’

y small since

Interviews

 

110

Case #9
Family Name:Shih*

Born in 1920 to a father who was registered as a coolie (Japanese
Household Registration or §g_§g). Shih Yen-shan was one of nine
children. He married in 1944. and by the end of World War II his father
died. Shih and his wife eventually had five children. two of them boys.
aged 26 (married) and 23. Although registered in the village §g_§g as a
tenant farmer until 1968. and thereafter as unemployed. he was
nevertheless an active farmer in 1979 with .3 ghig of his own land and
.2 ship of rented land intermittently sown with rice. sugar cane. and
snow peas.

Shih's eldest son was the family standout. After completing
junior-middle school and attending a vocational high school (but did not
graduate). he worked for a rubber gasket manufacturer for a few years
before entering the army. After completing his service. he and a few

riends (also similarly trained) started their own gasket factory in
the city of Chang-hue. located about one hour and-a-half north of Hsin
Hsing. His parents helped raise the necessary capital by joining
rotating credit clubs; their son has his own budget and is responsible
for the debt. and covers it with money he sends home every month (the
size of the loan is unknown) to his family.

The gaskets the first son produces are used in motorcycles and
automobiles and sold in both domestic and foreign markets. In 1979 the
company had expanded with a hired work force of 20-30 workers and in
1982 they had about 100 workers paid on a wage basis.

Soon after the business was started. the younger son went to work

for his brother and his partners. It was not long. however. before

111

friction developed between the younger brother and the partners; a
situation only remedied by an offer on the part of the older brother to
set the younger up in the gasket business in Hsin Hsing. With loans

rom his brother amounting to NT$1.000.000 and a promise to pay back the
debt with 10% of monthly profits. the second son bought machines and
started his operation in 1982. At that time he was able to hire no more
than four workers (even though he had eight machines) because he could
not find enough cheap labor. His new wife. mother and father-in-law
also helped whenever possible.

Like Other factories in the area. the second son's factory
functioned as a satellite factory to the center plants in Chang-hua as
well as a sub-satellite factory to his brother's Operation. As a rule
these center factories would send orders and specificatidns to each
plant each day. often times tranSporting the raw materials by truck in
the morning and then picking up the finished product at night ( then to
be packaged or shipped from the center factory). But when the first
brother's factory grew to be so large. the partners bypassed the center
factories and arranged the ordering and shipping themselves.

In the most recent interviews no mention of division was ever made
most likely because there is no need for it. The older brother has his
own very lucrative enterprise and the younger brother seems well on his
way to establishing one of his own. Aside from a small amount of farm
land that the father uses, there is no joint ownership of property and

no budget shared between the two brothers.

*Source: Gallin & Gallin Interview material

 

 

112

 

 

O_
Q...
m[>-—
[?__.
0
[>4

AC: Pot-b. 001'

 

A a

Shih Family

 

113

Caseélo
Family Name: Shen

Shen Hue-Yen is a 54 year old owner/operator of a rice mill and rice
brokerage company in Hsin Hsing. He and his three brothers divided
after his father's death in 1959. Although not clear from the data. it
is assumed that his father owned a rather large portion of land (listed
as land owner in village Hu Ko). and that Shen probably inherited a good

portion of what is now 1.4 chia of farm land.

 

In 1966 with a small amount of savings. Shen started his mill
business as a small operation. In time (the business was able to become
profitable with the the deregulation of rice prices by the government in
19608). the business gradually grew as he bought much of the rice from
local farmers and sold the milled product to wholesalers in Taipei. In
1979. Shen operated the mill with two hired men from the village and his
third son who he wanted "to remain inside the family" nd carry on the
business. The son. along with his wife and children live with the
family in Hsin Hsing. and although he manages the mill. he does not get
a salary. nor does he have a separate family budget. Apparently if the
son even wants money for a small item as cigarettes. he has to ask his
father for it; a family economy that is not unlike that of agricultural
families in traditional China.

Shen's youngest son (aged 21) was just drafted into the army. while
his first. second. and fourth sons (all married except for the last)
work as drug and "Bani-Flush" wholesalers in Taipei. Up until 1978.
apparently all three brothers were working together in the business

which was originally started by the oldest brother (aged 36). The

114

reason for the split between the brothers is not clear. but all insisted
the reason was not because they could not get along. In faCt. following
the division each agreed to conduct their wholesale business in a
designated part of the city and not to interfere with the cther's
clients. All sons live separately. have separate budgets and send money
home occasionally. When asked whether any brother gets financial help
from the father or any of the brothers - they replied, "If a son wants
to expand his business. he has to find capital on his own."

In the 1982 interviews. the Gallins found that Shen had taken up
raising frogs in a pool he constructed on his land. As in the west.
frog legs are considered a delicacy in Taiwan and are eaten primarily at
wedding feasts. Shen said his milling business was beginning to suffer
because more and more farmers were using their own small electrified
machines to mill rice they would use at home. He said unhusked rice
lasts longer so people don't mill all their rice in bulk as they once
used to.

Also in the interviews. the Gallins learned that the sons in Taipei
pooled their money and sent their parents on a trip to Hong Kong. They
said that the third son was not asked to contribute because that would
be like asking their father to pay for the trip himself. The sons
Still regard the third son's budget as still part of their father's
because he works in the family enterprise(s) and farms the land.
Interestingly. no one in the family has yet talked of division. Once
the father dies. however. it is not very likely that the brothers would
go through the process. To divide the family property would not
necessarily bring the brothers xtra wealth but it would certainly cause

the third son to loose part of his livelihood. Although traditionally

115

all brothers are due a portion of the family eState. the third son (if
it came to division) would no doubt argue that he helped acquire much to
the property and therefore the property could not be considered
inheritable. For a family to drag itself through such litigation would

be looked down upon and the villagers would probably consider the

migrant brothers as greedy (because they are doing quite well themselves

in the city).

* Source: Gallin & Gallin Interview material

(:>...
[>—
[‘>‘_
O
I}
O
Q
R)
p

1
H
o)

H
m
N
N

 

 

 

116

Case #11
Family Name: Huang*

Born in 1921. Huang Chin-Chen (his father is the brother of Huang
Ching-hai) heads a joint household composed of his wife and five sons.
the two oldest of whom are married and have children. Huang divided
Eggm his three brothers in 1944 because he could not get along with
them; the rest eventually divided from each other in 1966 (the practice

of a family going through more than one division is not very common in

 

Hsin Hsing; but it nevertheless does occasionally occur). Huang owns .5
£323 of land in Hsin Hsing and farms it on a part time basis.

In 1979 the oldest son (aged 33) ran a small trading company in
Taipei with two partners. The company handles various kinds of
merchandise for both domestic.and foreign markets. Interviews suggest
the family may have provided some of the start up capital for the

business. The second. third and fourth sons operate an iron window and

 

door grill business (used to prevent thefts in homes). also located in
Taipei. The third son (aged 26), chief operator of the business. first
learned the trade when his mother took him to apprentice under a
relative also in the business. When. after several years work. the son
expressed the desire to open his own grill shop. his mother put the idea
off saying that he had not yet learned enough.
Eventually. however. the son became his own lau ban (boss). and
started a grill shop most likely with funds provided by his family (this
is felt to be the case because his mother was able to keep him working
under the tutelage of the relative when he no longer wanted to do so).

His two brothers joined him in the business a short time thereafter.

All the Taipei brothers and their families live and eat together in

117

the same building that also houses the grill shop. The brothers pool
their money to maintain their own collective household (food. utilities)
in Taipei as well as providing help for the parents. What money they
have left over they keep for their own family's use.

In their interviews with the brothers. the Gallins found that most
of them thought the living arrangements were working quite smoothly.
But.when asked how much each son contributes to the family fund. the
second son accused his eldest brother of not contributing enough money
to the family's "public money" that the parents must use. This response
angered the third brother who said "how can you say our older brother
does not contribute enough - especially when his business is losing
money?" When asked about the nature of their businesses. they replied
what goes on in another brother's business is not a concern of theirs.
One might choose to speculate that the reason for the animosity toward
the eldest brother is because of the class differences between them.
Despite the fact that the trading company is loosing money. the elder
brother is (according to the Gallins) considered to be quite successful
in his white collar job; a situation which may have created resentment
on the part of the brother who is involved in a "dirty hands" business.

In 1975. Huang Chin-cheh'and his wife were already semi-retired so
they went to live with their sons in Taipei. rs. Huang kept busy
taking care of the grandchildren. but the sons in the grill shop refused
to let their father help because they felt the work was too strenuous.
Although he did busy himself some of the time by taking care of the
family finances. he nevertheless felt bored and useless. In 1979. both

parents returned to Hsin Hsing and farming on a part time basis.

*Source: Gallin & Gallin (interviews).

118

 

On
.Anmw

 

 

 

Huang Family

119

Case #12
Family Name: Kang*

Kang Ching-Kun is a 56 (1979) year old father of five sons and two
daughters. The three oldest sons aged 34. 30. and 26 are all married
and have children. The two daughters have married out. and the youngest
son. aged 21. was still in the army in 1979. Kang is the household head
of this joint family. works as a civil servant in Hsin Hsing and farms
his .4 ghig of land on a part time basis.

His eldest son is the most educated of his children. After having
gone through agricultural high school he got a job with the local
Farmer's Association (F.A.) where he now works as a semi-professional
veterinarian. Recently he has also formed a snow pea processing
operation. using virtually every villager in the town to prepare the
peas for shipment during the harvest. The second son. having sold his
motorcycle repair business (in 1982) to his fourth brother. recently
decided to start a small trucking operation. His original repair shOp
was provided with Start-up money that his father had borrowed (from what
source is not clear). and he ran the business for about 14 years
following his graduation from junior middle school and an apprenticeship
in the nearby town of Yuan-Lin. The shop was located on the street
side of the Kang house. where he repaired and sold Japanese motorcycles
"bought" with promissory notes from a distributor. The new trucking
business is listed in the village register as tse-yung (self use). and
is operated in a semi-cooperative fashion with the son of another
villager. The third son does much of the trucking for "Springman Li"
case 6). Both men operate their businesses in different areas to avoid

competition. but help each other when clients have large orders. Up

 

120

until 1982. the third son also operated a lucrative plumbing and
electrical repair shop in another part of the Kang house; it 'as later
moved to another village. All sons contribute money to the family
treasury for household expenses (food, maintenance. utilities etc.) but
keep a portion for their own conjugal family (figgg) to use for their
own expenses.

In the 1979 interviews. Kang said that he had planned for his sons
to study different things because sons in the same business would reate
competition and resentment. But he also felt sons should remain
together as an economic unit and share the advantages of a larger money
supply from which to invest. Although he realized that the family head
had to do a balancing act to maintain peace in the family. he also felt
that for sons to go out and start a business alone was too high a risk.
He believed that with the family together: 1) sons could use the
father's influence and contacts to promote their businesses. 2) they:
could make use of family buildings and other property to start their
operations. 3) sons could all help each other (for example. sons could
give each other loans without interest ). Kang said that although each
son's fégg could "take care of itself on a day by day basis." a son's

business could not entirely stand alone because it would soon gobble up

Hi

all the profits that it was able to accumulate (in 1979 he said all 0
this, and by 1982 two of his son's fang had already moved away from
home).

Along with more or less directing each son into separate
professions. Kang also felt that choosing a wife for his sons was just
as important. Daughters-in-law he felt should be skilled. hard working,

and able to make money in the job market. The most outstanding

 

121
daughter-in-law is the first son's wife; a women who started a small
sewing business with NT$140.000 from her ssu fang chian (private money)

and NT$10.000 in savings from selling dresses. She was originally a

the street side of the Kang house.

In the late 705 a man stopped by her business and asked whether she
would be interested in sewing slippers for his company. At that time
she used her NTSlS0.000 to buy two sewing machines. and with about ten
workers began turning out about 400 slippers per day (payed by piece
rate) with an average monthly profit of $NT100.000. In 1982. she had
expanded into making gloves for export and was seriously considering
dealing directly with the trading companies rather than being only a
satellite subcontractor for the larger center factories. If she were to
deal directly with the trading companies she would have to expand her
operation to 50 workers and add a packaging detail; all of which would
require about a NT$800.000 investment. Fears of being unable to meet
such a large payroll as well as a shortage of people to work for her
that she could trust (only relatives would do) to take over the
supervisory positions. would probably prevent her from pursuing her
idea. In addition, her new pig and chicken raising business which she
Started with the help from her husband. will also occupy whatever time
she has left over from her sewing business and her other duties (as
cooking. cleaning. etc.) that she shares with her other sisters-in-law.

The second daughter-in-law (DIL) also has a satellite sewing
business. but smaller that that of the first DIL. The third
daughter-in-law has a seasonal dress-making business. as well as pig

raising (about 60 pigs) operation that was also started with help from

 

 

 

 

122

3‘
(D
n
{D
'4
C).
(h
(’1
ft
0‘
H
0
r1

oer-in-lav. The oldesr son also helps his wife and
sister-in-law market their pigs through the F.A.. as well as dvising
them on the proper time to sell their product.

Although the first daughter-in-law originally financed her business
from her Sai Khia and savings. she now belongs to five money lending
clubs (rorating credit clubs) which she probably uses to finance her
business or to gain interest from her profits. Interestingly. none of
the profits from the daughters-in-law's businesses are contributed to
the family budget. The money they earn is for the use of their conjugal
families only. Instead, it is husband's earnings which are used to help
pay household xpenses.

As of 1982. no mention has been made of family division. The eState
itself (land and buildings) has no real value to family members except
for the fact that it provides a home and a place for business to be

condUCted. The estate is not a family business in itself. so there is

no need for it to be divided.

Source: Gallin & Gallin. Field notes and interviews

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L IST OF REFERENCES

 

V
Amsden. Alice
1979

Anderson. Dennis & Mark
1980

Baker. Hugh D.
1979

Bray. Francesca
1983

Chen. Chi-Nan
1984

Coh n. Myron
1969

1970
1976
Cook. Scott

1984a

1984b

DeGlopper. Donald
1972

Ebrey. Patricia B.
1984

123

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

"Taiwan's Economic History: A Case Against

Etatisme and a Challenge to Dependency Theory."
In Modern China 5.3: 341-79.

 

Leiserson

"Rural Nonfarm Employment in Developing
Countries." In Economic Development and Social
Change. 28.2:227-248.

 

Chinese Family and Kinship. New York.

 

"Patterns of Evolution in Rice-Growing Societies."

In Journal of Peasant Studies 11.1: 3-33

"Fang and Chia-tsu: The Chinese Kinship System in
Rural-Taiwan." Unpublished Ph.D issertation, Yale
University

"Agnatic Kinship in South Taiwan." In Eth.ologv
15.3:167-82 .

"Developmental Process of the Chinese Domestic
Group." In Maurice Freedman (ed.) Family and
Kinship in Chinese Society. Stanford.

House United house Divided: The Chinese Family
in Taiwan. New York.

Peasant Capitalist Industry: Piecework and
Enterprise in Southern Mexican Brickyards. London.

"Peasant Economy. Rural Industry and Capitalist
Development in the Oaxaca Valley. Mexico." In
Journal of Peasant Studies 12.1:3-39.

"Doing Business in Lukang." In W.E. Willmott
(ed.). Economic Organization in Chinese Sociegy.
Stanford.

Family and Propertv in Sung China. Yuan Tsai's
Precepts for Social Life. Princeton.

Fei. Hsiao-tung
1939

Freedman. Maurice
1958

1966

Friedman. Kathie
1984

Gallin. Bernard
1966

V1975

124

Peasant Life in China. London.

 

Lineage Organization in South China. New York .

Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwanstung
New York.

“ The studyiof Chinese Society: Essays by Maurice

 

Freedman. Selected and Introduced by G.W. Skinner.
Stanford .

"Households as Income-Pooling Units." In J. Smith.
I. Wallerstein. H-D. Evers (ed.). Households and
The World Economy. London.

 

 

Hsin Hsing, Taiwan: A Chinese Village in Change.
Berkeley.

 

"Rural to Urban Migration in Taiwan: ts Impact on
Chinese Family and Kinship." In D. Buxbaum (ed.).
Chinese Family Law and Social Change. Seattle.

Gallin, Bernard & Rita .

1982a

V 1982b

Gallin. Rita
1984

V's

Gates. ill
1979

Geertz. lifford
1966

Goldstein. Carl
1986

Vbreenhalgh. Susan
1984

"Socioeconomic Life in Rural Taiwan: Twenty Years
of Development and Change." In Modern Chin . 8.2:

 

"The Chinese Joint Family in Changing Rural
Taiwan." In S.L. Greenblatt. R.W. Wilson and A.A.
Wilson (ed.). Social Interaction in Chinese
Society. New York .

"Women. Family and the Political Economy of
Taiwan." In Journal of Peasant Studies.
120;:76-920 .

"Dependency and the Part-time Proletariate in
Taiw'n." In Modern China. 5.3:381-408.

 

Agricultural Involution.
Berkeley.

"Taiwan Trade Surplus to be Even Higher." In Far
Eastern Economic Review. 132.21:10.

"Networks and Their Nodes: Urban Society in
Taiwan." In The China Quarterly. 99: 529-552.

Harrell. Steven
1982

Ho. Ping-ti
1962

'Ho. Samuel
1979

Huang. Shu-min

1984

Hu. Tai-Li
1984

Kulp. Daniel
1925

Lang. Olga
1946

Levy. Marion
1949

Lin. Yueh-Hwa

1949

Medick. Hans
1984

Meyers. Ramon
1970

Parish. William
1978

Pasternak. Burton
1981

125

Ploughshare: Culture and Context in Taiwan.
Seattle.

 

The Ladder of Success in Imperial China. Aspects
of Social Mobility 1368-1911. London.

 

 

"Decentralized Industrialization and Rural
Development: Evidence from Taiwan." In Economic
Development and Culture Change. 28- 1: 77-96

 

"Market and Nonmarket Factors in Taiwanese Peasant
Society." In R. Durrenberger (ed.), Chavanov.
Peasants. and Economic Anthropology.

My Mother-in-Laws Village: Rural Industrialization
and Change in Taiwan. Taipei.

Countrv Life in South China. New York.

 

Chinese Familv and Society. New Haven.
The Family Revolution in Modern China. Cambridge

The Golden Wing: A Sociological Study of Chinese
Familism. London.

"The proto-industrial family economy: the
structural function of household and family during
the transition from peasant society to industrial
capitalism." In Social Histogy 3:291-315.

The Chinese Peasant Economy. Peking .

"Modernization and Household Composition in
Taiwan." In David Buxbaum (ed.). Chinese Family
Law and Social Changg. Seattle.

 

"Economics and ecology." In H. Gates and E. Ahern
(ed.). The Anthropology of Taiwanese Sociepy.
Stanford.

Rawski. Evelyn
1972

Shiga. Shuzo
1978

Stites, Richard
1982

Sung. Hung-Sheng

1981

Tang. Mei-Chun
1978

/’
‘/Wallerstein. Immanuel

1984

Wong. Sui-ling
1984

126

Acricultural Change and Peasant Economy of South
China. Cambridge.

 

"Family Property and the Law of Inheritance in
Traditional China." In David Buxbaum (ed.).Chinese
Family Law and Social Change. Seattle.

 

"Small Scale Industry in Yingge. Taiwan.
Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation. University of
Washington. Seattle .

"Property and Family Division." In H. Gates and E.
Ahern (ed.). The Anthropology of Taiwanese
Societv. Stanford.

Urban Chinese Families: An Anthroplosical Field
Studv in Taipei Citv. Taiwan. Taipei.

"Household Structures and Labor-Force Formation in
the Capitalisr World Economy." In J. Smith. I.
Wallerstein. and H-D. Evers (ed.). Households and
The World-Economy. London.

 

"The Chinese Family Firm: A model." The British
Journal of Sociology. 36.1: 58-72.

127

ARY

GLOS

(1)

List of Characters in Order of Appearance in Text

fen chia

chia

chia chiao

39H-
' \T

f

chia chang

an“ md'fism’ 5}“ $73“: ($9 é»- "
7h

2‘
3x5 \W—El

tsu dé“
i Wu 9; :L’
A‘flK
11? in
ssu fang chian
(sai khia) “Luigi
1 1
1 g i
lau ban 72 P611)
ma fan flefla

a. ,‘
ching chi fifii;:fl.
hsiang chin 9.»? 5,31,:

v x d
dang lau ban \@ I’LE’VJ

\
hu ko C7

f E)
tse yung Egqu