Great Leap Forward
Key takeaways
- The Great Leap Forward (1958–1961) was Mao Zedong’s campaign to rapidly transform China from an agrarian society into an industrialized communist state through collectivization and mass mobilization.
- Policies included forced agricultural collectivization, large irrigation projects, a nationwide anti-pest campaign, and promotion of “backyard” steel production.
- Misguided policies, falsified production reports, forced requisitions, and refusal of outside aid produced a catastrophic famine and social collapse; estimated deaths range widely, commonly cited as 30–45 million.
- The initiative ended in 1961 and left lasting demographic, social, and economic consequences while influencing later industrial policy and governance lessons about centralized planning.
What it was
The Great Leap Forward was launched in 1958 as a short-term, high-intensity program to accelerate China’s economic development by simultaneously increasing agricultural output and rapidly expanding industrial production. It sought to replace private plots with large collective farms and to mobilize the population for massive infrastructure and industrial projects.
Goals and main policies
- Collectivization: Private farming was abolished in favor of communes that centralized production, distribution, and resource allocation under Communist Party control.
- Agricultural “modernization”: Large-scale irrigation and land-use projects were promoted, often planned without adequate technical expertise.
- Pest-control campaigns: A nationwide effort (notably targeting sparrows) aimed to protect grain crops but disrupted ecological balances.
- Rapid industrialization: Urban projects and millions of backyard furnaces were mobilized to produce steel and other industrial goods. Labor was reallocated from farms to industrial tasks.
Agricultural failures and causes of famine
Several interlocking factors produced a severe fall in food availability:
* Unproven techniques and poorly executed irrigation projects reduced yields and damaged farmland.
* The anti-sparrow campaign removed a natural predator, contributing to insect outbreaks that harmed crops.
* Local officials, under political pressure, inflated harvest figures. Central authorities requisitioned grain based on those false reports, leaving rural areas under-supplied.
* Grain exports were maintained and offers of international food relief were refused for political reasons, worsening shortages.
* Infrastructure and logistics were inadequate to prevent spoilage or to redistribute food efficiently, especially across vast rural areas.
Industrial policy problems
- Backyard steel production consumed agricultural labor and household metal goods but produced low-quality pig iron with little industrial value.
- Large investments and resource reallocation did not translate into meaningful increases in finished goods or productivity.
- Moving large numbers of working-age men to industrial tasks disrupted farm labor, intensified pressure on collective farms (often staffed by women, children, and the elderly), and exacerbated food shortages.
Human and social consequences
- The program precipitated a famine and widespread suffering. Contemporary estimates of excess deaths during 1959–1961 vary; many scholars estimate tens of millions of deaths.
- Social disruption included family separations, forced labor, executions, and documented instances of extreme violence and deprivation in some localities.
- Traditional rural communities, housing, and ecological systems were damaged by aggressive mobilization for raw materials and construction.
- The Great Leap Forward ended formally in early 1961 after several devastating years.
Economic aftermath and legacy
- Short term: Massive human loss, social dislocation, and a sharp economic contraction in agricultural and many industrial sectors.
- Long term: China later pursued different paths to industrialization and economic development; some argue the period indirectly influenced subsequent policies that prioritized industrial growth and modernization, though at an enormous human cost.
- The Great Leap Forward remains a landmark case study in the risks of highly centralized economic planning, politicized quotas, and mass mobilization without technical oversight.
Lessons
- Economic planning detached from reliable information and technical expertise can produce catastrophic outcomes.
- Perverse incentives (e.g., falsified production reports) compounded policy failures when performance metrics become politicized.
- Ecological and social systems are vulnerable to rapid, large-scale interventions without adequate risk assessment or contingency planning.
Selected sources for further reading
- Peng, Xizhe. “Demographic consequences of the Great Leap Forward in China’s provinces.” Population and Development Review, 1987.
- Shige Song. “Mortality consequences of the 1959–1961 Great Leap Forward famine in China.” Social Science & Medicine, 2010.
- Cormac Ó Gráda. “Great leap into famine: A review essay.” Population and Development Review, 2011.
- Kung, J. K. S., & Lin, J. Y. “The causes of China’s great leap famine, 1959–1961.” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 2013.
- Zhang, Zhihong. “Rural industrialization in China: From backyard furnaces to township and village enterprises.” East Asia, 1999.