Hongwu

Hongwu was the first ruler of the Ming dynasty, which came to power in 1368. His concern that overseas commerce could destabilize political and social order led him to restrict foreign trade to government-organized tribute missions rather than private commercial exchange. In the book’s account, his rule illustrates how political authorities could limit trade not for lack of knowledge about its possibilities, but to preserve control and stability.

Rule and Trade Policy

Hongwu ruled for thirty years after the Ming dynasty came to power. He allowed international trade only when the government organized it and when it took the form of tribute-giving, not commercial activity. The distinction made overseas exchange an instrument of state policy rather than an opportunity open to private merchants.

The restrictions were enforced against people suspected of trying to turn tribute missions into commercial ventures: Hongwu had hundreds executed on that accusation. Between 1377 and 1397, no oceangoing tribute missions were allowed. He also banned private individuals from trading with foreigners and prohibited Chinese people from sailing overseas.

Political Rationale and Consequences

The account presents these measures as a response to Hongwu’s fear that overseas trade would be politically and socially destabilizing. The policy did more than regulate who could trade; it placed the organization of foreign exchange under government control and sharply constrained private participation. The state’s approach thus favored political order as defined by the ruler over the expansion of independent commercial activity.

Hongwu’s restrictions belong to a longer sequence of limits on Chinese overseas trade. His successor, Yongle, restarted large-scale, government-sponsored voyages, but the policy was later reversed: Hongxi made the end of the missions permanent, and after a final voyage under Xuande in 1433, overseas trade was again banned. By 1436, building seagoing ships had also become illegal; the ban on overseas trade was not lifted until 1567. The changing policies show that the early Ming state could sponsor foreign exchange on a grand scale, but that this exchange remained subject to political decisions rather than secure private commercial rights.

Place in the Book’s Argument

Hongwu’s rule helps establish the contrast between China’s state-monopolized overseas trade and the Atlantic expansion that reshaped political institutions in early modern Europe. The book argues that trade helped produce different institutional consequences in England and in Spain and France; in China, overseas commerce was instead kept under state authority. In this comparison, the restriction is not simply an economic mistake: it reflects the interests and priorities of political institutions.

The episode also supports the book’s broader argument that economic outcomes depend on who controls institutions and how power is exercised. Hongwu’s prohibition did not by itself determine the entire later course of Chinese development, but it demonstrates how rulers could restrict commercial activity when they regarded it as a threat to stability. The policy stands as an early example of the tension between centralized control and the wider participation in economic life that the book associates with more inclusive institutions.