In 1958, Mao declared that China would be more prosperous than theUnited Kingdom within 15 years. His government set up thousands ofpeople's communes to increase industrial production in a campaign called theGreat Leap Forward. For a number of reasons, including radical agricultural policies, social pressure, economic mismanagement, and coincidental natural disasters, this campaign resulted in declining grain production, food insecurity, and eventually starvation in many parts of the country between 1959 and 1961. This famine would eventually be known as theGreat Chinese Famine; estimated death tolls range from 15 million to 55 million people.[6][7][8][9][10][11]
Hungry Ghosts was positively reviewed by academics and reviewers, especially for the depth of its research and its clear account of the famine. Many called it horrifying or chilling.[12][13][14][15][16] Others noted that the book was a valuable resource for Western audiences.[17][18]
Kirkus Reviews called it "a remarkable book, the more devastating for its quietness and absence of rhetoric."[19] ANew York Times Book Review by political economistNicholas Eberstadt called the book "a grim tribute to the dead and a challenge to our consciences."[20]Isabel Hilton ofThe Independent argued that the book provides "a small memorial to those uncounted millions, a memorial the leaders who brought about those deaths will never erect."[21]
Caroline Moorehead, writing in theNew Statesman, stated that Becker's account was "as full as possible" given the difficulty of obtaining information on the famine.[12]Publishers Weekly stated that the book was a "gripping, well-researched account" and "a testament to the folly of utopian engineering."[22] Several reviewers, including historianLee Feigon, sinologist Robert Ash, as well asAnn Scott Tyson of theChristian Science Monitor, highlighted the in-depth interviews from survivors as one of the most important aspects of the book.[15][23][24]
Several critics pointed out the strong argument that Becker made against Mao's government and policies, especially the Great Leap Forward.[15][21][25][26] A reviewer forThe Economist wrote that Becker "passionately but precisely, Mr. Becker records the tragic results of one of the boldest example of Utopian engineering ever attempted".[16] A review inAsiaweek referred to the book as "admirable history" and stated that Becker's research was a "damning indictment of Maoist policies."[26] InThe New York Times,Richard Bernstein stated that the book "firmly establishes the Great Leap and the resulting famine as one of the worst atrocities of all time".[27] Journalist and historianPhilip Bowring suggested that if there was greater awareness of the reality of the famine in China, there would be less reverence for Mao.[14] Colina MacDougall, writing forAsian Affairs, agreed, saying that "publication of the truth would safeguard China against future leadership folly."[28]
HistorianSusan Whitfield, writing in theFinancial Times, and French academicJean-Philippe Beja [fr], writing in the journalChina Perspectives, both praised Becker for challenging the official explanation for the famine, which positioned it as being the result ofnatural disasters and downplayed the importance of political decisions.[29][30] Writing in theLondon Review of Books, American sinologistPerry Link stated that "Becker makes an important argument that secrecy about famines is more than morally dubious in its own right, and more than practically disastrous because it erases the possibility of foreign aid."[25]
The book attracted criticism from reviewers for its research and analysis. Paul Monk comparedHungry Ghosts to the work ofRobert Conquest in his bookHarvest of Sorrow (1986), which covered famine in theSoviet Union caused by agricultural reforms and collectivization. However, his review inThe China Journal was highly critical ofHungry Ghosts. He felt that Becker had bypassed "the Soviet agrarian debate of the 1920s," and that his treatment ofcannibalism in China was "lurid".[31] Monk argued that Becker was insufficiently skeptical of claims about the famine, and found that took away from the book's underlying argument that "it was the tendency to exaggerate and play fast and loose with statistics in the interest of propaganda which helped to bring about the famine itself."[31]
SinologistFrederick Teiwes was strongly critical of the research and presentation inHungry Ghosts. He called the book "maddeningly deficient in a number of important respects," said that Becker's "assertions are often unsourced," and called the book's infrequent footnotes "essentially unusable"; despite these critiques, he ultimately concluded that the book "provides a long overdue and salutary lesson for all concerned."[32] EconomistCarl Riskin felt that there were inaccuracies within the book – both exaggerations and plain factual errors – and echoed the issues Teiwes had with poorly-documented sources.[33]
Political scientistAndrew J. Nathan described Becker's presentation of the famine for a Western audience as useful, but argued that Becker was careless with his sources.[17] Although sinologist Robert Ash called the book "well-researched", he compared it unfavorably toCalamity and Reform in China (1996) byDali L. Yang, stating that Yang's analysis offered superior insights.[23] Some took issue with specific claims, such as American historianPaul G. Pickowicz, who wrote inThe Wall Street Journal that he disagreed with Becker's claim that "even now in the West the famine is still not accepted as a historical event.[15] Dirk Schmidt, reviewing forChina Information, wrote that Becker "tends to oversimplify the intra-elite aspects of the [Great Leap Forward]."[18] Historian and political economist Songlin Yang disputed Becker's claims that Mao "ignored the famine," noting State's Council reports from 1959 which indicated that Mao had pressed for hunger relief in a number of provinces.[34]
^Ashton, Basil; Hill, Kenneth; Piazza, Alan; Zeitz, Robin (1984). "Famine in China, 1958-61".Population and Development Review.10 (4):613–645.doi:10.2307/1973284.JSTOR1973284.
^Eberstadt, Richard (16 February 1997)."The Great Leap Backward".The New York Times Book Review.Archived from the original on 1 September 2021. Retrieved1 September 2021.
