Hu Heng at the Institute of Qing History at Renmin University just published a paper on the appointment of prefects during the Qing, with Bijia Chen and me as second and third authors. The paper makes use of spatial data as well as the government ratings of prefectures that determined who controlled the appointment of their prefects, and makes use of the CGED-Q to examine the qualifications, and previous and subsequent appointments of prefects. The paper is available here: http://dx.doi.org/10.6743%2fNAJ.202008_37.0009 Here is the abstract:
知府在清代地方行政體系中的地位十分重要，其選任方式及空間差異是觀察清王朝政治治理方式的絕佳窗口。依據新考訂的清代府的缺分、等第資料，對其進行量化統計和GIS分析，可以看出交通、政務、賦稅、治安等幾項主要指標的空間分布差異，進而依據這些指標確定知府選任權：歸皇帝簡放的請旨缺、歸吏部銓選的部選缺與歸督撫調任的題調缺。請旨缺佔了48.3%，基本分布在全國最重要區域；題調缺佔26.1%，原主要分布於雲貴桂湘等苗疆分布區，後漸包括內地省區交界等特殊地區，晚清新設省區的府則幾乎全部定為題調缺；部選缺佔25.6%，多位於內地省區邊緣。這一空間分布大體匹配中國各區域治理難度，但也存在對西南邊疆差異化對待、忽略海疆府份缺分的及時更改、資格固化等問題。缺分分布與知府選任關係密切，通過對目前已建設的《縉紳錄》數據庫1833-1912年段，從近300萬條職官數據中提取，共得到37,752條、3,403人的知府數據。利用STATA進行分類、匯總、關聯、追蹤等技術處理，可以看出知府旗漢比例、籍貫分布特別是湖南籍知府在晚清的上升態勢，為理解晚清乃至民國以降中國政治版圖變遷提供新的數據基礎。知府來源於京官系統比例約61.9%，地方系統約35.8%，京官外放遠大於地方晉升的模式無疑對州縣官的激勵帶來消極影響。知府晉升概率達21%，其中與缺分關係密切，最要缺所在的知府，升遷比例達26.3%，要缺所在的知府，升遷比例為23.5%，特別是省會所在的首府，更高達40.5%。清代知府選任權力分配及各類制度變異背後，體現著中央與地方圍繞地方重要官員任免權的角力，由於清代官僚體系「治官之官多、治民之官少」的固有弊端，以及知府一級選任中京官外放比例遠高於地方晉升的結構所限，清代地方治理在「府」一級出現一定程度「上下不通」的局面。晚清督撫權力的增大及委署知府的普遍實施無疑是對這一弊端的調整與補救，但又將帶來新的權力失衡的風險。
Prefects played an essential role in the system of local government during the Qing dynasty. Examining the process by which they were appointed, including exceptions and variations, sheds light on the governing strategies of the Qing state. We conduct spatial and quantitative analysis of the appointment of prefects based on the most recent data on the government’s ratings of the significance and difficulty (chongfanpinan and quefen) for each prefecture. The results reveal the importance of the process of appointment of variations across prefectures in transportation, government affairs, revenue collection, and public security. They collectively determined who had the authority to appoint the prefect for a prefecture: the Emperor (gingzhi que), the Board of Personnel (buxuan que), or the Governor-General (tidiao que). Appointments by the Emperor accounted for 48.3 percent of prefectures. These were in the most important regions of the country. Appointments by the Governor-General accounted for 26.1 percent of prefectures. At the beginning they were mainly in the regions where the Miao resided, including Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangxi and Hunan. Later, some prefectures on the provincial boundaries were also included. In the late Qing, prefects in all the newly created provinces were appointed by Govermors-General. Appointments by the Board of Personnel accounted for 25.6% of prefectures and they were concentrated in areas close to the boundaries of inland provinces. The spatial distribution of the classifications generally followed the government’s assessment of the difficulties of governing various regions in China, but there were exceptions and problems like the differentiation of treatment in the Southwestern boundary regions, neglect of the change of prefectures and classifications in coastal border areas and qualification immutability. The classification of prefectures was closely related to the appointment of prefects. We analyzed the career histories of 3403 prefects recorded in 37752 entries about Qing civil servants extracted from the 3,000,000 in nearly CGED-Q database. Using STATA to categorize, summarize, correlate and track these data ,, we examine the time trends in the characteristics of prefects, including the proportions of Manchu or Han prefects and their province of origin. For the latter, we focused specifically on the increase in the number of prefects from Hunan in the late Qing period. The results of our analysis make use of new data to advance our understanding of the political geography of China in the late Qing and the Republican periods. Regarding the career transitions in the civil service, 61.9 percent of prefects were transferred from posts in the central govermment and only 35.8 percent were promoted from posts in local govermments. This undoubtedly had a negative effect on the motivation of county magistrates. Prospects for promotion for prefects was generally high: 21 percent would reach higher office. For prefects who served in prefectures categorized as most significant (zuiyao gue) and significant (vao gue), the chance of promotion was between 23.5 and 26.3 percent. Those who were prefects in provincial capitals had even higher chances of being promoted: 40.5 percent. The distribution of control over the appointment of prefects and the institutional changes over time reveal the tension and competition over power between the central and local government. In the Qing, governance at the prefectural level was characterized as ＂blocking between the upper and the lower [level of government]＂. This was partly driven by the structure of the system, according to which officials were more likely to manage other officials than govern people, and prefects were more likely to be transferred from the central government than promoted from lower levels of local government. The increased power of Governor-Generals and the prevalence of temporary appointments for prefects may have been responses to these drawbacks, but the imbalance of the distribution of power was also a challenge for the state.
胡恆(Hu Heng), 陳必佳(Bijia Chen) and 康文林(Cameron D. Campbell. 2020. 清代知府選任的空間與量化分析——以政區分等、《縉紳錄》數據庫為中心 (The Appointment of Prefects during the Qing —- A Spatial and Quantitative Analysis Focusing on the System of Administrative Division and Using the CGED-Q). 新亞學報(New Asia Journal).37(August):339-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.6743%2fNAJ.202008_37.0009