My review article analyses and evaluates the “mathematically manageable” thesis raised by Professor Ray Huang. He points out three components in this thesis: form of efficient economic organizations, innovation of effective judicial system, and cultural constructions of private property. Only in England by the end of 17th century, have these components have all met together, though it is more like a process in conjunction than a series of conscious movement. By contrast, as Huang asserts, economic and human resources cannot be divided into interchangeable pieces in China, that is why he called it the “mathematically unmanageable” state. After sketching out the above thesis, I testify some of the shortcomings when applies it to China. In conclusion, I posit two facets about Professor Huang's thesis. One is that the economic-legal-cultural components are indeed potential factors when delving into market/government relations in Late Imperial China, albeit they still needed to be defined carefully. The other is the theoretic deficiency, as it presumes all “modern” countries converge in capitalism, ignoring the possibility of the “alternative modernity” entailed in the economic organizations, legal system, and cultural understandings and interrelations of Late Imperial China.