Great Divergence

[erudito]

Modern global economic history generates two great puzzles. First, why and how did the NW Europe and Anglo-America achieve such unparallelled economic take-off (and why was Japan the non-Western society who was most easily able to emulate, and some ways surpass, that achievement)? Second, was the Industrial Revolution the crucial change and why

Comments

What about technology?

[anonymous]

Lorenzo -

Seems to me that technology (and the environment which encourages its development) has a bigger role to play than most historians allow.

Not to sidetrack, but to speak of "Europe" at that time and compare it to China or Japan at that time strikes me absurd - The French saw themselves as very different from the English and the English from the Dutch and the Dutch from the Italians. Centuries of warfare between these groups encouraged the development of technologies to better kill each other with. The impetus for technological leverage came from the need to defend from or dominate the other. China and Japan (while certainly having their non-homogeneous groups) were far more stable societies. So that competition, I figure, had some impact on the development of technologies that created the foundation of the industrial revolution.

Re: What about technology?

[erudito]

Given I think the Scientific Revolution has to get some credence -- Europe's shift from adaptor to inventor civilisation really is quite striking -- I broadly agree. Invention creates new possible forms of capital.

I also think that jurisdictional competition is important more generally. Columbus, after all, went to prince after prince to get support until Queen Isabella eventually said OK. Conversely, once the Ming regime had decided that enough was enough, Zheng He's expeditions were not repeated, despite continuing Chinese seaborne trade in SE Asia (which Pomeranz points to, but really ends up highlighting differences with Europe). Moreover, Pomeranz himself admits that European states, under competitive pressure, put more effort into devising ways of gain wealth from trade. It seems unlikely that competitive pressure did not have wider domestic implications

[usuakari]

Hmmm... reminds me of some of the concepts touched on in Kim Stanley Robinson's The years of Rice and Salt. I seem to remember that you've read it; but if you haven't, I think you'd enjoy it. Alternative history seems to be much more your thing than mine. :)

I disagree (in a mild way) with your above anonymous commenter on the stability of China and Japan too. A fair chunk of each of their respective histories is taken up by internal conflicts that came close to civil war on a number of occasions, and certainly acted as impetus for military development.

I do agree that comparing Europe (as some sort of conglomerate) and Japan and China is problematical though. Even comparing 'simple' things like interest rates leaves out a weight of cultural implications and confounding variables. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done; simply that it's only a very vague tool...

Rice and Salt

[erudito]

I have glanced through KS Robinson's book. I think I have too much disagreement with the premises to enjoy it properly (always a limitation on my enjoyment of alternative history).

Japan's military technology (except cannons) were definitely as good as anyone's in the 1550-1610. Then the Tokugawa peace descended, and they stagnated. Chinese C15th naval technology was the best in the world, then they retreated from the effort.

Competition in Europe was more continuous.

As for interest rates, one of the points Pomeranz argues for is that property rights and commercial activity were broadly similar in the three regions. I am prepared to consider that cultural factors may have influence the level of interest rates by affecting institutions and time preferences, I am sceptical that commercial behaviour was so different that they are not indicative, nor that their consequences are not broadly predictable.