The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy (2000) Author: Kenneth Pomeranz (born 1958) Specialist in Chinese economic/social history: 1988 PhD Based at University of California Irvine One of the
Author: Kenneth Pomeranz (born 1958) Specialist in Chinese economic/social history:
Based at University of California Irvine One of the “California School”–several
Neither China nor Europe are homogeneous. Within-variation is as great as between-variation. Parts of China—e.g. the Yangzi delta—were
Eighteenth-century China was well-
In most respects Europe's economy was less
Europe's relative advance came late, and
Europe's success rested on the accident of
The first 4 chapters criticise existing accounts
These chapters are a good survey of some
These chapters also provide the background
Modern theories of economic growth put
Pomeranz cannot see any great difference
Pomeranz acknowledges that Europe had
But “arguments that Europe in 1750 already
England did have an advantage in coal
Some historians argue that China was
This line is associated with Douglass North
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1993/north.html
Pomeranz considers markets for goods and
Pomeranz has only a brief discussion (86)
He concludes that the Qing state was more
He does not investigate the relative
Europe had a history of restrictions on the
“The overwhelming majority of land in all
Lots of detailed differences (both within and
By C18 this was rare in Western Europe. Labour was more mobile in China than in
The starting point for this chapter is the work
Sombart argued that the growing demand for
Pomeranz argues that these developments
Pomeranz takes issue with the argument of the
Like Landes, Pomeranz criticises the view that
Pomeranz emphasises how competition between
Chapters 5 and 6 give Pomeranz’s own
This extends the land-labour imbalance
Pomeranz argues that both China and
The constraints were shortage of land and
Europe, but not China, could evade these
Pomeranz argues that the exploitation of new lands
Malthus and Mill had been concerned with the
Diminishing returns in agriculture imposed a limit to
Mill recognised that the feared stationary state was
Landes sees divergence a necessary
Landes relegates geography. Pomeranz re-
The disagreement recalls earlier
Joseph Needham (1900-
Needham observed that
He associated the take-of
Volume I 1954
Began when the Jesuit Matteo Ricci took a
The Jesuits sent back negative reports on the
The Qing court patronised Western science—
But there was no integration of European and
The 1950s saw the rise of
In Europe national
In the 50s historians began
The Qing imperial genealogy for 1700 to
Household registers compiled in a Liaoning
A sub-sample of 30,000 rural women born
that only Europeans exercised foresight. In China only positive checks operate
that in China fertility was equally rational but the values involved were social rather
Malthus exaggerated the role of famines in
Marital fertility was markedly lower than in
Female infanticide distorted sex ratios led to a
It belongs to the intellectual history of the
In 300 years these subjects have changed. What was being contemplated was also
In the background were changing economic
In the C18 the existence of a China so different
In the C19 and for most of C20 acquaintance
Recently interest has revived. The interest is much
Robert Marks American History Review 106, (2001), 934-5.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692344
History, 60, (2000), 856-859
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2566442
Adrian Hayes China Journal 47 , (2002) 109-112 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3182076
Stevan Harrell China Quarterly 174 , (2003), 541-8 http://www.jstor.org/stable/20059020