Summary of k.

Pomeranz’s “ the great divergence debate”

Introduction

The introduction part of the document is about:

 The main argument of the book: The author challenges the conventional
view that Europe’s economic development was due to its unique
endogenous factors, such as markets, institutions, or culture. He argues that
Europe’s industrialization was also enabled by its access to overseas
resources, especially from the New World, which eased its ecological
constraints and created favorable global conjunctures.
 The method of the book: The author uses a comparative and reciprocal
approach, which examines the similarities and differences between Europe
and other parts of the world, especially east Asia, in various aspects of
economic, social, and ecological history. He also analyzes the connections
and influences among different regions, rather than assuming a Europe-
centered world system.
 The structure of the book: The book is divided into three parts. The first part
shows that Europe and east Asia had many surprising resemblances in their
preindustrial economies, such as population, capital accumulation,
technology, and market development. The second part explores the
variations in luxury consumption, firm structure, and overseas expansion
that shaped the rise of capitalism in Europe and Asia. The third part
examines the shared ecological problems that faced the Old World cores and
how Europe managed to overcome them with the help of the New World
and coal.

Chapter -1

Chapter 1 of this document is titled "Europe before Asia?1 Population, Capital

Accumulation, and Technology in Explanations of European Development"2. It
challenges the arguments that claim that western Europe had a unique economic
advantage over other regions of the world before the Industrial Revolution. The
author quotes different scholars and their works to support his critique. Here are
some key points from the chapter:

 The author questions the idea that Europe had a superior demographic
system that allowed it to escape the Malthusian trap of population growth
absorbing all the gains in production. He cites recent studies on birthrates,
life expectancy, and fertility control in China, Japan, and Southeast Asia that
show that they were comparable or even better than those in Europe3. He
also challenges the notion that Europe had a higher per capita capital stock
or a lower dependency ratio than other regions.
 The author examines the possibility that Europe had a crucial technological
edge over other regions before the Industrial Revolution4. He acknowledges
 that there were some areas where Europe excelled, such as metallurgy,
precision instruments, and navigation, but he argues that these were not
decisive for industrialization. He also points out that many other regions,
especially China, had impressive technological achievements in agriculture,
textiles, ceramics, printing, and water management. He suggests that the
differences in technology were not inherent to European culture or
institutions, but rather depended on geographic accidents and global
conjunctures that favored Europe.

In chapter 1, the author argues against some historians who claim that Europe had
an internally generated economic edge before 18001. He challenges the following
views:

 E. L. Jones’s view that Europe had a unique demographic-marital system

that allowed it to escape the Malthusian trap and accumulate more capital
than other regions. The author cites recent evidence that shows that China,
Japan, and Southeast Asia had similar or better fertility control and life
expectancy than Europe.
 John Hajnal’s view that Europe had a crucial technological edge even before
the Industrial Revolution2. The author contends that technological
inventiveness was not sufficient or uniquely European, and that it depended
on fortuitous geographic and ecological factors, such as the location of coal
deposits and the access to overseas resources3.
 Various views that Europe had more efficient and free markets for land and
labor than China and other parts of Asia. The author compares the
institutions and practices of land tenure, labor systems, migration, and rural
industry in both regions and finds little evidence of significant differences or
advantages for Europe.

The author gave the following examples against the arguments that Europe had
more efficient markets and property-rights regimes than Asia:

 The author cited the work of Philip Huang, who showed that Chinese land
markets were active and flexible, and that customary restrictions on land
transactions did not prevent the emergence of a large class of tenant farmers
who paid market rents.
 The author mentioned the case of northern Italy, where land prices varied
widely due to social relations between buyers and sellers, suggesting that
European land markets were not always rational or transparent.
 The author pointed out that Chinese accounting was more sophisticated than
Weber assumed, and that Chinese firms could accumulate and preserve large
amounts of capital for long periods of time, despite the lack of clear
separation between family and business assets.
 The author argued that European interest rates were not significantly lower
than Asian ones, and that there was no clear evidence that cheaper credit led
to more agricultural, commercial, or proto-industrial expansion in Europe.