Answering The Questions As Follows: Why Does Lan

Answering The Questions As The Following Shows1 Why Does Landes Thin

Answering the questions as the following shows. 1. Why does Landes think that China would not have developed an industrial revolution on its own? (Landes 2006 “Why Europe and the West? Why not China?†is posted on file) 2. Why does he think that China failed to learn new technologies from Europeans in the period after 1500? 3. In Landes’ view, what did Europe have that China lacked? That is, what did Europe have that permitted it to have an industrial revolution? 4. What does Pomeranz say about the factors that Landes identifies as the crucial features of European society that permitted it to have an industrial revolution? Why does he say that these features did not matter? 5. What does Pomeranz think are the crucial factors that enabled Europe to have an industrial revolution? Note: You can learn about Pomeranz’s ideas from Marks, pp .(Already posted it on file)

Paper For Above instruction

The debate surrounding the origins of the industrial revolution often centers on why it took root in Europe rather than in China, which was arguably as advanced in many respects until the early modern period. Patrick Landes, in his work “Why Europe and the West? Why not China?”, argues that China’s failure to develop an industrial revolution independently is primarily due to structural factors within Chinese society, political institutions, and cultural attitudes that did not foster the same kind of technological innovation and capital accumulation that characterized Europe (Landes, 2006). Landes contends that China lacked certain entrepreneurial and institutional incentives, such as a property rights system conducive to innovation, which were prevalent in Europe and instrumental to technological progress.

According to Landes, China's failure to adapt and learn new European technologies after 1500 was largely due to social and geopolitical factors. He emphasizes that cultural attitudes towards change and the conservative nature of Chinese society inhibited the assimilation of new knowledge from Europeans. Furthermore, the centralized and bureaucratic Chinese state prioritized stability over innovation, and the lack of competitive capitalism limited the spread of new technological ideas. These factors created a barrier to technological transfer and innovation, making it difficult for China to capitalize on European advancements (Landes, 2006).

Landes also argues that Europe had certain advantages that China lacked, which facilitated its path toward industrialization. He highlights the importance of the competitive nature of European states, the emergence of a proto-capitalist system, and a culture that encouraged individual initiative and risk-taking. These features, along with the development of property rights and financial institutions, created an environment conducive to technological experimentation and economic growth. European institutions supported the mobilization of capital for large-scale ventures, which China’s more centralized state apparatus did not promote (Landes, 2006).

Immanuel Wallerstein’s critique of Landes and others sheds light on the broader context of European economic development. David Pomeranz, in his work, challenges the notion that European societal features alone were sufficient for the industrial revolution. Pomeranz agrees that Europe's unique institutional arrangements contributed but emphasizes that other factors had a crucial role. He argues that the relative abundance of resources like coal and access to colonies for raw materials and markets were equally vital, situating the European industrial revolution within a global context. These resources mitigated land constraints and allowed for energy-intensive industries to flourish, which was not solely a matter of internal European social features (Pomeranz, 2000).

Pomeranz contends that the idea that Europe’s societal features alone drove the industrial revolution overstates their significance. He demonstrates that similar societal features were present in other parts of the world but did not lead to comparable industrialization due to resource limitations. Thus, while Europe's institutions and cultural factors were influential, the availability of resources—especially coal—played a decisive role. He emphasizes the importance of the "coal and colonies" thesis, asserting that Europe’s access to cheap energy and overseas markets was crucial in enabling its industrial growth (Pomeranz, 2000).

In summary, the debate reveals that internal societal factors such as property rights, social attitudes, and institutional structures are significant but not sufficient alone to explain Europe's industrial revolution. External resource factors, particularly energy availability and imperial possessions, also critically contributed. Both Landes and Pomeranz agree on the importance of societal and institutional factors, but Pomeranz champions a broader, more interconnected view recognizing the global resource and market dynamics that underpinned European industrialization.

References

• Landes, D. S. (2006). Why Europe and the West? Why not China? In The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Pomeranz, D. (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton University Press.
• Marks, R. (2015). The Origins of the Modern World: A Global and Environmental Narrative. Routledge.
• Pusch, H. (2010). Economic Development, Technology and the Environment – The Case of Europe and China. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(1), 89-112.
• Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University Press.
• Thompson, E. P. (1963). The Making of the English Working Class. Vintage Books.
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
• Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business.
• Fogel, R. (1964). Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Osterhammel, J., & Petersson, N. P. (2005). The Globalization of World History: A Guide to the Field. Princeton University Press.