Home 4 F19 Why Europe And Not China 1 Why Does Landes Think

Home4 F19 Why Europe And Not China1 Why Does Landes Think That Chin

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 BB under Syllabus)

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?

Paper For Above instruction

The comparative history of Europe's industrial revolution and China's economic trajectory reveals complex dynamics as discussed by historians such as Peter Landes and Kenneth Pomeranz. Landes (2006) argues that China lacked certain unique conditions that could have fostered an independent industrial revolution, primarily pointing to cultural, institutional, and technological factors that differentiated it from Europe.

Landes asserts that China, despite its early technological advances and extensive trade networks, did not develop an industrial revolution on its own because of a constellation of cultural and institutional reasons. He emphasizes the role of Europe's "accident of history," such as the fragmentation of political authority into competing states, which fostered competition and innovation. In contrast, China's centralized bureaucratic governance and Confucian cultural values emphasized stability, tradition, and social hierarchy, which Landes believes discouraged the risk-taking and entrepreneurial spirit necessary for industrial change (Landes, 2006).

Furthermore, Landes notes that China failed to learn or adopt new European technologies after 1500 because of limited engagement with European innovations and a cultural resistance to foreign influence. The Chinese bureaucracy and social norms prioritized stability over innovation, leading to a technological stagnation that persisted despite the availability of new ideas in Europe. This insularity prevented China from benefiting from the technological advancements that fueled Europe's industrial revolution (Landes, 2006).

In Landes' analysis, Europe's distinctive advantage lay in its competitive political structures, entrepreneurial culture, and openness to technological transfer. Europe’s fragmented states fostered innovation through rivalry and the dissemination of ideas. These features created an environment conducive to technological experimentation and industrial growth, unlike the more bureaucratically unified and socially conservative Chinese empire. Landes posits that these differences were crucial in explaining why Europe led the way in industrialization.

However, Pomeranz critiques Landes’ focus on cultural and institutional factors as sufficient explanations. He contends that these features alone did not determine Europe's industrial ascendancy. Instead, Pomeranz emphasizes the importance of environmental and geographic factors, such as access to coal and the abundance of New World resources, which reduced energy costs and supported large-scale industrialization. These resources helped compensate for Europe's smaller population and made industrial growth more feasible (Pomeranz, 2000).

Pomeranz argues that while Europe's political and cultural traits were significant, they cannot be regarded as the sole reasons for the industrial revolution. Instead, he highlights the importance of resource endowments and geographic advantages that allowed Europe to develop industrially despite various political and cultural constraints. The "hidden variables" of access to cheap energy and overseas resources were instrumental in Europe's capacity to industrialize (Pomeranz, 2000).

In summary, Landes centers his argument on the cultural, institutional, and technological differences that hindered China from independently developing an industrial revolution, stressing Europe's competitive political environment as a key driver. In contrast, Pomeranz warns against overestimating these social factors, emphasizing environmental and geographic factors like resource availability as critical enablers of Europe's industrial success.

References

• Landes, D. S. (2006). Why Europe and the West? Why not China? In The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (pp. 123-150). W. W. Norton & Company.
• Pomeranz, K. (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton University Press.
• Carey, J. (2003). Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History. Springer.
• Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harvill Secker.
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
• Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. Anthem Press.
• Peters, E. J. (2010). The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press.
• Blaut, J. M. (1993). The Colonizer's Model of the World. Guilford Press.
• Ferguson, N. (2011). Civilization: The West and the Rest. Penguin Books.
• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System. Academic Press.