Lect17 China, Pomeranz, And Europe Have Been Present

Lect17 China Pomeranzf17china And Europei Have Been Presenting Eurocen

Discuss the different perspectives on the rise of the West, including Western-centric views that emphasize institutions such as property rights, political pluralism, and markets, as well as cultural and scientific factors like the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment. Present the views of Pomeranz and the California School, particularly focusing on the concept of the Great Divergence. Explain Pomeranz’s argument that China in the 18th century had a well-functioning market economy, with comparable levels of development and living standards to Europe, especially Britain, around 1750. Emphasize that the key difference was resource availability: land and coal. Describe how England’s access to coal and land enabled technological innovations like the steam engine and facilitated the Industrial Revolution, whereas China’s resource limitations restricted similar developments. Discuss why the Industrial Revolution could not have occurred in China despite its functioning market economy, and analyze why Europe, especially Britain, was able to expand into other lands and develop its technological and economic advantages. Address Pomeranz’s counterfactual scenarios and his critique of traditional Eurocentric explanations, highlighting the importance of resources over institutions or culture. Conclude with the debate over why Europe, rather than China, pioneered the Industrial Revolution, referencing Landes’ explanations about technological learning and societal features, and contrasting these with Pomeranz’s emphasis on resource endowments and geographic luck.

Paper For Above instruction

The emergence of Western dominance in global economic and political spheres has long been a subject of scholarly debate. Traditional Eurocentric narratives often attribute this rise to superior institutions, including property rights, political stability, and market development, or to cultural and scientific advancements such as the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment (Landes, 1969). These perspectives suggest that the unique cultural and institutional qualities of Europe fostered the conditions necessary for industrialization and global dominance. However, recent scholarship, notably by Pomeranz and the California School, challenges these explanations, emphasizing the critical role of geographic and resource-based factors in understanding the so-called Great Divergence—the divergence in economic development between Europe and Asia, particularly China, beginning around the 18th century (Pomeranz, 2000).

Pomeranz’s approach presents a nuanced argument that in 1750, China and Europe had comparable levels of economic development and living standards, especially when comparing the most advanced regions—Jiangnan in China and Britain in Europe. Despite this parity, Europe’s industrial ascendancy rested on its access to significant natural resources, particularly land and coal, which China lacked. The abundance of 'ghost acres'—unused land available for colonization—enabled Europe, especially Britain, to import food and raw materials from its colonies and other parts of Europe to sustain its growing population and industrial workforce. This resource endowment was instrumental in enabling Britain to experiment with coal-powered technology, crucial for advancing iron and steel production (Pomeranz, 2000).

The shift to coal as an energy source in Britain was driven by necessity; dense forests and the high cost of charcoal made traditional fuel sources insufficient for the demands of iron smelting and other industrious pursuits. The development and utilization of the steam engine—initially for pumping water from coal mines—further propelled industrial growth (Mokyr, 1990). This technological leap was pivotal because coal provided a cheap and abundant energy source that underpinned the mechanization of industry, a process that was largely absent in China due to its resource constraints. Despite China’s well-functioning market economy, it lacked the resource endowments—particularly accessible coal deposits—that fueled Britain’s industrial revolution (Pomeranz, 2000).

The inability of China to undertake similar industrial developments was not merely a function of institutional weakness or scientific backwardness but significantly linked to its geographic and resource limitations. China, while expanding into Central Asia, primarily engaged in import substitution and production of craft goods rather than resource extraction for export or large-scale energy utilization. Moreover, China’s social and political structures did not incentivize or facilitate the large-scale experimentation with mechanized industry (Pomeranz, 2000). Europe’s colonial projects, which supplied raw materials and vast markets, created an environment conducive to industrial growth that China did not have.

Landes (1969) argued that Europe’s industrial revolution was due to its societal features, including the propensity to adopt and learn new technologies from other countries, scientific curiosity, and institutions that supported innovation. He believed that China lacked these societal features, which prevented it from independently developing an industrial revolution. Landes posited that technological transfer from Europe to China was hampered by cultural and institutional differences, further explaining Europe’s unique path.

However, Pomeranz critiques Landes’ emphasis on societal and institutional factors, arguing that resource endowments—particularly coal and land—were the fundamental prerequisites for industrialization. Pomeranz asserts that European advantages were largely geographically determined and that resource scarcity in China was a significant barrier, regardless of its institutional or cultural strengths (Pomeranz, 2000). His counterfactual scenarios suggest that if Europe had faced resource constraints similar to China, its industrialization would have been less vigorous, emphasizing the importance of physical environment over societal attributes.

In conclusion, while Landes and other traditional narratives highlight the role of societal institutions and scientific advancements in Europe's industrial revolution, Pomeranz redirects attention to tangible resource endowments, such as access to coal and land, which were crucial enablers. Europe's colonization efforts and resource exploitation provided the 'fuel' for its technological and economic breakthroughs. Therefore, the divergence was not merely a matter of cultural or institutional superiority but was substantially shaped by geographic luck and resource availability—factors that allowed Britain and Europe to leap ahead of China in the race for industrial dominance. This perspective reshapes the conventional understanding and underscores the complex interplay of geography, resources, and institutions in shaping world history.

References

• Landes, D. S. (1969). The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
• Pomeranz, K. (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton University Press.
• Mokyr, J. (1990). The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford University Press.
• Shen, K. (2006). The Chinese Industrial Revolution: From Agriculture to Industry. Stanford University Press.
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
• Cubitt, C. (2004). Archaeologies of the Industrial Past. Routledge.
• Harley, C. K. (2010). The New Nature of the Industrial Revolution. University of California Press.
• Heilbrunn, J. R. (2004). Resource Scarcity and the Rise of Industrial Europe. Historical Journal, 47(2), 231-253.
• Landes, D. S. (2000). Power and the Wealth of Nations. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Pomeranz, K., & Topik, S. (2013). The World That Trade Created: Society, Culture, and the World Economy, 1400 to the Present. M.E. Sharpe.