Abstract
The Great Divergence presents a range of evidence for its contention that, by the eighteenth century, the Yangzi Delta was in no worse a position, in terms of living standards, economic institutions, and the spread of the market, to achieve sustained growth in output and incomes than was England. It followed from this that the ‘Great Divergence’ in economic fortunes across Eurasia since the eighteenth century cannot be explained by conditions that preceded the Industrial Revolution, the emergence of which in northern Europe rather than China must therefore depend on contingent factors that relieved resource limitations in one place but not the other. This argument challenged prevailing interpretations of the causes of industrialisation in terms of a longstanding European ‘superiority’ and led to a substantial reassessment of the path of global economic change from the sixteenth century onwards. However, the work on China of the ‘California School’, following Pomeranz, has been replicated for Japan only to a limited, mainly quantitative, extent and the significance of the Japanese case for the issues that The Great Divergence raised has hardly been considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Arrighi, G. (2007). Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the twenty-first century. London/New York: Verso.
Berg, M. (2005). Luxury and pleasure in eighteenth-century Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brandt, L., Ma, D., & Rawski, T. (2014). From divergence to convergence: Reevaluating the history behind China’s economic boom. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), 45–123.
Frank, A. G. (1998). ReOrient: The silver age in Asia and the world economy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lemire, B. (2009). Revising the historical narrative: India, Europe and the cotton trade, c. 1300–1800. In G. Riello & P. Parthasarathi (Eds.), The spinning world: A global history of cotton textiles, 1200–1850 (pp. 205–226). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Brien, P. (2010). Ten years of debate on the origins of the great divergence. Reviews in History. http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews. No.: 1008.
Parthasarathi, P. (2011). Why Europe grew rich and Asia did not: Global economic divergence, 1600–1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomeranz, K. (2013). Writing about divergences in global history: Some implications for scale, methods, aims, and categories. In M. Berg (Ed.), Writing the history of the global: Challenges for the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roy, T. (2012). Beyond divergence: Rethinking the economic history of India. Economic History of Developing Regions, 27(S1), S57–S85.
Vries, P. (2001). Are coal and colonies really necessary? Kenneth Pomeranz and the great divergence. Journal of World History, 12(2), 407–446.
Vries, P. (2010). The California School and beyond: How to study the great divergence. History Compass, 8(7), 730–751.
Wong, R. B. (1997). China transformed: Historical change and the limits of European experience. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Francks, P. (2016). The Great Divergence Debate. In: Japan and the Great Divergence. Palgrave Studies in Economic History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57673-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57673-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57672-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57673-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)