Thread by @2020benlang

Maybe Scheidel reconstructed something new, and more solid. But I am not sure it endangers Pomeranz's thesis. That is, despite everything, it is not necessary that the West must rise.

#GreatDivergence

https://twitter.com/TiltingatM3/status/1631756729674244096

Scheidel himself is careful. Perhaps he is just polite, being confident of his work.

But it is very clear very soon what is most important is not capitalist, industrialized production. It was the other beast, a development framework that went beyond "economics".

“systematic policy of capital accumulation derived from an ongoing process of colonization,

exploitation, and domination of a subjugated periphery by a core area.”

How?

"by promising glory, territorial gain, and commercial
advantage", I mean, come on, is there anything clearer than these words to say "conquer, plunder and subjugation"?

In other words, it was not the

capitalist revolution. It was not the industrial revolution. It was just violence.

https://twitter.com/TiltingatM3/status/1632079035663564802

"It was European institutions that made these commitments possible. This alone suffices to reject Pomeranz’s claim that ghost acreages—from New World resources to coal—“ did more to differentiate western Europe from other Old World cores than any of the supposed advantages...

...over these regions generated by the operation of markets, family systems, or other institutions within Europe.” Yet it is also true that even the most powerful institutions could not simply cause these additional assets to appear: there had to be an ecological basis for them."

Is it true? Can you claim it even if "there had to be an ecological basis"?

Yes. Scheidel moved to prove even if China and Europe were to swap places, where China were far closer to the New World, it would still have been Europeans, not the Chinese, to discover the New World

first. And don't forget, to conquer it.

"This negative preference was not primarily a function of limited capabilities: rather, it was shaped by the logic of hegemonic empire. It was not necessary to venture out as long as foreign merchants went to great lengths to come to

China."

Can it still work?

The "triangular trade between manufacturing and staple-consuming Western Europe, slave-exporting and staple-consuming West Africa, and slave-importing and staple-exporting Atlantic America would have faced huge obstacles."

This refers to the counterfactual if China and Europe switch geological location. The question is clear: are institutions the only difference, no other factors are necessary?

“Easy fixes will not do." This is serious scholarly interrogation.

But, then,

"Even if counterfactual environmental restraints had blocked the latter, the underlying argument would remain unaffected: even in that case, competitive dynamics would still have favored transformative change."

Mo subtility at all.

As for China, "Zheng He discovered everything but nobody cared, and the imperial court suppressed all records."

Yes I agree. But that Europe would always do, and make it work, is a stretch.

I am not sure Pomeranz's thesis has been dislodged. His claim, by the beginning of the 19th century, Europe had demonstrated no advantaged to China in terms of productions, productivity and standard of living (at least when restricted to some (large) regions)), market and

credit (though far less sophisticated market institutions than in Europe, but then, "until large industrial production, it was not necessary"), consumption., still looks good.

Even if you accept the superiority of the West's institutions, what Pomeranz demonstrated is simply, despite such superiority, there was no reason or evidence to believe a divergence would take place.

Unless for a different push.

We all know what that push was.

Of course, Scheidel never said these "fine tuned institutions" were "inclusive" and meant "values" (like human rights, you know). Instead, he was clear, they were to conquer, plunder, enslave. And it was "whole government”, whole society“.

That was clearly in drastic contrast to China's laissez faire market and a very weak state.

There is no doubt such a European experiment is very unique. In fact, it proved to be "very difficult to replicate".

So, "low-wage countries should theoretically be expected to catch up with the leaders on the back of technology adoption and capital investment." (Kedrosky)

"In theory."

fivebooks.com/best-books/gre…

We all know why.

One thing I agree with most (or many) proponents of the inevitability of divergence is this, it will be Europeans, not Chinese, to start the scientific revolution. Newton (and Leibnitz's) calculus, Abraham Ortelius' Theory of Plate

https://twitter.com/2020benlang/status/1620884626519764993

Tectonics, Darvon's evolution all would have been unthinkable at the time to the Chinese.

Whether this would lead to the great divergence instead of the industrial revolution is impossible to know. We won't even know if Darvin would be on HMS Beagle if not for colonization.