Undestanding The Great Divergence on The Example of The Californian School

In the analysis of the Great Divergence, Peer Vries, a professor of International Economic History at the University of Vienna, offers a critical examination of the financial disparities between developed and developing nations. His focus is on the interpretations of the California school, a collective of scholars who challenge traditional Eurocentric views in economic history. By scrutinizing their arguments and identifying their weaknesses, Vries utilizes the cases of Britain and China to illustrate his points.

The California School's Perspective

The California school posits that from the fifteenth century until the onset of the Industrial Revolution, there were minimal differences between Western Europe and East Asia. In fact, they argue that similarities existed between these regions. This perspective deviates from typical Eurocentric narratives, such as those proposed by Weber and Marx, which often place Europe at the center of economic development. Instead, the California school contends that China was the epicenter of the Modern Global Economy, asserting that it was the birthplace of numerous innovations. They argue that China maintained the world's largest economy, exemplified by what Vries terms the “silver sink thesis.” This thesis highlights that China's significant import surplus of silver demonstrates its economic strength. According to this view, Britain's rise to prominence and wealth was achieved at the expense of Asian countries and their colonies, which were exploited for their resources. Hence, they argue that Britain cannot be credited as the creator of the global economy.

Contrasting Development Pathways

While the California school presents an intriguing argument, Vries emphasizes the futility of directly comparing British and Chinese development. The contexts in which these countries evolved were distinctly different. One of Vries’s critical points is that England, even prior to industrialization, was more inclined towards mechanical and technological innovations, driven by a desire to establish a robust economic system. In contrast, China prioritized human labor, with the household serving as the primary unit of production.

• England's focus on technological advancement
• China's emphasis on labor-intensive production
• Divergent economic goals and systems

Furthermore, the military organization of these two nations also differed significantly. Historically, England exhibited a stronger military organization compared to China, which often struggled against even the weakest adversaries. This difference in military capability undoubtedly influenced the economic trajectories of both countries.

Implications of the Great Divergence

The concept of the Great Divergence has profound implications for our understanding of global economic history. Vries suggests that while the California school has introduced a fresh perspective, the inconsistencies in their arguments warrant further scrutiny. Analyzing the development of societies individually, rather than attempting to draw direct comparisons, may yield a more accurate understanding of historical economic dynamics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the California school has significantly influenced contemporary views on economic history, Vries’s critique highlights the necessity of a nuanced understanding of the Great Divergence. The differences in the developmental pathways of countries like Britain and China cannot be overlooked. By studying societies in isolation, we can gain a clearer picture of their unique trajectories and contributions to the global economy. The Great Divergence remains a complex and multifaceted issue, warranting continued exploration and discussion among scholars and students alike.

References:

Vries, P. (Year). Title of the Article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), Page Range.

Author, A. (Year). Title of the Book. Publisher.

Author, B. (Year). Title of the Research Paper. University/Organization.