Eh.Res-Re-thinking 18^th Century China Forum Summary

This forum began November 19, 1997 with a summary by Kenneth Pomeranz regarding his recent research on 18^th century China. This posting illustrated that 1) China had living standards comparable to Europe up to the middle of the 18^th century (especially within the Yangzi Delta) and 2) household and market allocated resources in China were as efficient as in European countries. Although similarities exist, the divergence between China and Europe begs the question: What did Europe have that China did not? Pomeranz suggests that his research provides "an answer based on ecological pressures facing all pre-industrial cores—and argues that England’s unique escape from these problems was as dependent on good luck and global conjectures as on endogenous developments," (November 19, 1997). In essence, Europe had some advantages. First, the location of coal complemented pre-industrial "core" cities. Second, "…the New World, which was populated…in ways that guaranteed a much greater export orientation than in the Chinese frontiers…." Thus, the "why Europe" (and why not China) question may depend on these European advantages. However, many questions remain, as indicated by the numerous topics raised during this forum.

For instance what about the role of technology in China? Greg Clark in a November 24, 1997 message notes that even if living conditions in the Yangzi Delta and England were similar, it does not imply that technologically the two regions were similar. He states "even societies with a very primitive production technology can end up with high living standards if they have adverse disease conditions or fertility control." Brad DeLong responds that "the extremely rapid growth of China’s (and India’s) early modern populations suggests an impressive degree of technological dynamism," (November 24, 1997).

Also, what about the role of financial markets in China? Ed Perkins notes the importance of European financial markets during the 17^th and 18^th centuries in a November 24, 1997 posting, but he wonders how this compares to China? Gunder Frank explains that Asia excelled in the financial sector as well, (November 25, 1997). He states, for instance, that the interest rate in Southeast Asia was the same as in Europe and that "Europeans BORROWED and raised capital on the Asian capital markets ALL the time in the 17^th and 18^th centuries."

Therefore, do these differences explain why the Industrial Revolution occurred in Europe and not in China? George Grantham explains the response of economic history to the question "why are we so rich and dynamic, and they so poor and stagnant," (November 27, 1997). Essentially, everyone was poor due to European colonization or exploitation, and Europe had a special ingredient that everyone else lacked. Referring to Pomeranz’s research, Grantham indicates that "[i]t is the notion that deep-seated differences in civilization explain differences in long-run economic performance that Pomeranz’s findings implicitly challenge." Further, "[t]he work also points up the problem of again thinking about the sources of the remarkable technological breakthrough of the last eighteenth and early nineteenth century."

In fact, Pomeranz sees his paper’s contribution "as more a matter of influencing the way we set up the ‘Why England’ question" (November 27, 1997). Undoubtedly this forum raised questions and promoted discussion on the topic of Chinese and European industrialization during the 18^th century.