Just two quick points.(posted 8754 days ago)First, I believe James Blaut's sweeping claims about the exploitations of the Americas by the Europeans as the explanation for their rapid economic development after 1492 is suspect primarily because of the poor performance of the domestic economies of Spain and Portugal throughout this period. Indeed, it seems to me that one of peculiar outcomes of the new global perspective is that we can now refocus on why some European nations succeeded in the period 1800 to 1950 while others in Europe continued to stagnate. Maybe some of the same limitations that throttled growth in much of southern and eastern Europe were also present in China, Africa, Latin America, etc.
My second point is just to underline the comments of Dick Sylla about the importance of maturing financial markets in facilitating economic growth. Larry Neal and I have conclusively shown, I think, that those parts of Europe and North America that demonstrated economic development had institutionally mature financial markets by 1810 or before. I have raised this issue with Ken Pomeranz at several of his seminar presentations in the southern California area. Ken has acknowledged that shortcomings in the financial sector might have played a role in China's arrested development, he has not been willing, to date, to move financial problems up near the top of his ist of explanatory factors. Nonetheless, I believe that a strong financial base, including functioning markets for short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term monies, is one of the essential prerequisites for advancement. Since I study this subject full time, I realize that I am extremely biased in discussing its importance -- but Dick and I and Larry, and others in our camp, could still be on the mark in identifying one of major stumbling blocks for sustained economic development.