In response to a query by Alan Taylor to Gunder Frank, asking Gunder to be more clear on his theory of the great bifurcation, and how it differed from that of Pomeranz, Wong, myself, and others, Gunder asked me for help. My answer, which Alan suggested might usefully be posted to EH.NET, is as follows:(posted 8756 days ago)Dear Alan et al.
Gunder asks for help. Well, we are a "school," but not a team, or tag team, so we have our internal differences, and cannot all be presumed to be moving in the same direction. But there are a few things I can say in response to Alan's thoughtful and kind skeptical inquiries (you're right, Alan, you are a most gentle critic compared to what's lurking out there).
FIRST: We all share a goal of CRITIQUING a "standard view" found in scholars from Weber and Marx to Jones and Landes, to wit: cultural and or ecological circumstances that emerged in Europe c. 1000 AD (e.g. rain-fed heavy plow agriculture, feudal lord/peasant relations, Christian faustian attitudes toward nature, obsessions with time or counting, skill at mechanical crafts) created a unique social matrix with inherent advantages in eventually achieving a modern industial economy, in contrast to non-European societies which either lacked one or more of these essential qualities, or were inherently barred from later industrial advance by governments or cultures that were always too chaotic, predatory, tradition-bound or isolated to embark on sustained per-capita growth. IN CONTRAST, we argue that it is difficult to find EMPIRICAL evidence that sustains a view of an inherently advantaged Europe centuries before industrialization, and that much empirical evidence suggests equality or superiority for Asian societies relative to Europe, as late ast 1750, in most factors held germane to later economic growth.
Second, we all share the goal of CRITIQUING another standard view, from the days of Parry and the "age of exploration," that the expansion of Europe's trading and colonization into the Indian ocean and southeast Asia c. 1500-1700 represents a triumph of superior European civilization, exhibiting its inevitable and irresistable drive to expansion. IN CONTRAST, we argue that a complex global trading system involving bullion, luxury goods, and bulk goods (raw textile materials, rice) already existed in Asia and the Indian ocean long before major European involvement, and that the Europeans entered this world as technical/manufacturing laggards, with little to trade except the silver they obtained from the new world. In fact, if not for China's (and India's and Turkey's) appetite for silver, which sustained a profitably unequal value of silver in the West and in China for centuries, Europe's involvement in Asian trade would have remained insignificant.
FINALLY, there is the question of what positive theory do we have to account for Europe's eventual emergence (however brief) as "top dog" in this global system, and by extension, for the emergence of a novel factory and steam-powered industrialized economy first in Europe, rather than elsewhere. It is on this positive theory that Alan requests that the scholars I call the "California school" and their predecessors and colleagues have significant differences. I won't go into them here -- if you read Gunder's book, Ken's book, Bin's book and my essay, you will see both overlaps and differences. Gunder believes population/resource balances and social inequality variation was critical, I don't. Ken and I both believe easy access to coal by people who needed fuel was crucial, others don't. Ken believes New World resources were crucial; I remain skeptical. I believe institutional and cultural shifts c. 1650-1750 were a crucial part of the story, Gunder dislikes this.
So Gunder is right that we are just barely beginning the positive task, and that we are still struggling to complete the CRITIQUING tasks one and two. In fact this critical mode takes up the bulk of Gunders, Ken's, and my publications so far. I can say that once you buy into the critiques, the whole landscape looks so different that you have to take a deep breath and venture bravely out into the region of positive explanation. We sure could use all the fellow- explorers we can find, so get your map right (don't buy it from Landes) and then follow or explore on your own. We welcome help!
All the best,