Kenneth Pomeranz’s The Great Divergence Explained

Quick Answer

• Challenges the long-held belief that Western Europe possessed inherent, long-standing advantages leading to industrialization.
• Argues that by 1800, core regions of Europe and China were economically and technologically comparable, with environmental factors, particularly coal, being key to Europe’s later divergence.
• Essential for understanding the contingent nature of global economic history and the origins of modern wealth disparities.

Who This Is For

• Readers seeking to deconstruct Eurocentric narratives of global economic development.
• Students and researchers of economic history, comparative history, and global development studies.

What To Check First

• Pomeranz’s Core Argument: Confirm understanding that the book posits remarkable parity between Europe and China (specifically the Yangtze Delta) on the eve of the Industrial Revolution, not a pre-existing European superiority.
• The Role of Coal: Identify the central importance Pomeranz places on Europe’s fortunate access to abundant, easily exploitable coal deposits as a critical energy advantage.
• Contingency Over Determinism: Recognize that the book emphasizes the accidental or contingent nature of Europe’s divergence, driven by specific historical circumstances rather than inevitable progress.
• Comparative Regions: Note the specific areas of comparison: Western Europe (especially Britain and the Low Countries) and China’s Yangtze Delta region.

Step-by-Step Plan: Deconstructing The Great Divergence by Kenneth Pomeranz

Step 1: Grasp the Central Thesis

• Action: Carefully read the introduction and conclusion to isolate Pomeranz’s primary argument.
• What to Look For: A clear articulation that the economic and technological gap between Europe and China was not vast until the 19th century, and that this divergence was driven by specific, rather than inherent, factors.
• Mistake: Assuming that Europe’s eventual industrial dominance implies a long-standing, inherent superiority that existed prior to the 18th century.

Step 2: Analyze the Parity Evidence

• Action: Examine the chapters detailing Pomeranz’s comparative economic data for Europe and China around 1800.
• What to Look For: Evidence of similar agricultural productivity, manufacturing output, and living standards. Pomeranz meticulously presents data showing these similarities.
• Mistake: Overlooking the detailed evidence Pomeranz provides for China’s advanced development, focusing only on Europe’s later industrialization as the sole point of reference.

The Great Divergence: America's Growing Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do about It

• Audible Audiobook
• Timothy Noah (Author) - John Allen Nelson (Narrator)
• English (Publication Language)
• 03/11/2013 (Publication Date) - Audible Studios for Bloomsbury (Publisher)

Buy on Amazon

Step 3: Understand the “Escape” from Malthusian Traps

• Action: Focus on the chapters explaining how Europe overcame the resource limitations that historically constrained population growth and economic expansion.
• What to Look For: The critical role of fossil fuels, particularly coal, in providing an energy surplus that allowed for unprecedented growth without the same land-intensive pressures faced by China.
• Mistake: Attributing Europe’s divergence primarily to internal factors like innovation or institutions, while downplaying the significant, geographically determined, advantage of accessible coal.

Step 4: Evaluate the Timing of Divergence

• Action: Pay close attention to Pomeranz’s explanation of why the divergence occurred relatively late, in the 18th and 19th centuries.
• What to Look For: The confluence of factors, including population growth, colonial expansion providing raw materials, and the amplified impact of coal, that created a unique window for European industrialization.
• Mistake: Believing that the foundations for European global dominance were laid centuries earlier; Pomeranz argues the critical divergence was a more recent and contingent event.

Step 5: Consider the Counterfactuals and Contingency

• Action: Reflect on the alternative historical pathways Pomeranz implicitly or explicitly suggests.
• What to Look For: Scenarios where China might have had similar resource endowments, or Europe faced comparable land constraints, to highlight the contingent nature of its industrial rise.
• Mistake: Viewing European industrialization as an inevitable historical trajectory, rather than a complex outcome influenced by specific, and perhaps fortunate, circumstances.

The Great Divergence by Kenneth Pomeranz: A Contrarian View

Kenneth Pomeranz’s seminal work, The Great Divergence by Kenneth Pomeranz, directly confronts and dismantles the traditional Eurocentric narrative that posits an inherent, long-standing superiority of Western civilization as the inevitable cause of industrialization and global dominance. Instead, Pomeranz presents a compelling, evidence-based argument for the striking economic and technological parity that existed between core regions of Europe and China, particularly the Yangtze Delta, up until the cusp of the Industrial Revolution. This perspective is crucial for anyone seeking a nuanced understanding of global economic history and the origins of modern global inequalities.

The book meticulously details how, by 1800, critical indicators such as agricultural output, manufacturing capabilities, and general living standards were remarkably similar across these regions. This parity suggests that the vast economic chasm that emerged between the West and the rest of the world in the 19th and 20th centuries was not a result of ancient endowments or inherent differences, but rather a more recent phenomenon driven by specific historical conjunctures.

Common Myths

• Myth: Europe was always technologically and economically superior to other civilizations.
• Why it matters: This myth perpetuates a deterministic view of history and overlooks the complex factors that contributed to Western industrialization.
• Fix: Focus on Pomeranz’s comparative data for 1800, which demonstrates striking similarities in productivity and living standards between Europe and China, challenging the notion of long-standing European superiority.
• Myth: The Industrial Revolution was an inevitable outcome of European ingenuity and institutions.
• Why it matters: This perspective ignores the significant role of external factors and geographical endowments, particularly resource availability.
• Fix: Acknowledge Pomeranz’s emphasis on the contingent nature of Europe’s “escape” from Malthusian traps, primarily enabled by access to abundant coal, which was not a universally available advantage.
• Myth: China’s development was stagnant or inherently limited compared to Europe.
• Why it matters: This is a common misconception that ignores the sophisticated economic systems and high levels of development achieved in regions like the Yangtze Delta prior to the 19th century.
• Fix: Engage with the specific evidence Pomeranz presents regarding China’s agricultural intensity, manufacturing sophistication, and market integration, which show it was comparable to Europe at the time.

Expert Tips

• Tip 1: Prioritize Comparative Data Analysis:
• Actionable Step: Dedicate focused reading time to the chapters that directly compare economic and social metrics (e.g., per capita income, agricultural yields, manufacturing output) between Europe and China around 1800.
• Common Mistake to Avoid: Skimming these crucial comparative sections and assuming the differences are self-evident, thereby missing the detailed evidence that underpins Pomeranz’s argument for parity.
• Tip 2: Isolate the “Escape” Mechanisms:
• Actionable Step: Create a list of the specific factors Pomeranz identifies that allowed Europe to overcome resource constraints and achieve industrial growth, with particular attention to energy sources.
• Common Mistake to Avoid: Overemphasizing cultural or institutional explanations for European success while downplaying the profound impact of geographical endowments, especially the availability of coal.
• Tip 3: Embrace the Contingency of History:
• Actionable Step: Actively reflect on how Pomeranz’s work challenges deterministic views of history and highlights the role of specific, often fortunate, circumstances in shaping global economic trajectories.
• Common Mistake to Avoid: Seeking a single, overarching cause for Western dominance and failing to appreciate the complex interplay of factors, including geographical luck and historical timing, that Pomeranz outlines.

Decision Rules

• If understanding the historical roots of global inequality is your priority, focus on the sections detailing the divergence and its causes.
• If challenging Eurocentric historical narratives is your goal, prioritize the comparative analysis of Europe and China.
• If you seek to understand the role of environmental factors in economic development, pay close attention to the discussion of coal and resource availability.

FAQ

• Q: What is the central argument of The Great Divergence by Kenneth Pomeranz?
• A: The book argues that Western Europe and key regions of China were remarkably similar in economic and technological development around 1800. The subsequent vast economic divergence and Europe’s rise to global dominance were not due to inherent superiority but rather contingent factors, most notably Europe’s fortuitous access to abundant coal, which allowed it to overcome resource limitations that constrained China’s growth.
• Q: Did Pomeranz claim China was more advanced than Europe in 1800?
• A: Pomeranz argues for parity, not necessarily superiority. His core point is that the economic and technological levels were surprisingly comparable, challenging the long-held assumption of a significant, pre-existing European advantage.
• Q: How significant was the role of coal in Pomeranz’s analysis?
• A: Coal is presented as a critical factor. Pomeranz highlights that Europe’s access to vast, easily exploitable coal deposits provided an energy surplus that fueled industrialization, enabling unprecedented growth and overcoming the Malthusian constraints that limited China’s reliance on labor and organic energy sources.
• Q: Who would benefit most from reading this book?
• A: Anyone interested in global economic history, the origins of modern inequalities, and alternative interpretations of Western dominance. It is particularly valuable for students and scholars in history, economics, and sociology.

BLOCKQUOTE_0