“Great Divergence” is the term used to describe the economical asymmetry that happened between the West and other parts of the world. To explain the process of the Great Divergence, a two-step analysis is necessary: Why was Britain in the position to industrialize and why could the other parts of the world not follow the quest of Industrialization, which led ultimately to the Great Divergence? The Industrial Revolution in Britain and its diffusion to Western Europe was the single most important event for the Great Divergence to happen. Britain had unique geopolitical contingencies on its side and was able to pull of the Industrialization due to the functionality of its centralized state and its achieved dominance in international trade. Other parts of the world, namely India and China, did not industrialize because they lacked the incentives Britain had and, in addition to that, they were also held back by dynamics of colonialism or internal struggles.
The paper is structured in the following way: After a brief prologue and a look at a contested issue in the field (2.), the explanation will start out with processes and developments that were necessary in leading to the Industrial Revolution and Great Divergence (2.1). The next step is reserved for an in-depth analysis of the Industrial Revolution in Britain contrasted with a look at reasons for a lack of such an event in India and China (2.2). By looking at the diffusion of Industrialization in the West and factors that prevented any sort of that in the East (2.3), an understanding of the Great Divergence will be provided and ultimately finalized and comprehensively summarized in the conclusion (3.).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Great Divergence
2.1 The Lead-up to the Industrial Revolution
2.2 Britain and the Industrial Revolution
2.3 Diffusion of Industrialization in the West and Stagnation in the East
3. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the historical and economic phenomenon known as the "Great Divergence," specifically investigating why Britain achieved industrialization before other regions such as China and India. It analyzes the interplay between geopolitical contingencies, international trade, and the state's role in fostering industrial growth to explain the economic asymmetry that emerged between the West and the rest of the world.
- Economic asymmetry between Western nations and the global East.
- The role of the Industrial Revolution and its diffusion.
- Geopolitical factors, including mercantilism and naval supremacy.
- Contrasting incentives and institutional impacts on industrial growth.
- The influence of coal, colonial expansion, and the "New World" discovery.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 The Lead-up to the Industrial Revolution
The world was in terms of economic power polycentric before the Great Divergence (cf. Pomeranz 2000: 4, 273). But India and China, the other two centers besides Europe, were not on the brink of an industrial breakthrough in contrast to Britain for various reasons that will be explored throughout the next two chapters. As already mentioned, the Industrial Revolution was fundamental, but it is important to take a look at events a lot earlier than 1800, such as the Commercial Revolution, which was about the boom of international trade, colonialism and the economic doctrine of mercantilism.
The take-off of intercontinental trade was a “key development that propelled north-western Europe forwards” (Allen 2003: 432) and moreover one-sidedly benefited it compared to the East (cf. Findley/O’Rourke 2009: 308f.). Mercantilism claimed that the government needs to be in control of foreign trade to ensure the well-being of the country, which led to fierce competition and trade wars between the Western European trade powers. Britain’s military successes in these wars were an important requirement for Britain’s European dominance and following economical take-off (ibid., 345). Therefore, the importance of the interconnectedness of trade and war at that time cannot be understated: The ideology of mercantilist thinking and the belief of “Plenty” based on (land and, even more important, naval) “Power” created armed trade (“guns and sails”) and incentives to become a sea power (ibid., 176ff., 228, 247). Power and Plenty were mutually dependent upon another, as Power secured Plenty through dominance of trade routes and Plenty in turn secured the maintenance of Power. The war-making for dominance in Europe out of mercantilism led to state-making and the centralization of the state which prove beneficial in the future for development (emergence of the “military-fiscal” state). The European nation-states prompted competition, rivalries and therefore innovation accompanied with creative destruction in a way China and India did not experience (cf. Scott 2001: 171ff.).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the "Great Divergence" as an economic asymmetry and introduces the paper's core thesis regarding Britain's unique path toward industrialization compared to the East.
2. The Great Divergence: This section explores the historical timeline of economic divergence and discusses the varying scholarly perspectives on its causes, ranging from geography and culture to institutional structures.
2.1 The Lead-up to the Industrial Revolution: This chapter analyzes the role of the Commercial Revolution, mercantilism, and the rise of the "military-fiscal" state in setting the stage for European economic dominance.
2.2 Britain and the Industrial Revolution: This chapter examines the specific factors—such as high wages, coal availability, and colonial trade—that incentivized mechanization and industrial development in Britain.
2.3 Diffusion of Industrialization in the West and Stagnation in the East: This chapter compares the successful spread of industrialization across the West with the de-industrialization and institutional stagnation observed in India and China during the 19th century.
3. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, emphasizing that the intersection of geopolitics, trade, and centralized state action enabled Britain's early industrial ascent.
Keywords
Great Divergence, Industrial Revolution, Britain, China, India, mercantilism, international trade, colonialism, economic asymmetry, industrialization, technological change, coal, naval power, institutional development, geopolitical contingencies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this academic work?
The work explores the "Great Divergence," which refers to the historical economic disparity that developed between Western Europe—specifically Britain—and the rest of the world, starting roughly in the 18th and 19th centuries.
What is the core research question?
The paper asks why Britain was the first country in Europe and the world to industrialize, and why other economically significant regions like China and India did not follow a similar path during that period.
Which scientific methods are employed in this analysis?
The author utilizes a comparative historical analysis, drawing on existing scholarly literature and economic theories to evaluate the influence of geography, institutions, trade policies, and state development.
What are the key themes addressed in the paper?
Central themes include the impact of the Commercial Revolution, the ideology of mercantilism, the necessity of coal as a fuel source, the role of colonial expansion, and the development of centralized nation-states.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body investigates the precursors to industrialization, the specific advantages Britain possessed that fostered technological innovation, and the systemic reasons for industrial stagnation in the East.
What are the primary factors mentioned for Britain's industrial success?
Britain's success is attributed to high wage levels, the proximity of coal resources, the exploitation of colonial trade, and a centralized state that promoted naval supremacy and international trade dominance.
How does the author characterize the situation in China and India?
The author notes that while these regions were economically competitive, they lacked the specific incentives for mechanization and were further hindered by colonial pressures, trade isolationism, or internal political instability.
What role did the "New World" play in this development?
The discovery and colonization of the New World provided Western powers with essential resources and land, allowing them to overcome Malthusian constraints and focus domestic efforts on industrialization.
How does the author address the debate regarding institutions?
The paper acknowledges different scholarly views, noting that while some argue inclusive British institutions were key, others believe that geographic or colonial factors played a more significant role in the divergence.
What is the significance of the "military-fiscal" state?
The "military-fiscal" state, emerging from mercantilist trade wars, provided the centralized structure and state-led management necessary to secure trade routes and organize the exploitation of resources like coal.
- Citar trabajo
- Christopher King (Autor), 2013, The Great Divergence, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/262779
