Review of The World that Trade Created by Kenneth Pomeranz and Steven Topik

Editor Kevin Reilly makes a bold claim in the foreword to The World that Trade Created: Society, Culture, and the World Economy:  “[T]he essays are fun to read.”  Under ordinary circumstances, that would be a difficult position to take in the “dismal science” of economic history.  When using essays by historians of the quality of Kenneth Pomeranz and Steven Topik, however, it does not seem a goal entirely unreachable.  And certainly, Pomeranz and Topik, along with their other contributors, create an interesting and informative read through their collection of essays first published in World Trade Magazine.  The stated goal of the collection, to demonstrate the “long-standing interconnectedness of the world,” is worthy one; but, more than this, there are several other underlying factors that run throughout and underpin much of the discussion.  Among these are the limits placed on humankind by the ecological determinants of the planet and the importance of the individual on influencing trends of economic development.  In addition, the role of culture, so often disregarded by economic historians of the past, takes center stage as Pomeranz and Topik explore the path that led the world to the globalization of today’s markets.

Pomeranz and Topik stress at various points in their essays the many ways in which ecology shaped economic development over the centuries.  From the draining of the Yangtze and Mekong deltas to the deforestation of the Atlantic Forest, man has tried to harness the natural resources of the planet to further his own economic ends.  Too often, man’s ability to overcome, or at least alter, the natural face of the planet has led to environmental disasters that the world is only now coming to understand.  For example, the Chinese desire for sandalwood, coupled with a European need to balance trade relations with China, led to the devastation of complete islands in the Pacific on which sandalwood was harvested. Deforestation, the reduction in the diversity of plant and animal species, and pollution caused by manufacturing have all been driven, in some way or another, by economics.  In fact, in their conclusion to the book, Pomeranz and Topik offer some dire predictions for the future should the role of ecology not be given more positive attention in the future.

Claus Spreckels

Unlike so many economic histories written for a strictly academic audience, Pomeranz and Topik shine the spotlight of their focus on individual men who made a contribution, whether wittingly or not, on the development of a global economy.  Certainly they show the contribution of Christopher Columbus as an example of the unwitting and almost accidental opening of the New World to economic opportunities.  Apart from that, though, are the efforts of men like Stamford Raffles in opening the free port of Singapore and Claus Spreckels in the conquest of Hawaii for American sugar interests.  These and many more examples through The World that Trade Created show the impact of human agency on the course of economic history.  If Pomeranz and Topik take this just a bit too far, as in the case of deputizing the fictional Robinson Crusoe as an example of a world trader, they do so with the worthy intention of making their essays more engaging for the average reader.

In the title of the book, Pomeranz and Topik introduce “culture” as an area to be considered when discussing economic history.  They follow this up by including the cultural factors that impacted various means of trade and commerce throughout the course of the essays.  For example, they stress the kinship relationships that so often influenced the means by which trade was conducted.  They include, at least in a small way, the role of gender in economic matters, using the example of the family and business roles for women in the early days of the Dutch East India Company.  By acknowledging the role of culture in economic matters, Pomeranz and Topik eliminate one of the main post-modern criticisms of economic history—that it leaves out the actual human element.  In works such as Janet Abu-Lughod’s Before European Hegemony and Andre Gunder Frank’s ReOrient, those two economic historians barely scratch the surface of the role of people and their culture in trade and commerce.  Pomeranz and Topik, by including that important element in their analyses, provide readers with a more complete picture of the past.

The conclusion of The World that Trade Created is somewhat gloomy and rather detracts from the bit of humor with which Pomeranz and Topik tried to entertain their readers (an example on page 23 reads “Greece and Turkey, for example, never exported lard or fowl.”).  While they often note that the future is “unpredictable,” the two authors still manage to foresee a world possibly coming to the point of some “ugly collision” reminiscent of an Immanuel Wallerstein or a Karl Marx.  In spite of this, the essays in The World that Trade Created, with all their wonderful “why not” answers to some of economic history’s  great questions, is worth reading by academic and popular audiences alike.

Review of Kenneth Pomeranz' "The Great Divergence"

In The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy, Kenneth Pomeranz presents a professional, convincing argument for the rise of western economic hegemony during the nineteenth century. His careful analysis, the thoroughness with which he critiques prior economic theory, and his painstaking attention to detail allow his readers to gain what seems to be a complete vision of what factors influenced, and did not influence, the evolution of Western Europe’s rise to global economic dominance.

Pomeranz provides a refreshing critique of the work of modern economic historians, such as Immanuel Wallerstein, Fernand Braudel, and others. His methodical approach, the careful way in which he picks apart the arguments of his colleagues, piece by piece, proves very persuasive. In the end, he finds no inherent European economic advantage in most of the areas in which other historians have placed so much emphasis. According to Pomeranz, there was no advantage in European institutions, demographic patterns, or standard of living. In fact, he finds much more common ground between Western Europe and the populated areas of Asia, in terms of “commercialization, commodification of goods, land, … labor, market-driven growth,” and more. (107.)

The factors that did lead to European hegemony were, according to Pomeranz, more a matter of good fortune than any inherent superior quality in the European peoples. As Western Europe approached its ecological carrying capacity (which Pomeranz sets forth in the terms of Malthusian theory) in the latter part of the eighteenth century, the region entered what Pomeranz identifies as the “proto-industrial cul de sac,” just as the populated core areas of Asia were doing. Where Asia turned inward and remained longer in the “cul de sac,” however, Western European economies were able to turn to the natural resources of their New World colonies. Colonial conquest allowed Europeans to resolve their dwindling resources through the riches of abundant natural resources and cheap (coerced) labor in the Americas. At roughly the same time, English reliance on coal for fuel also lessened their need for the timber resources that were quickly fading in their own land and throughout Western Europe. While China, too, had coal resources, England’s coal mines were located within easy reach of the population that needed them. China’s coal reserves, on the other hand, were located in the more sparsely populated north while the need for them was in the densely populated south. Also, where English coal mines required technology suited to pumping out the water that filled them, Chinese coal mines were far more dangerous due to the dry conditions that made them extremely dangerous due to the ever-present worry of fire and explosion.

As with any world historian, Pomeranz relies heavily, almost exclusively, on secondary sources. This presents no problem, other than one of trust—readers must trust that Pomeranz was careful in his selection and analysis of the sources he used.  In Pomeranz’ case, he relied mainly on works produced in the two decades prior to publication of The Great Divergence, with roughly 66% of his sources being produced in the 1980s and 1990s, while only 8% of the material he relied on was published prior to 1960.

If there is a concern with Pomeranz' use of source material, it would be in the way in which he uses statistical data to underpin his theories. He himself notes in several areas of the book that data from Asian regions is often sparse or, in some cases, non-existent. Again, it is a matter of trust that the author is applying data in an appropriate manner and that his extrapolations are suitable and statistically viable.

Reading Pomeranz invariably leads a reader to compare his work with that of Andre Gunder Frank in his ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. What was it about Pomeranz’ work that made it persuasive while Frank tended to alienate readers with his theories? Part of the difference can be found in the methodological approaches taken by the two historians. Frank’s approach, to the uninitiated reader of economic history, was to tear down what he saw as the Eurocentric bias of his fellow economic historians. To do this, he focused the majority of his work on proving that Asia was superior to Europe in economic development right up to 1800 and that it was European utilization of American resources after that point that catapulted Europe into dominance. By contrast, Pomeranz uses a methodological approach that he terms “reciprocal comparison” to identify the similarities and differences between demographically similar areas in Asia and Western Europe. Through this approach, neither side in the comparison is seen as the “norm,” thus removing any possibility of favoring one region over another.

There is more, though, to the different approaches taken by Frank and Pomeranz. In both The Great Divergence and ReOrient, each historian critiques the work of their colleagues studying the same topic of European and Asian economics. Here the difference between Frank and Pomeranz comes down to a matter of narrative style. Where Frank is bombastic (all those exclamation points), accusatory, and dismissive, Pomeranz remains cool and professional. He does not find the theories of other historians to be “wrong” per se; rather, he precisely and carefully analyzes each component of other theories, pointing out flaws and acknowledging important findings. In the end, it is Pomeranz’ impartial and skilled analysis that makes his theories persuasive.

Readers of The Great Divergence will find a work that is compelling in its thoroughness and produced by a historian whose careful, precise approach makes for both an informative and engaging read.

The Adjustment Bureau

Why can't the transition from one phase of life to another be painfree and easy?  Because, it just can't, that's why.

My first week of unemployment has been a period of adjustment.  I have alternated between periods of great productivity and terrible indolence.  On one hand, I managed to read all of Kenneth Pomeranz' The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy.  This was no small feat, as the book was remarkably dull.  Yet, I still have two papers to write and another book to read for next week.  I also have family history tasks to do, both for myself and for Generations Uncovered, the business that my friend Linda and I are starting. 

With all that I have before me, I still find that I need time to grieve for the old life.  I will need to work out a schedule for myself, with time alloted for school, home, geneology, mourning, job-hunting, and (now that it's February) NASCAR.  Life will be full in the future, once the adustment period has been met and conquered.  Time will pass, I will look for and find another job, and adjustment will start again. 

Oh, my God!  Life is just a big series of adjustments.  Guess I'd better get on board....

Dance of the Furies and a Shaker of Salt

This past week's selection in my World War I reading seminar was a book called Dance of the Furies: Europe and the Outbreak of World War 1 by Michael Neiberg.  Now, I've got to say that this was actually a pretty interesting read.  Neiberg tells his readers (over and over again, it seems) that the run-of-the-mill citizens of Europe did not want war.  They were a peaceful people (like Americans), and they did not really believe that the assassination of some Austrian archduke would cause such a fuss.  Once things got hot, though, they jumped in with both feet, believing their governmental officials when they were told--all of them--that they were fighting a defensive war.  Yes, even the German and Austrian people were lulled into believing that they were fighting to keep their homelands from being overrun by "the enemy."  And, as soon as the fighting got bad, and it got bad really soon, there was no turning back.  By that point, the soldiers began fighting as much to avenge the lost lives of their comrades as much as to defend their homeland.

Dance of the Furies is quite a departure from the other books on World War I that I've read lately.  First of all, it's focus was not on the machinations of governments and the choices made by a very few men in high places.  Rather, the attention falls on individual people and their reactions and responses to the coming storm of World War I.  In addition, Neiberg tells his readers quite a bit about what the international Socialist groups were doing to prevent the War, efforts that might have worked if things had not gotten out of hand so quickly.  In the end, however, even the Socialists got on the defend-the-homeland bandwagon.

An interesting feature of the War, at least in Britain, was the Defense of the Realm Act (DORA).  While we whine about the Patriot Act here, it was remarkably mild compared with DORA.  The British people could not fly kites, could not feed bread to animals, and could not buy binoculars.  Worst of all, the liquor was watered down!  Can you imagine?  One hundred years later, and I am outraged on behalf of all those long-ago Britons.

With all that I liked this book, there were some pretty serious flaws.  First of all, Neiberg relied almost solely on primary sources, especially memoirs written long after the event.  While it is fine to make use of these materials, he should have warned his readers of the potential troubles with them.  For instance, people's perspectives change over time.  Imagine how a German's perspective of their World War I experience might have changed if they were writing after the end of World War II.  In the end, Neiberg takes all his sources at face value and does not provide his readers with any glimpse into how he analyzed the materials and measured their strengths and weaknesses.

Nor does Neiberg tell his readers about the historiography of the War up to the point at which he was writing.  Millions of words have been written about World War I, yet Neiberg does not provide an analysis of the many theories expressed by all those words.  He does not show how his theories--that people did not want war, that they were seduced by the desire to fight a defensive war, etc.--differ from those of other historians.

So, for all that Neiberg has written an interesting book, readers should take it with a grain of salt.  As long as you keep the shaker nearby and use it liberally, there is a lot of good information and interesting insights to be found between the pages of Dance of the Furies. 

Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end - Seneca.

The day has arrived, and I am spending my last few hours as an employee of the Sacramento Superior Court.  I am eagerly awaiting my party, scheduled for the noon hour.  Having caught a glimpse of the decorations, I am delighted to find the green and gold of CSUS as the color scheme.

I am ready to say my goodbyes and set off on my new journey.  I will take the people I love with me, leaving behind any who I feel have wronged me.  With no bitterness or regret, I am eager to see what all my tomorrows have in store for me.

Before He Was A Swimming Pool Game

My favorite teacher at American River College was, not surprisingly, in the history department.  We'll call him Professor Cool--so as not to embarrass him.  The first night of a lower division world history class, he began the lecture with the comment, "Before he was a swimming pool game, Marco Polo was an Italian explorer."  With such a quippy beginning, how could I not love Professor Cool?

This weekend, I read Janet Abu-Lughod's Before European Hegemony: the World System A.D. 1250-1350.  Mind you, I am not a world history scholar.  Or even a European history scholar.  In fact, I am barely a U.S. history scholar, being far more focused on my home state of California and its amazingly rich history.  Nevertheless, this semester at CSUS, I am enrolled in a reading seminar that examines the field of world history.  To my surprise, Abu-Lughod's presentation of an economic history demonstrating the interconnectedness of the medieval world was spellbinding.  Surprising to many of us today, Europe played a very small part in the world economy--it was what Immanual Wallerstein would call a "periphery" state.  The main players in the world trading system were states in the Middle East and Asia, with Italians taking on the role of intermediaries and Northern European regions like Champagne and Flanders just beginning to become involved in the wider world. No one region was dominant, and the connections between them meant that decline in one of them could lead to decline in the entire system (as happened, to a great extent, when the plague swept Europe and Asia and decimated the populations of nearly all the trading partners).

Why is this important?  In my twisted mind, reading about this wide medieval world of cultural and economic exchange made me think about my own situation.  I have been walled up here at the Court for over 25 years.  In that time, I have become detached from the outside world.  I no longer think like a member of the private sector; I have become a government drone.  I rarely have the opportunity to interact, in a business sense, with anyone outside the Court (the exception being the amazing people involved in the AB590 Sargent Shriver Grant).  I am medieval Northern Europe, with little to no exchange with the wider world.

But that's all about to change.  The drawbridge is down, and I am free to engage in the outside world.  It is scary--the cultural norms that I am accustomed to here are likely to bear no resemblance to what awaits me.  Yet, it is an exciting challenge.  Like Marco Polo, I am about to explore something new and interesting.  The journey I am about to undertake will undoubtedly have its difficulties, and I am sure there will be times when I am damned scared.  I'm sure Marco was scared as well.  But, scared or not, I am venturing off to learn new things, to discover new lands, and to expand my horizons.  The world awaits....