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.