Review Of Kenneth Pomeranz's The Great Divergence

The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy by Kenneth Pomeranz, a professor of History at the University of Chicago, is a book about the Western part of the world’s rise to dominance. Pomeranz’s book is considered a very important piece of literature in History, as “the rise of the west” is a widely discussed topic in the field. Many scholars reviewed the book and they all had their own praises and criticisms of it. Three reviews in particular, written by various professors from around the country, all seemed to appreciate the book and its’ well-structured arguments and analysis of the causes of the Great Divergence.

Edward R. Slack, from Indiana State University, wrote one of the reviews mentioned above. In the review, Slack mentioned that Pomeranz’s main argument was that England escaped Malthusianism because of “coercion, disease, luck, a bounty of resources from the colonization of the New World, feudal institutions and the partnership between state and entrepreneur in Europe (p. 495)” and these factors plus industrial revolution, which occurred a little later, is what caused the Great Divergence. Regarding Pomeranz’s methodology, Slack appreciated that he avoided distortions of scale by focusing on regions of similar population, size, and economic vitality and used a

“counter-factual approach” that allowed him to develop a clearer, more detailed picture of the various components and how they effected each other in regards to the world’s trading network.

Slack even went as far as referring to The Great Divergence as “undoubtedly

one the most sophisticated and significant pieces of cliometric scholarship to be published of late, especially in the field of History (p. 497)”. Overall, Slack generally agrees with Pomeranz and said his points were “brilliantly argued”. The only criticisms Slack had were the fact that Pomeranz failed to account for the time period between 1800 and 1830 and how it contributed to the Great Divergence. He also commented that some scholars might have found some of the technological comparisons unreliable and others might have found the use of graphs and charts useful so they could better visualize some of Pomeranz’s points thereby strengthening his argument.
The second review was Lucky England, Normal China by Peter C. Perdue from the Department of History at MIT. Perdue claimed the Pomeranz’s main argument was that China and England/Europe were similar in nearly every important economic area such as standards of living, market development, and institutional structures that affected growth. By doing this, Pomeranz invalidated all Great Divergence theories that stressed “European traits” as being the cause of the Great Divergence. He said Pomeranz attributed Europe’s rise to two main things- a convenient coal supply and access to the abundance of the New World, which allowed England to escape Malthusianism and “leap” ahead of the rest of the world. Perdue mentions that Pomeranz did not introduce any new primary sources however; he says that he extracts valuable information from the sources that he does use. He also called Pomeranz’s evidence of similarities “convincing and their implications large”. He says the methodology used in the book was the use of five main points to argue Europe’s uniqueness. These five points were demography, markets, luxury consumption, labor, and ecology. Perdue agrees with Pomeranz and his arguments and says that he bring the debate about the Industrial Revolution up to date. He says that Pomeranz’s arguments are powerful and cannot be ignored by anyone interested in World History.
The last review was that of the late Andre Gunder Frank, from the University of Miami and Florida International University. Frank, similar to Perdue’s review, said that the main idea of the book was that the most advanced regions of China were just as, if not more, developed than Europe as they had similar or better, standards of living, and life expectancies. He said the Great Divergence happened due to ecological damage and the benefits that Europe had because of their colonies. Frank, like Slack, appreciates Pomeranz’s methodology of comparing Europe’s regions to comparable regions of China like the Yangtze Valley. He also liked how he went beyond just simple comparisons of the two regions. In general, Frank agrees with and praises Pomeranz’s work with his only criticism being that he could have expanded his argument even farther. He said that Pomeranz introduces arguments that make all previous work on the subject obsolete. About the book as a whole, Frank says it is “bar none, the biggest and most important contribution to our new understanding of the causes and mechanisms that caused the great divergence (p. 180)” and an “entirely new and refreshing departure (p. 181)”. He even calls Pomeranz the “most important, accomplished and hopefully the most influential member of what Jack Goldstone calls the California School (p. 182)”.
Pomeranz’s book The Great Divergence inspired many scholars to write their own takes on the information presented in the book. The three articles discussed above all seemed to agree with the arguments in the book and appreciated it for not having Eurocentric and biased view. The book was also acknowledged for having well researched arguments that were just as convincing as they were detailed. Overall, the three reviewers seemed to be fans of the book and Pomeranz’s presentation of his information.