The Great Divergence: A Critical Assessment on Kenneth Pomeranz

[pic 1][pic 2][pic 3][pic 4]

The Great Divergence: A Critical Assessment on Kenneth Pomeranz

        Recognized as one of the most controversial historical debates of the premodern world, “The Great Divergence”, a term fashioned by American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, encompasses the way in which Western Europe’s economic growth surpassed that of any other continent.^[1] Kenneth Pomeranz’s ‘Political Economy and Ecology on the Eve of Industrialization: Europe, China and the Global Conjuncture’ revolutionized the way in which historians view The Great Divergence.^[2] Pomeranz’s work dissects Europe’s progression between 1600 and 1800 by analysing several variables of Europe in comparison to Asia, thus allowing him to come to the conclusion that there are significant parallels between the two historic powerhouses that cannot be overlooked. Another historian by the name of Peter A. Coclanis had reviewed Pomeranz’s interpretation a decade later and had much to say about his insights. Coclanis uses a method he calls “The Four REs and One Without^[3]” to assess Pomeranz’s work in which he praises him for his outlook on the subject but criticises his unimpressive data and narrow-minded conclusion.

         Pomeranz argues that one major parallel between Europe and Asia is the increase in popular consumption. His findings indicate that per capita consumption of silk, tea, sugar and cloth of China are comparable to that of Europe. For example, in 1750, sugar consumption per capita in China was between 3.8 and 5.0 lbs., whereas in Europe it was 2.2 lbs. but 10 lbs. in Britain alone. In addition, in 1840, per capita tea consumption in China was 0.7 lbs., 1.0 lbs. in Britain, and only 0.12 lbs. in all of Europe excluding Russia. According to Pomeranz’s data, China (more specifically the Lower Yangzi, southeast coast, and Lingnan) was on par with Britain’s consumption which can be contributed to the increasing levels of labour specialization at this time.^[4] Pomeranz does indicate that the data provided is not necessarily exact and the data tables for China are incomplete which does not allow for a convincing argument. Peter Coclanis identifies this as one of the major drawbacks to Pomeranz’s work when he states, “Pomeranz’s own argument has too many ‘black swan’ elements to prove convincing or intellectually satisfying.” Coclanis references three ‘REs’- Refraction, Reorientation, and Rejuvenation- when assessing Pomeranz’s comparison of Eurasia, praising him for his approach and highlighting his public effect, but this was not enough to convince others of his conclusions.  

        Lumber assumed the position of the main source of fuel for Eurasia prior to the eighteenth century, so much so that there was an apparent deforestation problem at this time. Countries in Europe such as Britain and Belgium were able to delay this crisis on account of a coal boom in the late 1800s- early 1900s but the timber shortages were no longer a concern here after North American imports relieved this pressure.^[5] Pomeranz assigns the root cause of Europe’s advancements to the discovery of a large sum of coal and the plentiful resources available to them in The New World. Although this is the point in time when central innovations were discovered and Europe began to pull ahead^[6], coal and colonization were not the only contributors.  Coclanis explains that Pomeranz fails to integrate other significant factors such as government, institutional, and cultural influences^[7] which also played a key role in Europe’s accomplishments.