I just wanted to note that E.A.J. Johnson's thesis regarding both
Europe and Japan regards the particular type of central place structure
that existed in both places. I would argue that this can be tied in with
the arguments of Jane Jacobs.
In this argument, it is not 'feudalism' as such, but the central
place structure in *some* areas that might be characterised as feudal.
However, in my view arguments regarding spatial structure only
take us part of the way. Speaking loosely, they may be able to explain
the leverage, but they don't explain the origin of the force that is being
leveraged. Until Europe established a semi-peripheral position for itself
post 1492, extracting precious metals to trade with the center, but at
the same time as much as possible acting as a center with respect to the
Americas, the spatial system permitted the development of lower quality
substitutes for imports from the center, but by itself could not permit
peripheral West Asia to leapfrog central East Asia.
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au