Thanks to Professor Rozov for concretizing this debate a bit. It seems to
me his factors of European dominance might be further broken down into two
categories: 1) factors contributing to the early dominance of Europe, and
2) factors that sustained European dominance into the 17th, 18th and 19th
centuries. Because what is crucial to explain is the European explosion
in the first place, after 1450. From there Europe was never challenged in
terms of trading dominance until the decline of British hegemony in the
20th century.
As you all know, Wallerstein discusses the first topic in detail in MSW I
(pp.38-63): Why Portugal? Why not China? Portugal had maximal "will and
possibility." There was also the search for gold and silver, trade
routes, other luxuries. Are these arguments still accepted? As to what
sustained European dominance after 1500, several of Rovoz's reasons seem
very applicable. Surely the sheer intensity of competition between
European countries in a kind of continental community also produced
innovations and a drive for expansion outside of Europe. I'm not very
familiar with the literature on these issues, and would be interested in
finding out what the best sources on it are.
Daniel Green
University of Delaware