Thankfully the 'Landes/Frank' discussion has gone way beyond either of us.
First, Landes received some considerable assent with a little dissent.
Then, Frank received some qualified assent along the lines of Ghandi's
famous retort about Western civilization: It would be a good idea,
meaning not only what Ghandi said but also what Frank claims to say and do
but also does not. So more and more the discussants have gone off on
their own to have thir own say, and to debate with each other, thus
increasingly leaving Landes and [except for Taylor & Jones and Moore]
also Frank out of it. So much the better. That absolves Landes and me
from having to intervene in most of this discussion.
Therefore, I here limit myself to brief 'comments' on specific
recent debaters points only
- Don Wagner on recent events, I agree and even more with those of Peter
Cook posted by ...
- Richard Moore, with whom there evidently is disagreement, and with
- Mark Jones, who more than disagrees with me and what i wrote about
Marx et al. So be it.
- Barendse does not see so rosy a future for Asia either. Only the future
will tell, but it is not acceptable to rest that prognisis on the current
financial 'meltdown' that others - not so much Barendse- invoke to prove
that Asia was allegedly only a flash in the pan
- Pat Manning disputes with the editors of econ-hist, and good for him,
but I find my name used in vain when he refers to a Europe/China
alternative or disjuncture that leaves the rest of the world out of
consideration. My whole point is the need for holistic globalism and not
just isolated comparisons between here and there, where/when-ever they may
be. its nice to bring Africa in, but thats also not enough.
- that brings me to my own reservations about the ec-hist editorial
re-phrasing of our concerns. i long ago privately wished them good luck
with that [which they have not had since others continue to go off on
their own favorite tangents] and i proposed some re-phrasing of their
ec-hist re-phrasing, some of which i now make public in excerpted form
below:
Their item/question # 2 was that if the explanation we seek is NOT
the Marx Weberian et al ones, as some allege, then what was
it?
They then pose questions # 3 and # 4, about which I wrote them the
following:
3. from your premise # 3 [on Asia/Europe], your final sentence/s
conclusion in # 3 is a non sequitur, or at least not the only
possible sequitur. The resulting question is NOT just or even primarily
'what in internat/world trade benefited Europe rather than Asia?'
The question is more - at least according to the one I have been pushing -
what conditions/circumstances in the world [political?] economy [including
but not only trade] at that time led to the observed 'decisions/choices'
here and there- which resulted in the IR/bifurcation? I suggest that this
is a singificantly different and operationally more useful posing of
'the' question 3.
[My editorial addition here : Hence I also assent to the Manning
objection to confining ourselves to a simple China/Europe comparison,
when what we are - or should be - dealing with is a WORLD
economic/historical problem]
4.I believe it is a serious mistake for you econ hist editors to separate
out # 4 [on colonial inputs to Europe and IR] from #3 [ and from1 & 2].
For the answers to [and even the asking of] # 4 is an
essential element of the answer/s to # 3. Moreover, when you ask
"what mechanism" it would help if you specified a bit, eg food/energy,
ecology/demography, capital, finance, organization institution- for those
who thing that that really matters, and especially opportunity costs and
benefits -- but not only in and for Europe [eg less sheep eating less
men], but for some Europeans relative to others in Europe and around the
world. Of course it is my argument that it was # 4 that helped generate #
3 and that it was the 'only' thing that even gave any Europeans access
to # 3. That is of course why # 4 is part and parcel of # 3 - if you
re-phrase # 3 better.
I hope that with this 4th intervention I may now sign off - at least till
the next time, if any.
thanks to all for all your interest and effort.
gunder frank
june 4, AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andre Gunder Frank
University of Toronto
96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616
Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071
CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca
My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 13:54:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gunder Frank <agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca>
To: "Joshua L. Rosenbloom" <jrosenbloom@ukans.edu>
"jack a. goldstone" <jagoldstone@ucdavis.edu>,
J B Owens <OWENJACK@FS.isu.edu>,
Albert J Bergesen <albert@U.Arizona.EDU>,
agf <agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca>, dlandes@harvard.edu
Subject: Re: EH.R: Frank versus Landes an Editorial Interjection
my first reaction -PRIVATE to you and your co-signers, and my cc's
Good for you for trying to organize us a bit. good luck!
But I have serious reservations about your summary questions - and if
posing the [right] question is more than half of getting the right answer,
I fear that your questions are not moving us in that direction.
in re your questions and taking your lead my re-phrasing by number:
1. accident - thats not a very useful proposition or even questioon, and
especialy not if you fail to emphasize the difference bwtween accident and
contingency/conjuncture [which is what Ken,Jack AGF etc contend].
So i think it would be more useful to ask what 'particular/specific''
conditions/circumstances then and there resulted in the path taken
2. yes, but then what? that is if answer to # 1 is NOT the Marx
Weberian et al ones, as the people you name allege, then what was it?
3. from your premise # 3, your final sentence/s conclusion in # 3 is a non
sequitur, or at least not the only popssible sequitur. The
resulting question is NOT just or even primarily 'what in internat/world
trade benefited Europe rather than Asia?'
The question is more - at least according to the one i have been pushing -
what conditions/circumstances in the world [political?] economy [including
but not only trade] at that time led to the observed 'decions/choices' here
and there- which resulted in the IR/bifurcation?
That is a singificantly different and operationally more useful posing of
'the' question 3.
4.I believe it is a serious mistake for you to separate out # 4 from #3
[ and from1 & 2]. For the answers to [and even the asking of] # 4 is an
essential element of the answer/s to # 3. Moreover, when you ask
"what mechanism" it would help if you specified a bit, eg food/energy,
ecology/demography, capital, finance, organization institution- for those
who thing that that really matters, and especially opportunity costs and
benefits -- but not only in and for Europe [eg less sheep eating less
men], but for some Europeans relative to others in Europe and around the
world. [Of course it is my argument that it was # 4 that helped generate #
3 and that it was the 'only' thing that even gave any Europeans access
to # 3]. That is of course why # 4 is part and parcel of # 3 - if you
re-phrase # 3 better.
5. My summary: you are still [re]prhasing the discussion in mostly the
same old procedural [paradigmatic?] terms that will not let better
answers emerge out of your 4 sided box. the point is to change the box to
a single round global one - and then we might get someplace.
and dont tell me Alan, that his is just more empty phrasealogy.
I have printed out Alan's and am starting to styudy it now for possible
response. but since Alan is away for a week, i suppose i have some time.
best regards to all
gunder
On Thu, 28
May 1998, Joshua L. Rosenbloom wrote:
> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 10:26:09 -0500
> From: "Joshua L. Rosenbloom" <jrosenbloom@ukans.edu>
> Reply-To: eh.res@eh.net
> To: eh.res@eh.net
> Subject: EH.R: Frank versus Landes an Editorial Interjection
>
> ÿÿÿÿÿÿEH.RES POSTING ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
>
> The current discussion prompted by Andre Gunder Frank's critical assessment
> of David Landes' new book has generated a wide array of interesting lines of
> discussion here and elsewhere on the net. Without foreclosing any of these
> topics we feel it may be useful at this point to exercise our editorial
> prerogative in an attempt to sharpen the focus of the discussion.
>
> The principle contribution of Landes' Wealth and Poverty of Nations is to
> offer an explanation for why the Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain
> first. Professor Frank and others have criticized this explanation as unduly
> Euro-centric in its approach.
>
> It is hard to argue that knowledge of world history is worse than ignorance,
> but the issue is to articulate precisely how such knowledge informs our
> understanding of the Industrial Revolution. Judging from the discussion on
> this list, it appears that there is a general willingness to accept the
> evidence that up to c. 1800 Britain and Europe did not enjoy a marked
> advantage in standard of living vis-à-vis parts of China (and possibly other
> regions of the world?). But the emergence of differences in the standard
> of living only at this late date does not preclude the existence of earlier
> differences that would explain the post-1800 bifurcation.
>
> The unresolved issue then is to clarify the source of the post-1800
> "bifurcation", and to explain how a knowledge of world history would help
> inform this view. In the last few days the discussion has begun to focus
> more closely on this topic, and we want to encourage that focus. To that
> end, it may be helpful to identify possible arguments for the importance of
> world history. We can think of at least four, but we are certain that there
> are others that someone may wish to articulate.
>
> 1. Europe's primacy was an "accident." The logical problems of attempting
> to interpret primacy as evidence of superiority have been explored by N.F.R.
> Crafts ("Industrial Revolution in Britain and France: Some Thoughts on the
> Question 'Why Was England First," Economic History Review 30 (1977)) and the
> subsequent discussion. The corollary of this view is that the Industrial
> Revolution could equally well have occurred in China, India, or somewhere
> else. If this is the point, then what is the evidence to support such a view?
>
> 2. Author's like Landes, Jones (in Growth Recurring), Mokyr, Rosenberg and
> Birdzell, and McNeill, have all stressed aspects of European history that
> appear to differentiate it from other areas of the world, and are at least
> plausibly linked to Europe's distinctive growth trajectory. But more
> careful examination of non-European history shows that these characteristics
> are in fact not uniquely European.
>
> 3. Europe's take-off was the result of its interactions with Asia as part of
> a world trading system. The counterfactual here is that in the absence of
> Asia, Europe would not have undergone the Industrial Revolution. If this is
> the argument the question becomes one of identifying the specific mechanisms
> through which trade benefited Europe differentially, and how Asian trade in
> particular contributed to Europe's take off.
>
> 4. Europe's access to New World gold, silver, or other natural resources was
> the source of its advantage. If this is the argument, what was the
> mechanism by which these resources stimulated European growth?
>
>
> Joshua Rosenbloom
> Barbara Sands
> Alan Taylor
>
> Editors, EH.RES
>
> ÿÿÿÿ FOOTER TO EH.RES POSTING ÿÿÿÿ
> For information, send the message "info EH.RES" to lists@eh.net.
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andre Gunder Frank
University of Toronto
96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616
Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071
CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca
My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~