I always agree with Ken, but...
comparing time series is always tricky, since one can chose begin/end
dates to show virtually anything [as with statistics!]
The nearly equal population growth betewen Eur and Chin that Ken mentions
is probably true, but by starting in 1300 something, he includes the
high European growth rate that compensated for the high/er European death
rate during the Black plague [probably cause Europeans had less imuunity
because they had been more isolated!]. If we start the comparison later -
and more confined to the period under discussion about tech and other
growth, then China wins hands down.
eg for 1600-1750 [the famous 17th century 'scientific revolution ' in
Europe] the figures in my book are
China & Japan 90 percent increase
India 89 percent
All Asia 74 percent
Europe 57 percent
Europe's pop grew from 1400 rom 14% of the world total to 18% in 1600,
but then it remained STABLE at 18-19% till 1750, and grew to 20% in 1800.
Meanwhile Asian pop grew from 60% of total world pop to 66% in 1750.
moreover, these 66% of world pop produced 80% of world GNP in 1750, while
Europe's about 20% of world pop produced LESS than the remaining 20% of
world output, since the Africans anbd American ALSO contributed to
those 20 % AND HELPED the Europeans produce their share of that 20%.
So obviously Asians were far more productive, and Chinese even more
than that.
All calculations of GNP per capita, percapita income [by Europeans like
Bairoch and Maddison! who want to show that Europe developed on its
own!!], nutrition, life-expectancy, etc. favor China over Europe till
at least 1800.
The whole European 'miracle' before that, is no more than a Eurocentric
myth invented in the 19th century.
The Landes book is being reviewd - also farvorably - in the NYT and WSJ
and with claims that it represents some great new advance over previous
knowledge. Yet Landes still claims that "obviously culture made the
difference", and of course that claim is nothing more than the same old
Eurocentric myth that has been disconfirmed again and again. It is sad
indeed to see this old myth resurrected now as some new revelation,
instead of abandoning it entirely and going on to do history
"Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist - es gibt nur universelle Geschichte" as
Leopold von Ranke correctly SAID [but alas did NOT himself do!]. Landes
still SAYS the same, but also DOES the opposite. So did Bairoch in his
1500 page three volume 'world' econ hist published in May 1997.
so far as i know, only Ken himself and me are even TRYING to do a GLOBAL
job, which is the only kind that can tell us what we need to know not
only about China but about Europe and the West itself.
Witness that
Braudel wrote a blub for Wallerstein's Modern World-System [still on the
dustcover of my 1974 edition] that says "as historians know, Europe built
a world around itself". Alas what historians know is historically wrong.
He also said that "Europeans invented world history and put it to good
use" for themselves. Well they did not invent it, but they did RE-invent
it in the 19th-20th centuries, and they did put it to good use to
bamboozle people, apparently still including Landes and De Long and
umpteen others. Alas the 'history' they 'know' is historically totally
COUNTER factual. It's high time to get on with the real job
respectfully submitted
gunder frank
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~