calls “output without development.” The English, on the other hand, kept searching for ways to make labor more productive, so that each farmer was producing more crops. They discovered new labor-saving devices, using animals and inventing machines. When the multi-spindle wheel, which required one trained operator, was developed, for example, it was widely adapted in England. But in China, the inferior but cheaper single spindle persisted, because it could be used by many untrained operators. (Since labor had little value, why spend money on labor-saving machines?) Ultimately, the result was that a small number of Britons were able to farm huge swaths of land. By the eighteenth century, the average farm size in southern England was 150 acres; in the Yangtze delta, it was about 1 acre.
The naval expeditions also illustrate the difference in the Eastern and Western approaches. The European missions were less grand but more productive. They were often entirely private or public-private partnerships and used new methods to pay for the trips. The Dutch pioneered innovations in finance and taxation; their herring traders were using futures contracts widely by the 1580s. And these financial mechanisms marked a crucial advance, because they ensured funding for an ever-increasing number of expeditions. Each trip was intended to turn a profit, make new discoveries, and find new products. The project moved forward by trial and error, with every expedition building on past ones. Over time, a chain reaction of entrepreneurship, exploration, science, and learning developed.
In China, by contrast, the voyages depended on the interests and power of one monarch. When he was gone, they stopped. In one case, a new emperor even ordered the destruction of ship schematics, so the capacity to build them was lost. The Chinese used cannons effectively in the thirteenth century. Three hundred years later, they couldn’t operate one without a European to show them how. The Harvard economic historian David Landes concludes that China failed to “generate a continuous, self-sustaining process of scientific and technological advance.” 7 Its achievements ended up being episodic and ephemeral. This was the tragedy of Asia: even when there was knowledge, there was no learning.
Is Culture Destiny?
Why did non-Western countries stand still while the West moved forward? These questions have been debated for centuries, and there is no neat answer. Private property rights, good institutions of governance, and a strong civil society (that is, one not dominated by the state) were clearly crucial for growth in Europe and, later, the United States. In contrast, the Russian czar theoretically owned his entire country. In China, the Ming court was run by mandarins who disdained commerce. Almost everywhere in the non-Western world, civil society was weak and dependent on the government. Local businessmen in India were always captive to the whims of the court. In China, rich merchants would abandon their businesses to master Confucian classics so that they could become favorites of the court.
The Moguls and the Ottomans were warriors and aristocrats who thought of trade as unglamorous and unimportant (even though the Middle East had a long merchant tradition). In India, this bias was reinforced by the low position of businessmen in the Hindu caste hierarchy. Historians have taken particular note of Hindu beliefs and practices as barriers to development. Paul Kennedy argues, “The sheer rigidity of Hindu religious taboos militated against modernization: rodents and insects could not be killed, so vast amounts of foodstuffs were lost; social mores about handling refuse and excreta led to permanently insanitary conditions, a breeding ground for bubonic plagues; the caste system throttled initiative, instilled ritual, and restricted the market; and the influence wielded over Indian local rulers by the Brahman priests meant that this obscurantism was effective at
The naval expeditions also illustrate the difference in the Eastern and Western approaches. The European missions were less grand but more productive. They were often entirely private or public-private partnerships and used new methods to pay for the trips. The Dutch pioneered innovations in finance and taxation; their herring traders were using futures contracts widely by the 1580s. And these financial mechanisms marked a crucial advance, because they ensured funding for an ever-increasing number of expeditions. Each trip was intended to turn a profit, make new discoveries, and find new products. The project moved forward by trial and error, with every expedition building on past ones. Over time, a chain reaction of entrepreneurship, exploration, science, and learning developed.
In China, by contrast, the voyages depended on the interests and power of one monarch. When he was gone, they stopped. In one case, a new emperor even ordered the destruction of ship schematics, so the capacity to build them was lost. The Chinese used cannons effectively in the thirteenth century. Three hundred years later, they couldn’t operate one without a European to show them how. The Harvard economic historian David Landes concludes that China failed to “generate a continuous, self-sustaining process of scientific and technological advance.” 7 Its achievements ended up being episodic and ephemeral. This was the tragedy of Asia: even when there was knowledge, there was no learning.
Is Culture Destiny?
Why did non-Western countries stand still while the West moved forward? These questions have been debated for centuries, and there is no neat answer. Private property rights, good institutions of governance, and a strong civil society (that is, one not dominated by the state) were clearly crucial for growth in Europe and, later, the United States. In contrast, the Russian czar theoretically owned his entire country. In China, the Ming court was run by mandarins who disdained commerce. Almost everywhere in the non-Western world, civil society was weak and dependent on the government. Local businessmen in India were always captive to the whims of the court. In China, rich merchants would abandon their businesses to master Confucian classics so that they could become favorites of the court.
The Moguls and the Ottomans were warriors and aristocrats who thought of trade as unglamorous and unimportant (even though the Middle East had a long merchant tradition). In India, this bias was reinforced by the low position of businessmen in the Hindu caste hierarchy. Historians have taken particular note of Hindu beliefs and practices as barriers to development. Paul Kennedy argues, “The sheer rigidity of Hindu religious taboos militated against modernization: rodents and insects could not be killed, so vast amounts of foodstuffs were lost; social mores about handling refuse and excreta led to permanently insanitary conditions, a breeding ground for bubonic plagues; the caste system throttled initiative, instilled ritual, and restricted the market; and the influence wielded over Indian local rulers by the Brahman priests meant that this obscurantism was effective at
Similar Books
