Talk:Great Divergence

Why the China?

Maybe this article should talk less about China, and more about the great divergence. China's lack of growth is its own subject. The Great Divergence presumably should discuss things like the industrial revolution, modern economic growth, and the lack of growth in undeveloped nations. China should not dominate. —Preceding comment added by User:SushiK3 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The High Level Equilibrium Trap addresses China's stagnation, not the Great Divergence. The Manchu section, besides being off-topic, is not reliably sourced. I propose to remove these and the China paragraph in the introduction. Kanguole 09:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To repeat the question, why is there all this material about China in this article? Isn't this article supposed to be about the divergence of the West? Kanguole 19:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the material on the Great Divergence seem to focus on China (which was roughly ahead of the west until the 17th century). I believe that a specific section on why each civilization diverged from the west is useful for this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But that's the wrong way round: these other civilizations didn't diverge; they stayed relatively still while the West diverged. China is used as a reference point because it was static at a high level, but it is not the subject.

This article suffers from synthesis and speculation. There's a temptation for it to become a speculative comparison of the development of the West and China, or to be side-tracked into theories of Chinese economic history, which are both off-topic here and are best addressed in existing articles.

Elvin does at least make a comparison with Europe, though only in passing as his main focus is on China. The Manchu section however is speculation, has no connection with the topic, and is apparently unsourced. Kanguole 23:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove specifics - China

Remove focus on China! CantorFriedman (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Qing theory

Teeninvestor has re-added a sentence on the Qing between two relating to European development. That belongs in an article on Chinese history, not here. Kanguole 23:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article relates to the reasons for the Great Divergence, and this theory deserves to be considered as at least one. No one doubts the development of Europe; yet the stagnation of China after roughly 1500 also deserves an explanation. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, it was Europe that diverged, not China. China is a benchmark against which Europe is measured, but it was not itself involved in the divergence.

You seem to be proceeding from an assumption that China was on a path that would lead to industrialization, and the question is what stopped it. I don't think there is any scholarly consensus for that position. Kanguole 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is actually a topic of heated debate among scholars. It was generally agreed that prior to roughly the 17th century, Incomes and wealth in China exceeded that of Europe. During the Song Dynasty and Ming Dynasty, there was strong economic progress and growth, and it is considered a mystery why they did not develop an industrial revolution. This was a topic explored by prominent sinologists such as Joseph Needham, so I doubt it would be a position that would have no "scholarly consensus".Teeninvestor (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference attached to this sentence is unclear. Does it refer to Peterson's introduction (from p1) or Spence's chapter on Kangxi (pp120-183)? Precisely where does it postulate that the Qing prevented industialization? Kanguole 11:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the volume of the Cambridge History of China cited in the article doesn't seem to mention the Great Divergence. That's not to say that the Qing theory isn't relevant – it may be covered in one of the many other volumes or another source entirely – but I would like to know who says it is. If the economic policies of the Quing dynasty played a role in the Great Divergence, wouldn't Pomeranz mention it in his book The Great Divergence?

"I believe that this is actually a topic of heated debate among scholars... This was a topic explored by prominent sinologists such as Joseph Needham, so I doubt it would be a position that would have no "scholarly consensus"." So which is it to be? Is there heated debate (ie: a lot of disagreement) or have scholars reached an agreement? You're contradicting yourself at the moment. Also, reference 6 doesn't support the text it's supposed to. The relevant bit from the Wikipedia article is "these scholars claim that although wages paid in grain were equal in Northwest Europe and prosperous parts of Asias such as Southern China, wages paid in silver were substantially lower in Asia". The page referenced from Allen's article mentions no other scholars, grain wages are completely absent, and only European settlements are mentioned. This needs fixing. Teeninvestor, I urge to be more precise in your referencing.

Saying Newcomen invented the steam engine is stretching things a bit. A rudimentary steam engine has been recorded as early as the first century AD; what Newcomen did was refine the steam engine and create something commercially viable. His ODNB entry has him down as inventing the atmospheric steam engine, rather than the steam engine as such. Where did you get your information? Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, I am not responsible for the last part of the article. As to the Qing theory, I have substituted the correct citation (I was copying from my econ history article). There is heated debate, but a substantial minority of historians, in China and other countries would probably agree with this theory, so I believe it should be represented. It is not as if I am deleting all other theories (indeed, Qing theory is only 1 sentence, while the others are whole paragraphs), and substituting my own.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What is this Li and Zheng (2001) reference you've added, and what does it claim? Kanguole 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I also see that the Li/Zheng book has been a problematic source for Economic history of China (pre-1911). According to this analysis, that book is deeply flawed and unreliable as a source. Kanguole 01:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the Qing caused the divergence rests on the assumption that Ming China was on a path that would lead to industrialization, and it is therefore necessary to explain what stopped it. You have provided no evidence that this assumption is supported by scholars in the field. Is there any? I see that User:Madalibi explained this very point to you at some length in February 2009. Kanguole 01:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the Ming and its predecessor was on a path to industrialization (or at least a potential candidate for it), is accepted by scholars. For example, here in the Cambridge history of china Ming dynasty introduction, we find this passage: "The growing importance of the maritime southeast provinces and the centrifugal forces that propelled many of the region's hardy residents into lives abroad preceded Europe's era of mercantile expansion and might have rivaled it." Another quote from the alien regimes volume states that: "Did the dynasties of conquest really represent a major setback in the "natural" development of Chinese society, the Chinese economy, Chinese political institutions, and Chinese culture? Without them, would the pattern of rapid growth and rational organization that had characterized Sung China in the eleventh century have continued? Did they abort what some scholars regard as the emergence of a "modern age" under Sung?" And this is just with Song, a dynasty which preceded the Ming by nearly 100 years. In addition, if you had read the work of Joseph Needham and other sinologists, they routinely made comparisons of Ming and Song to europe at that time; it was in fact stated by Needham and others that Europe's productivity in agriculture did not exceed china until the 17th century, and its iron production did not exceed that of the Song (an earlier dynasty than the Ming) until the 18th. I believe that the idea that China was a potential candidate for industrialization is well accepted; indeed, if otherwise Pomeranz would hardly need to mention in his paper that "the idea that China could have attained the industrial revolution is absurd" if that idea had never emerged in the first place. Later, I will get more sources to prove my point, but I think you understand that point.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Each of these is several assumptions away from someone saying that Ming China was on a path that would lead to industrialization.

1. No connection is made between emigration and industrialization.
2. The alien regimes intro relates to the Song and the Jurchen and Mongols in the 13th century. It implies nothing of the Ming and Manchu four centuries later.
3. There's no reason to assume that high productivity with pre-industrial methods leads to industrialization. The fact that Europe was less productive until it industrialized would seem to argue against that, no? Maybe having something that works well is a disincentive to trying to improve less effective methods.
4. That Pomeranz calls something "absurd" is hardly evidence that it's accepted.

You have inferred your conclusion from these using unstated assumptions. What is needed is people actually saying this about the Ming. Kanguole 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're changing the context, Kanguole. You asked me whether scholars stated that China was a potential source of industrialization. I have just proven that above (see for example the quotes about a "modern age" emerging during the Song and other quotes). As to the citation about the Ming and Manchus, I have already provided a citation, but if you want I can add another citation about the Song instead(which I had shown you above). You also ignored my earlier quote from a volume of the Ming about mercantile expansion. Yes, many scholars do not accept the Qing theory, though enough accept it to at least make it a minority viewpoint worthy of inclusion.

This is off topic, but as to your suggestion that high productivity undermines industrial growth, it is completely absurd; by your logic, then the industrial revolution should have occured in the jungles of central africa, with the lowest productivity and the most "incentive"; industrial revolution happened after a certain amount of capital and advances were made; England's relatively liberal policies allowed accumulation to a point where industrial technology was able to be developed and profitable (which Qing China did not reach).Teeninvestor (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's always been the same question: who are the scholars that accept the theory that the Qing caused the Great Divergence by diverting China from the road towards industrialization? Anyone who holds that must also hold that China was on that road to industrialization during the Ming period. Does anyone say that? The achievements of the Song are not relevant to this question, unless you want to blame the Yuan (or the Ming). I have asked for these scholars several times now. You have given many reasons for your belief, but you have not produced any historians directly addressing either of these questions. Kanguole 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you two be ok with taking a laissez-faire approach to the article for the next month, while the students have a go at it? I think the university project could be greatly beneficial to the article and while the issues raised here have been relevant to the article, I don't think we should get too bogged down here as the article is going to change a lot. I don't want our discussion to adversely affect how the article will develop, or for the students to think that what we're talking about here is of the utmost importance to the article when there may be other issues. After reading the link Piotrus provided, it looks like the students will have a structured approach to writing this and students generally understand the principles of referencing etc and what sources are appropriate. So perhaps the best thing we can do for this article is to take a back seat, shelve WP:BOLD for a while, and help out with tasks such as formatting which are difficult to pick up. Editing for the first time can be daunting, so let's try to avoid putting people off. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. My goal is to have the students involved and discussing on this talk page; hopefully this will benefit everyone (but please remember - they will all be very new to this project, from things like wiki syntax to wikiquette). One of the best things to do in the near future is to suggest what sources you think they should look at. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, I agree with your point. I certainly will be leaving the article alone, as I can imagine that the resources available to these students will certainly be superior to what currently exists. As I have said earlier, I welcome the help of all possible editors.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Prices paragraph

The last paragraph of the article is also a concern because it seems to be weighing research papers about a specicialized part of the evidence in this large and complex field. I think the story is that the conventional view is that the divergence had started well before industrialization, Pomeranz and Parthasarathi say the grain purchasing power of wages was about the same around 1800, but Allen, Broadberry and Gupta say silver equivalents support the earlier date. But it would better if some overview book did the synthesis for us. Kanguole 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I see this there is some activity on this talk page :) I want to give interested editors heads up that this article may likely become a subject of an educational assignment aiming to expand it and raise to to a Good Article class over the next month or so. This assignment has led to good results in the past, but please note that with the exception of the course supervisor (myself) the new editors who will be working on this article are very new to Wikipedia. Any assistance and guidance you can offer to them will be much appreciated, and let's keep this in mind :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor students, over here in the UK university is finishing for the summer soon! Anyway, it would be good for this article to get some attention so good luck to them. Nev1 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome the help of university students in fixing this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Project - Politics/Leadership To-Do List

Hello my group has chosen The Great Divergence for our Global Society Wikipedia project. I have the subcategory of 18th Century Politics and Leadership in relation to the Great Divergence. I plan on researching Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Some areas of interest so far: Britain- Kingdom of Great Britain; France - French Revolution; Portugal - Marquis of Pombal; Conflict – Britain and France; Enlightenment Philosophes – Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau. This list will be altered and revised in the upcoming days.

Kro14 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Kro14

Roman To Do List Technology

Hey guys I am going to be researching technological advances of the time period that facilitated the Great Divergence. I'll research military advances especially maritime improvements on behalf of the East. I will also look up any great scientists, engineers, or leaders of the time whose contributions spread technology through the West. As I research, I'm sure I'll find other factors that I'm not considering at the moment. I'm excited to work on this! Any suggestions are welcome, please!

-Roman RomanHarlovic (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To Do List

I am focusing on the subcategory Country Specific Ideologies. The countries we plan on examining include Great Britain, France, Germany. Spain, Italy and Portugal; right now I am in the process of researching these countries and their ideologies during this period. Considering the span of time of the Great Divergence, this will be quite daunting! Of course over the remaining week, more specific plans of execution will emerge. Helgacrane (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be working on my sections on wed. and thurs. (Just been finding info and figuring out what to write) By friday, I plan on having a cleaned up draft by friday afternoon. I plan on focusing on the ideologies of the 18th and 19th centuries. Helgacrane (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Industry/Economics To Do List

I will be working on the industrial and economic advances that have contributed to the Great Divergence. I have already found a couple sources of information, one book and a couple academic publications, but any assistance would be appreciated. Derekl366 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a small outline of how I intend to setup the Industry Section over the next day or 2, afterward I will switch my focus to economics. Most of this will probably change by the time I am finished, I want to divide up the Economics sections some more once I start working on it. Let me know what you think.

• Industry
  • Agriculture
  • Fuel/Resources
  • Trade
  • Textiles
  • Industrial Revolution
• Economics
  • pre-1870
  • post-1870

Derekl366 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Time Period?

There seems to be disagreement as to when the Great Divergence took place. While it seems that it started as early as the 16th century, it most notably took off starting in the early 1800's. My topic of technology will chiefly focus on this time period, seeing as this is the period of most noticeable technological advancement.

What time periods are you guys going to focus on for your sections? Does anybody have a problem with me focusing on the 19th century?

-Roman RomanHarlovic (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you can find sources that actually discuss this very issue, and/or clearly state when did the GD take place. If sources disagree on the date, that's fine - just point that out in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I plan on elaborating on the 18th century politics. And I have no problem with you focusing on technology in the 19th century.

Kro14 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Kro14

-I don't think there is a problem with you talking about the 19th century, but I am wondering...does it hurt our page by discussing various centuries? Shouldn't each section be more cohesive? I guess when we keep working on the page it will be more cohesive. Helgacrane (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

All of my sources seem to focus on late 18th century to early 20th century, mostly the 19th. Sure advances had taken place earlier in the 16th century, but I think this time period most represents when Europe actually diverged from the rest of the world. Derekl366 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Overview section needs changing

This is an early comment - I will not be reviewing this article for at least a week or so - but the overview section must be renamed (and likely, rewritten). Encyclopedic articles should not have an overview sections - that is, no overview sections beyond the lead. The lead should only summarize key points that are discussed in the article. So whether the overview is renamed, rewritten or merged into other sections, by the time this article is done, it should have a comprehensive lead - and no section titled "overview". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

- Who wants to write the lead? I realize that thinking about the lead at this point is very premature. I don't have a problem doing it but if someone else would like to create the lead once everyone shows exactly what they are going to focus/write about, then that is fine too. Helgacrane (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstood

Umm, I think the article fundamentally misunderstands/misrepresents Pomeranz' thesis (as exemplified in the review by Clark for example). The whole point is that the "old view" was that Europe pulled away from Asia (China, mostly) in the 16th century - and this view, according to Pomeranz was wrong or at least incomplete. According to Pomeranz and most newer research in economic history, the "Great Divergence" didn't take place until the Industrial Revolution in Britain was underway (if not mostly done with), so we're talking second half of 19th century at least.

The article appears to take the summarizing of the "old view" found in Clark's review of Pomeranz as THE definition of Great Divergence, whearas in fact that is just a description of a view which the book/definition is debunking. Consider these parts of the review (I'm ignoring here the lack of paraphrasing of this source found in the article, which could constitute a copy vio):

"The prevailing view has been that the West surpassed the East in technological creativity by the time the Portuguese arrived in Macao in 1557. At that point, China and Japan were sophisticated but stagnant economies. The greater technological creativity of the West, home grown, led to Europe’s domination of the world economy."

This is a summary of the "prevailing view".

"In the first part of the book, Pomeranz sets out to show, instead, that at the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the Chinese were just as advanced as the West in matters of per capita consumption, urbanization, life expectancies, markets, institutions, land yields, technological dynamism, and anything else. The divergence so painfully evident between China and the West by 1900 had its origins after the onset of the Industrial Revolution"

This clearly states that the whole point of Pomeranz' book is to argue against this incorrect, "prevailing view" (emphasis mine) that the "Great Divergence" took place in the 16th century.

I'm going to leave it alone for now since it appears to be a work in progress, but the article has these things flipped.radek (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems to raise a question of scope. Is the subject of this article to be Pomeranz's thesis and reaction to it, or the underlying phenomenon and the range of views to which Pomeranz contributed? (According to Frank's review, the term itself was coined by Samuel P. Huntington.) Kanguole 11:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the broader question has a pretty long history; Malthus discussed it. The specific term "Great Divergence" might have very well been coined by Huntington though Frank only mentions him in passing to get some digs in.

The scope of the article should be the general concept with particular reference to Pomeranz's work and the discussion of it by others. Something like "The term Great Divergence refers to the purported increase in the difference between living standards in China and the West. While earlier work, going back to Malthus and other 19th century scholars, saw the origins of this disparity in the 16th century, Pomeranz and other recent authors have argued that..." then it should go on to discuss how these things are measured (differences in life expectancy, caloric intake, etc.) and into more detail of various hypothesis.

This is just a very rough suggestion and obviously some references need to be dug up.radek (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence of your proposed lead is fine, but I would make some changes to the first: "purported" seems unnecessary, living standards seems too narrow a focus (e.g. productivity, technology), and I'd say "the West and the rest of the world" rather than "China and the West". Kanguole 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"the West and the rest of the world" is in fact better; China can be discussed specifically in the body. "Purpoted" - you're probably right, however, the point is to establish that at some point China and Japan (and rest of the world, Latin America too for example) had comparable or even higher standards of living. "Living standards" - this is meant to be a general term and it's probably the case that it is used differently in different subjects; here it's supposed to encompass a variety of measures. Productivity and technology, but also income, consumption, nutrition, life expectancy, etc. If you have a better term in mind that serves the same purpose, then slap it in.radek (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Radek as far as the scope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the existing way the article is written is off. The first line of the article needs to better describe the concept (something along the lines of what radek and Kanguole suggest seems a more accurate description of the idea being discussed.

The way the article read did not do a good job of explaining the way the new theories about the economic disparities between countries have unfolded over the last quarter century (particularly the last decade.) Radek is right that it gives the impression that newer research is disputing Pomeranz when it is Pomeranz's work that disputed the prevailing theory. Since then more work has been done that shows shorting coming in Pomeranz work, and support and expands on previous ideas.

I remove the part that seemed wrong so that the students could have a fresh slate. But I made a subpage with the content so that the students could have access to it. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking It Down

Ok guys. We're trying to get this article up and running soon so here are the categories we are going to write about.

Roman - technology Lolia - country specific ideologies Derek - industry/economics Kayla - politics/leadership

Does any group member or other editor here on wikipedia have a suggestion for how exactly to order these categories? Do you think these categories are sufficient? Once we write the meat of our sections we can re-order the page, make subsections, and clean it up so it looks good. Anybody out there, let me know your input.

RomanHarlovic (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

-I am not sure how I would like to order these categories. I do think that once everyone figures out the specifics of their own section, what they are going to write, and show each other what they are writing, then we will see if the sections are sufficient and we'll figure out how to order the categories. Helgacrane (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

-OK that sounds good to me. The rough edit of my section is still in the works and will probably be done by the next class on Wednesday. I think we should all try to be done and have our first rough edit posted by this Friday so we have plenty of time to reorder the page and have other wikipedia editors give their input. Sound fair? RomanHarlovic (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

-Yeah I'll try post a solid rough draft by Friday. If not totally complete at least mostly. Kro14 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

-Yes, sounds good. Helgacrane (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is common for a first draft to undergo major changes. I'd highly recommend posting a draft earlier, so I can review it and you can address my comments before the work is then reviewed by the Good Article reviewer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

-Alright, I'm updating my section by adding about a paragraph at a time. Kro14 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

-I'm beginning to wonder if Politics/Leadership actually has a place here. While reading it, I just kept thinking it sounds more like a history lesson than having to do specifically with the Great Divergence. Derekl366 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A history lesson is certainly important, seeing as the Great Divergence/European Miracle/etc. is a historical phenomena (one with lasting consequences for a modern day, certainly). That said, the article should not be a pure historical description, but it should also present a more theoretical explanation as in "why did it happen", drawing from sociological/economic/pol-sci literature. Think about the books we read in class - they mix history with sociology, economics and political science - just like this article should. ---_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

-I know it's mostly just history right now. I planned on starting with about a paragraph of history, my next paragraph is going to link it's significance to the Great Divergence.It'll be updated continually the upcoming days Kro14 (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

-I think it would probably be a good idea to have a section on the effects of democracy on Europe. In my readings it seems that eastern Europeans did not enjoy all of the freedoms held by western Europeans. Derekl366 (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

European miracle

I've just noticed that a month ago, without any apparent discussion, the article on European miracle was redirect here (version prior to redirect). I think that those are two related, but distinct, concepts. Thoughts about the appropriateness of reversing the redirect are appreciated from everyone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When I was reading on this and related topics yesterday, I noticed that the European miracle redirect and that Rise of the West was redirected here, too. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

All 3 articles deal with particular books each of which is about broadly the same concept. I'm not sure if redirecting the other two here is the proper approach - although I can see making this the general article and having the other two be about the specific books. If anyone has an idea for a "meta title" that is used for this in literature (I can't think of one off the top of my head) then that could help sort this out.radek (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The books may or may not be notable, the meta concept is. Now, leaving the books aside for a moment (I'd support restoring the articles but making it clear they are book-based), is Great Divergence a good meta title? Or do we need a new one? And no, nothing brilliant comes to my mind at this moment, neither (we could always try an RfC for that). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the meta topic is notable but also wonder if this article name is right. I'm familiar with the general topic because it often background material for discussions. For example, the reasons for differences in Maternal mortality rate and Infant mortality rate by country, reasons for poverty in Appalachia, and many other topics about global sociocultural problems. But the name "Great Divergence" was not familiar to me. I had difficultly finding a clear specific definition of the term "Great Divergence" that was matched this content. So something else might be better, although nothing else comes to mind off the top of my head. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the term is related to the idea of Convergence (economics) (that article needs work) which is the hypothesis that, other things equal, poor countries should grow faster than rich countries and catch up (converge). Pomeranz' title is a play on this concept, applied to a historical context (I'm pretty sure he (or his publisher) consciously picked it thus but I don't have a source for that claim) - which basically says "look, the most important thing that happened historically is not convergence but divergence. Great divergence!". I think for the time being "Great Divergence" is probably the best we can do for a descriptive title for the general phenomenon - though the other books that deal with it should be mentioned in the article as well.

As I mention above, issues like infant mortality, should be addressed in a general discussion of how "living standards" are defined and compared.radek (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If only the term eurocentrism wasn't riddled with negative connotations... James Morris Blaut proposed a term "Eurocentric diffusionism". The term gained some use in literature ([1]). The problem here is several-fold: 1) Blaut refutes a number of previous theories, which he labels as the "Eurocentric diffusionism" theories, but his refutal is not universally accepted, it is just another theory. Thus I am not certain if his "Eurocentric diffusionism" is indeed the correct name for the general concept. 2) While he proposed his own model, AFAIK he doesn't give it any meaningful name. 3) Nonetheless, it appears that literature often associated the "Eurocentric diffusionism" with both his rebuttal and theory ([2]).

On a side note, I fund Blaut argument somewhat illogical: he claims his own theory is not Eurocentric, because it does not attribute any "false" positive qualities to Europe; he also criticized several "environment"-based theories (such as those of Jared Diamond). Then he explains how the rise of Europe (or however we label the phenomenon in question) can be explained by the luck of European positioning (close to America and having good sailing conditions on Atlantic), thus allowing Europeans to get rich on America and thus outrun other civilizations. Let me quote him (p.11): "The Europeans, as it turned out, had one crucial advantage. [...] the America [...] was vastly more accessible to European than to other maritime centers. [...] I argue, therefore, that America was reached first from the mercantile-maritime centers of Europe, rather than from those of other advanced maritime centers, as a function of location, or more precisely, accessibility". If this is not an example of "environmental determinism" (something Blaut criticized Diamond for), what is?

All that said, his book ([3]) is probably one of my favorite treatments of the subject (because he does a great job introducing a bunch of other viewpoints, from Weber's to Diamond's). I wish I could squeeze it in as an obligatory reading position in my course (maybe during the next book shuffle; mind you, the course is about globalization in general, and Great Divergence is only one of many fascinating facets of it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. Here's another of my favorite treatment of the subject: [4]. :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article can take two direction: Either we remove the redirects and have this focus on the "Great Divergence" as a fad-ish term used currently to describe a historical sociocultural phenomena that has gotten broad interest among many people over the last decade. Or we can leave the redirects and rename the article with a more general name, and then frame the content more broadly. The "Great Divergence" as described by Pomeranz would get significant coverage because it is being discussed by theorists and researchers, but it would not necessarily be the centerpiece of the article. My biggest concern with keeping the article named "Great Divergence" is that term does not have a clear definition that is used by multiple sources. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that point.) So, if we use GD, then there is going to need to be a introduction that supplies a concrete definition without doing original research. I think that this will be tricky to do because of the debate over the time period, and the western-centric framing of the the concept in most of the literature that I've reviewed. I'm particularly sensitive to this since WP English is an international project and this article is about a global phenomenon. It is doable but I think we need to be extra careful to use the broadest sources we can find, including reaction from non-English speaking literature on this topic. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that given the sources that we have available/accessible right now the first suggestion is better - have it be about "a fad-ish term used currently to describe a historical sociocultural phenomena that has gotten broad interest among many people over the last decade" (though that can't go in the lede like that). Nuances can be covered in the body of the article. I think the concern over lack of multiple sources which use the term is a valid one - the fact stems from the fact that different literatures/scholars simply use their own favorite term for the same phenomenon - though I'm not sure how much can be done about it presently.

The concern with it being too Western-centric is also important. Flo, could you let me know the literature you're looking at? Speaking from an economics perspective my sense of what I've read is that in some ways Pomeranz's view (that the West didn't diverge from Asia until 19th century) is actually less Western-centric then the literature that it challenges (which more or less asserted that West was always ahead or at least since the 16th century) though there are different interpretations even there. It would be nice to get some articles or books from non-Western authors to include in the article.radek (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The old Rise of the West article had little in it, and there is already a separate article The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community, but the old European miracle article had some specific content, which should probably be restored. Kanguole 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

First Draft Technology

Hey guys I just posted my first draft on technology. I cited it but I am still digging up sources to help add information. Please look through it and give me some feedback. Also, if you feel the section should be aesthetically restructured to make it more organized, let me know. I wound up focusing a bunch on economics and labor because they turned out to be hugely important. Also, Derek, the source you linked to us was very helpful. I cited it... it's the citation with the name Pomeranz in it, so no need to double cite it. Let me know as you guys make edits to your sections so I know to read them carefully.RomanHarlovic (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

References

This article has been growing impressively, but if it aims to be a Good Article, it will need page numbers on the references to books (at least). Personally, I find this easier to do from the start, rather than going back and trying to find them again later. Kanguole 23:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)