Professional Documents
Culture Documents
03 - The Great Divergencee
03 - The Great Divergencee
Expansion
Between the 14th and the 15th century a gradually process of expansion began in Europe, that claim with the
circumnavigation of Africa in order to reach India by the Portuguese, and the shipment through Atlantic
Ocean that allowed Cristopher Columbus reaching Americas. These events, called Great Travel, allowed
European to open New market on the East and on the West. This process of globalization (unique
worldwide market) is a starting point of great divergence.
As French historian Pierre Chaunu observed the process of opening up these closed worlds marks a
fundamental step ahead in the history of humanity and lies at the origin of an extremely important process
of change.
This process began in the 13th century, when the great Italian mercantile republics, Genoa, and Venice, first
sent their maritime trade expeditions beyond the Mediterranean. Their ships most sailed northwards,
where the Italians consolidated commercial routes directly linking the Mediterranean with the large
markets of Flanders and England. However, they were unable to venture any further south than the Port of
Safi in Morocco. The same technical difficulties they met in the attempt to sail westward. For instance,
explorer Ugolino and Vadino Vivaldi in 1291 reached Canary Island, and then sailed to the open Atlantic
with the aim of reaching India, but they never returned. The same problem has been faced from the traders
of the Hanseatic League, an alliance of trading cities which monopolies the Baltic and the Northern Europe
for much of the Middle Ages.
In 1434, Portuguese explorer Gil Eanes sailed for the first time beyond Cape Bojador in Western Morocco.
Portugal’s success was due to great advance in naval technologies. It took them almost forty years to reach
the Gulf of Guinea for the very first time. In 1488 Bartolomé Diaz rounded successful the Cape of Good
Hope. In 1498 Vasco da Gama reached India circumnavigated Africa.
In addition, the ancient trading areas were connected in a sort of world economic system, expanding
continuously in progressive waves from an epicenter in Europe. This was a major turning point in history
and so can be said that the period 1434-1550 marked the start of a kind of “proto-globalization”.
Why did the balance begin to take the other way in the 16 th century? (Needham Question)
It can be classified as belonging to three broad categories:
- Demographic: the population in Europe was more concentrated than that of the enormous Chinese
Empire or Indian sub-continent, and communications were easier. These conditions not only
enabled the rapid diffusion of ideas and knowledge, but also the incentive to produce innovations,
due to constant pressure on the limited resources available in a relatively restricted area.
Another demographic explanation is suggested by the historian Clerk. He states that the impulse
came from the Black Death (14th). Destroying large part of the population, it left to the survivors
more resources, meaning high living standard. In other words it provided a solution to the
Malthusian trap.
- Institutional: Western Europe typical institution were different from the typical institutions of East
Asia, meaning they were more apt to enable the emergence of societies capable of introducing
economic and technical-scientific innovations.
Joseph Needham, basing on Max Weber ideas, underlines the importance of the spread of
universities which have encouraged the development of knowledge, triggering the “scientific
revolution” of the Renaissance, period in which Europe began to overtake China.
- In the economic sphere he sees the mercantile cities played the same role of universities, as they
were the chosen residence place of the bourgeoisie, whose mentality and culture made them
interested in enterprise and innovation. On the other hand, since the strongly centralized state
system of great Asian empires were based on advanced agrarian societies, they do not only restrict
the development of trade and the raise of capitalistic economic elite, but also impeded scientific
progress.
The doctrine of neo-institutionalism found the explanation for the Great Divergence on the
different market conditions, theorized more efficient and freer in Europe than Asia, and on the
progressive improvement in private property rights.
- Geographical and geopolitical: as Jaren Diamond suggest, the origin of European supremacy
compared with Asia lay in the natural barriers, such as mountain or rivers, breaking Europe up into
fragmented areas, making it unsuited to the emergence of single great empires, favoring the
appearance of relatively small state in continual competition, which were more likely to innovate
because they were attempting to gain advantages over their rivals. The great Asian empires were
often ready to forbid potentially useful technological innovations, preferring to preserve social
stability. For example the Japanese progressively abandoned firearms during the 17 th century
fearing they could be used in civil wars. As well, China had abandoned ocean navigation, following
Zheng He’s expedition occurred between 1413 and 1433 toward the West.
Kenneth Pomeranz has stressed the importance for Western Europe of enjoying relatively easy
access to the Americas, where supplies of essential resources could be obtained. The problem
beyond was the fact that both Western Europe and Asia were faced with a crucial ecological
problem, known as the law of diminishing returns, meant that intensive agricultural system always
run the risk of becoming trapped in an increasingly labor-intensive economy. According to
Pomeranz, Europe was able to avoid this trap only because the exploitation of the Americas. In
addition, in certain specific area, such a in England, there was a relative abundance of coal. The
replacement of wood with coal allowed the development of energy intensive production sectors,
decisive to lunch the Industrial Revolution. Pomeranz, however tends to minimize Europe’s relative
advantage during the early modern age, maintaining that a true divergence in living conditions and
development levels between West and East appeared only in 19 th century.
Moreover, many historians like Pomeranz, emphasize the exploitation of non-European people as
an essential factor in the West’s achievement of supremacy.
In particular Immanuel Wallerstein interpreted the creation of the first world-economy in terms of
the progressive institution of a system articulated in a core, a semi-periphery, and a periphery.
According to this interpretation the dominion of the center imposes an unequal trade system which
consolidates the supremacy of the center, but at the same time it tends to make the relative
underdevelopment of the peripheries into a permanent condition.
In 1559 the rules of the game changed dramatically, inaugurated a new world war. Was issued the Amity
Lines, established with a clause of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis, dividing Europe from free land and open
sea, meaning they were not under European law. In other words, Europeans states were legitimate to fight
each other in that land to get supremacy. The reason of this change was that the authority of the Pope has
been questioned by the Protestant Reform, conventionally beginning on 31 st October 1517 when Martin
Luther nailed his 95 Theses, so he was not anymore part of the picture. In other word, there had been a
division between Christian and Protestant, so the pope could cot anymore control the situation. The
reformation from a legal point of view means the end of Universal power. What remained were just the
national States, which their own sovereignty, meaning they did not recognize any superior authority, and,
by definition were in competition one another.
Hobbes definition:
Hobbes describes the origin of a state in the form of a contract between king and all the citizens.
Regard to international relationship, he compared the situation after the Amity lines to the state of nature,
in which not only everything is legitim in order to exercise your strength against your neighbors, but mostly
it is honorable. As families did then, by the time the state of nature was between nations, and the reasons
was they did not recognize any superior authority. This led to a situation in which states have no point of
satisfaction, in which seems that their expenses were not limited by their own appetite, but by external
accidents, and the appetite of other nations. In other word changed the identification of wealth with
growth, and the end of self-sufficiency economy, otherwise other nations were able to overcome yours. In
this new perspective wealth means that you are richer than before.