Maddison critique of Pomeranz

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

dms,
I'll respond on list.

Well, the Maddison critique of Pomeranz seems off.
1. Neither Brenner nor Pomeranz is interested in such broad
comparisons as China and Western Europe.
2. Pomeranz argues that what would have been colonies for the core
sections of China usually became independent competitors, and were
not integrated in the same way as the Americas had been by Europe's
core regional powers. Maddison does not seem to understand his
argument about the Americas as a new kind of colony. In fact he makes
no mention of it.
3. I don't see why Maddison responds to Pomeranz's point about
overall agricultural productivity with data on agrarian labor
productivity only. Doesn't seem to speak to the point.
4. Maddison does not prove that England's putative dvantage in
agrarian labor productivity explains the great divergence.

Yours, Rakesh


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.