[PEN-L:2837] Frank's Re-ORIENT

["Ricardo Duchesne" <RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxx>]

A year ago an abstract of Andre Gunder Frank's new book, Re-Orient
(1998) was posted in pen-l. It was Frank's own "nutshell" version of
his argument which he had sent to various other lists. My reaction
after reading it was: `here goes Frank again with another argument
devoid of  theoretical analysis'. But Re-Orient is actually a
serious work  which intends nothing less than a fundamental
reinterpretation of world history.

Frank hardly needs an introduction. His *Capitalism and
Underdevelopment in Latin America* (1969) was one of the most
widely read and influential books of its time, setting the terms for all
subsequent debate on development.  Frank remained a prodigious writer
since this classic, over thirty books and countless articles. (Check
his own web, you will be impressed). But his later work, it must
be admitted, never showed the energy and originality of this early work.
Plus we all know what happened to the theory of the "the development
of underdevelopment": it became the board against which every scholar
pushed forward their own ideas. Re-Orient, however, is a whole
new departure, both in effort and topic; indeed, it is a major
modification and restatement of his position on the world capitalist
system. And Frank says it is his "best book", which the public
appears to agree with since it has been the subject of debate in many
confereces  like those of the AHA, ASA, EHA, WHA.

Yes, Re-Orient is Frank's best work. It is a very meticulous analysis
of world demographic trends, production, trade, and money flows
in the period 1400 to 1800, all supported by extensive research. It
carefully integrates a large body of  separate data into a clear
synthetic argument. Readers will surely be impressed the way it puts
together seemingly divergent trends into a complex architectural whole.

Before examining each relatable piece of this architecture, let me
present its basic message. World capitalism was not the creation of
Europe; rather, it was Asia which generated a global market economy
which it dominated until as recent as 1750-1800. Even after the
'discovery'  of the Americas, Europe was neither central to the world
economy nor ahead. In terms of population growth, productivity,
technological innovation, rationality, and even per capita
consumption, China and India, in particular, kept their lead over
Europe well into the 18th century. A significant figure is that in
1750 (still) the Asian share of the world's population was 66%, yet
its share of world production was 80%. It was really the extraction
of gold and silver from the Americas which finally gave Europe the
opportunity to increase its participation, but not domination, in
this economy. And China long remained the "ultimate sink" of this
gold as it had a positive balance of trade vis a vis the rest of the
world, including Europe which had a constant trade deficit as it
could hardly offer any competitive goods in the world market.

The claim that Europe was able, because of its "unique" culture and
institutions, to create a higher level of technical and scientific
proficiencly is simply an "Eurocentric" prejudice. The so-called
"scientific revolution" of the 17th century only impacted upon
productive technology in Europe after the mid-19th century, that is,
after the industrial revolution. Many instances can also be cited of
eastern influences on the development of science and technology in
Europe dating back to the middle ages through the Renaissance and
later. In fact, many parts of Asia - China to be sure - had equal, if
not superior technologies in guns, ships, textiles, metallurgy and
agriculture up until the industrial revolution, Neither were the
financial and economic institutions of the East less "rational" - or
more "despotic" - than those of Europe. Asians behaved just as
rational as Europeans in the use of their resources.

The rise of Europe after 1800 can only be understood  in terms of the
*cyclical* patterns of the world economy. Europe rose because it was
able to take advantage of Asia's "temporary" cyclical decline after
1800. Through the exploitation of the Americas, the Europeans
gradually managed to gain a firm foothold within the world market.
The slave and the colonial trade as well as international trade gave
them the sources of capital to invest in new industrial technology.
*But* such sources were not enough to induce investment in
cost-reducing technologies. It was also the higher European wages as
well as the higher costs of  such factors as charcoal
which provided the incentive to invest in labor-reducing
technologies. The Chinese and Indians were just as rational in relying
on their cheap sources of labor (cheaper because their more efficient
agriculture allowed them to produce cheaper food).

And so the argument goes. Marx and Weber, and other contemporary
theorists, including Anderson, Brenner, Mann, Hall, Braudel, and
Wallerstein had it all wrong: Europe remained a marginal player in
the world economy right through the period  1400-1800. In future
posts I will elaborate in greater detail Frank's argument, critically
evaluating them, which I think will be of interest to pen-l as these
issues are mainly about the pre-1800 global economy.