West versus East: Early Globalization and the Great Divergence’
By Rafael Dobado-González (Complutense), Alfredo Garcia-Hiernaux (Complutense), and David E. Guerrero-Burbano (CUNEF)
Abstract: This paper extends our previous work on grain market integration across Europe and the Americas in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Dobado, García-Hiernaux and Guerrero, 2012). By using the same econometric methodology, we now present: 1) a search for statistical evidence in the East of an “Early Globalization” comparable to the one ongoing in the West by mid eighteenth century; 2) a study on the integration of grain markets in China and Japan and its functioning in comparison to Western countries; 3) a discussion of the relevance of our findings for the debate on the Great Divergence. Our main conclusions are: 1) substantial differences in the degree of integration and the functioning of grain markets are observed between East and West; 2) a certain degree of integration may be reached through different combinations of factors (agents, policies, etc.) and with dissimilar effects on long-run economic growth; 3) the absence of an “Early Globalization” in the East reveals the existence of some economic and institutional limitations in this part of the world and contributed to its “Great Divergence” with the West from at least the eighteenth century.
Circulated by NEP-HIS on: 2013-08-10
Guest Entry by Elizabeth Meagher (Bangor University)
NB: In January 2014, Chris Colvin and I started an experiment involving the use of Web 2.0 tools and third year undergraduate students. The aim was to incentivise active participation in academic exchange by reviewing recent additions to the broad literatures of business and economic history whilst following the same format as the NEP-HIS blog and limited to 1,000 words or less. The best entries are then published in the blog with minimal editing. This is the first of such entries.
We appreciate comments and inspiration from John Turner (Queen’s Belfast), Mar Rubio (Publica de Navarra) and Marcel Salles (ITESO). (BBL – Ed)
This paper examines the causes of early Globalization and the rise of the Industrial Revolution, analysing the divide between the East and West known as the ‘Great Divergence’. The literature suggests that globalization began steadily in the first half of the eighteenth century, taking off rapidly after the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath. Once globalization ‘regained momentum’ it was supported by the rise in the Industrial Revolution across Europe and the US (Dobado-Gonzalez et al, 2013).
De Vries (2010) separates Globalization into two categories, ‘soft’ and ‘hard’. Flynn and Giraldez (2004) claim that ‘soft globalization’ began when the ‘old world’ merged with the US back in 1571. O’Rourke and Williamson (1999) defined ‘hard globalization’ as the integration of markets across a geographical location. An earlier study by Dobado and Guerrero (2009) claims that literature has often ignored earlier influences of globalisation on economic growth and focuses more on the results after the Industrial Revolution from 1700s onwards. It cannot be disregarded that integration between countries across Europe was evident between 1500 and 1800 before the first Industrial Revolution began. It is from these early stages of market and trade integration across Europe that industry and globalisation developed. The paper also suggests that in the first half of the eighteenth century, the rise in the West was due to the fact that China and the East had little to compete with, leaving the gates wide open for the West to expand its operations.
Additionally Dobado and colleagues focus on the impact of the dramatic expansion of foreign trade on economic growth within the West which has continued through to today. The paper also compares the differences and separation between the West and East during the first major economic growth in Europe between 1500 and 1800, known as the ‘First Great Divergence’. The authors suggest that the openness of the West resulted in dynamic trading across the Atlantic between the US with Britain and the Netherlands in particular (Dobado et al, 2013). The East however was not so far behind with the Opium Wars and the Silk Road increasing trade across Eastern countries moving towards the West which had never been done before. Nevertheless, before this point, the paper suggests that Eastern governments made one of the greatest economic mistakes in closing their economies, giving way to the ‘Great Divergence’ and ‘exceptionalism’ within the West (Dobado et al, 2013; Dobado and Guerrero, 2009). The restrictive trade policy practiced by the East is claimed to have prevented that part of the world from taking advantage of both direct and indirect benefits resulting from the expansion of trade during the Early Modern Era (Dobado et al, 2013). The paper recognises the absence of international grain market integration within the debate on the ‘Great Divergence’ and therefore seeks to examine the different markets within both the East and West.
The paper found that despite geographical proximity and the easiness of transportation between China and Japan in the East, no statistical evidence of grain market integration is found between the two countries. This finding contrasts with the increasing expansion of trade in the West both before 1792 and after the 1840s (Dobado et al, 2013). As a result the East and West were dissimilar in terms of market integration both before and after the Industrial Revolution. Therefore this supports the concept of the ‘Great Divergence’ between the East and West and early Globalization presented direct and indirect benefits for the West which left the East to fall behind. In closing their economies in the Early Modern Era, governments within the East had committed what might be considered one of the biggest economic policy mistakes ever made, losing out on the greater benefits of early Globalization (Dobado et al, 2013).
One aspect of the research which could be criticised is that the samples used for comparing the different grain markets in both the East and West are unequal, with twelve studied within the West, and eleven in the East (Dobado et al, 2013). This could suggest the results may be biased towards the wheat market within the West. In addition to this, the study works with “[…] long yearly data series covering most of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries for most markets” (Dobado et al, 2013, p.6). This could also alter the results as using the same data is critical for a fair analysis. Another valuable point to consider is that the only countries which gained from ‘Early Globalization’ in Latin America were Peru and Chile who traded wheat.
It may also be beneficial to take into account cultural differences between the East and West at this time. The demand for wheat across Europe and the US would have been greater than the demand for rice from the East, causing further integration within the East.
Based on the points discussed above, it is apparent that there is a strong divide between the economic activity within both the East and West before the Industrial Revolution gained momentum. Additionally, it is evident that Globalization was present within Europe between 1500 and 1800 with the integration of markets within the West.
De Vries, J. (2010) ‘The Limits of Globalization in the Early Modern World’, The Economic History Review, Vol.63, pp 671-707.
Dobado-Gonzalez, R., Garcia-Hiernaux, A., and Guerrero-Burbano, D. (2013) ‘West verus East: Early Globalization and the Great Divergence’, accessed 6 March 2014.
Dobado, R. and Guerrero, D. (2009) ‘The Integration of Western Hemisphere Grain Markets in the Eighteenth Century: Early Progress and Decline of Globalization’, http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucm:wpaper:09-09 Accessed 9 March 2014.
Flynn, D.O. and Giraldez, A. (2004) ‘Path Dependence, Time Lags and the Birth of Globalisation: A Critique of O’Rourke and Williamson”, European Review of Economic History, Vol.8 No.1, pp 81-108
O’Rourke, K.H. and Williamson, J.G. (1999) Globalization and History, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.