As you read, note:
- Adam Smith laid out what went wrong as the background for his picture of how things can go right, while Landes is as interested in the roots of relative--and absolute--economic failure as of success.
This is a profoundly eurocentric history. Is that a problem for Landes, given his aims?
Focus on Landes's account of why Europerather than China--or India, or Islam--eventually led the way to industrial civilization. I find it convincing...
But there is no doubt that it looks as if Chinese civilization had a clear half-millennium as the world's leader in technological innovation from 500 to 1000: Chinese civilization in the millennium before the Ming dynasty appears to have been the most intellectually confident and technologically progressive on the globe. Thereafter innovation in China appears to flag. I do not understand this. Does Landes claim to? Does Landes?
- This File:
- Edit This File: https://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00e551f08003883400e551f080068834/post/6a00e551f08003883401b7c8ccb2ad970b/edit
- Readings and Reviews: https://www.bradford-delong.com/readings-and-reviews.html