彭慕兰(Kenneth Pomeranz),美国加利福尼亚大学尔湾分校历史系主任、历史和东亚语言文学教授,加州大学系统世界史研究组主任。其大部分著作围绕着中国和比较经济发展、农村社会变革、环境变革及政府的形成等展开研究,但也著有民间宗教史和家庭结构及性别角色史方面的著作。
The Great Divergence brings new insight to one of the classic questions of history: Why did sustained industrial growth begin in Northwest Europe, despite surprising similarities between advanced areas of Europe and East Asia? As Ken Pomeranz shows, as recently as 1750, parallels between these two parts of the world were very high in life expectancy, consumption, product and factor markets, and the strategies of households. Perhaps most surprisingly, Pomeranz demonstrates that the Chinese and Japanese cores were no worse off ecologically than Western Europe. Core areas throughout the eighteenth-century Old World faced comparable local shortages of land-intensive products, shortages that were only partly resolved by trade.
Pomeranz argues that Europe's nineteenth-century divergence from the Old World owes much to the fortunate location of coal, which substituted for timber. This made Europe's failure to use its land intensively much less of a problem, while allowing growth in energy-intensive industries. Another crucial difference that he notes has to do with trade. Fortuitous global conjunctures made the Americas a greater source of needed primary products for Europe than any Asian periphery. This allowed Northwest Europe to grow dramatically in population, specialize further in manufactures, and remove labor from the land, using increased imports rather than maximizing yields. Together, coal and the New World allowed Europe to grow along resource-intensive, labor-saving paths.
Meanwhile, Asia hit a cul-de-sac. Although the East Asian hinterlands boomed after 1750, both in population and in manufacturing, this growth prevented these peripheral regions from exporting vital resources to the cloth-producing Yangzi Delta. As a result, growth in the core of East Asia's economy essentially stopped, and what growth did exist was forced along labor-intensive, resource-saving paths--paths Europe could have been forced down, too, had it not been for favorable resource stocks from underground and overseas.
帝制时代的中国文明是领先的,然而却在清朝时代走向没落,然后一个掌握了历史规律的阶层通过革命,重新使得中国文明振兴起来。这种历史主义的叙述在波普尔看来是柏拉图的谬误,经过后来的黑格尔、马克思发扬广大,而又通过苏联被引入到了中国。 欧洲处于现在的支配地位是什么...
评分此书作者彭慕兰是著名历史学家,汉学家,“加州学派”代表人物,曾担任美国历史学派会长。我认为彭慕兰先生的《大分流》这本书并不能够被称为完全的社会学著作。而更像是对于18世纪前后中国与英国的经济历史视角的分析。 18世纪时,中国与英国的发展道路分道扬镳。英国走向了工...
评分此书作者彭慕兰是著名历史学家,汉学家,“加州学派”代表人物,曾担任美国历史学派会长。我认为彭慕兰先生的《大分流》这本书并不能够被称为完全的社会学著作。而更像是对于18世纪前后中国与英国的经济历史视角的分析。 18世纪时,中国与英国的发展道路分道扬镳。英国走向了工...
评分彭在《大分流》中最重要的观点,是西欧通过海外殖民,并且率先使用了煤炭,解决了发展中遇到的生态限制。而中国遭遇了同样的生态限制,却在当年没有走上西欧的路。 彭指出,面临发展的生态限制,中国各地区有通过贸易来解决,但因为各地区的发展差异并不大,又没有武力强制,所...
评分多年前,加州大学尔湾分校的彭慕然(Kenneth Pomeranz)的一部《大分流》在世界汉学界引起了巨大反响。一时间,赞成者和反对者论战不止,国内也是”群雄混战”,也算是近来学术界的奇观之一。彭慕然的书之所以能够如此轰动,归根结底乃是因为作者观点的与众不同。 传统上,中外...
One very long argument.
评分書中描繪的“中國”如此反“常識經驗”,是因為作者以孤證乃至誤證為基礎建立起一條看上去很美很給力的邏輯鏈,事實上經不起仔細推敲。
评分解释为什么工业革命发生在西欧而不是东亚,从粮食能源劳动力奢侈品消费等等各方面事无巨细地比较了工业革命前的几个地区,结论是早期欧洲根本没优势!全是靠了新大陆和黑奴。好书,值得一看,就是句子都好长好拗口,各种插入语看得好累人…
评分今天中国经济史结课还是挺感慨的,本科课程基本结束,但对许多问题的纠结和思考,大概才刚刚开始。希望未来还能纠结很久。感谢大梁神上课尽职尽责地把这本书复述了一遍,不然大概没毅力细读;也要深深感激送我这本书的童鞋=D
评分解释为什么工业革命发生在西欧而不是东亚,从粮食能源劳动力奢侈品消费等等各方面事无巨细地比较了工业革命前的几个地区,结论是早期欧洲根本没优势!全是靠了新大陆和黑奴。好书,值得一看,就是句子都好长好拗口,各种插入语看得好累人…
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.wenda123.org All Rights Reserved. 图书目录大全 版权所有