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.
彭慕兰与《大分流》 在中国现代学术史上,关于明清江南经济发展及其性质的研究可谓一直是学者关注的热点,其研究的关怀与温度虽随着政治风浪几经起伏,却一直保持着相当的关注。从三十年代的社会史论战,到建国以来的史学界在意识形态指导下关于资本主义萌芽问题的研究,以及二...
评分周锡瑞老师以前的1500字命题作文,我就不介绍书了。 十年之后,当彭慕兰先生《大分流》一书仍被不断提及和争论时,即便是持反对意见的学者,也不会不承认此书的经典意义。诚如许多学者已经提出的批评那样,我认为彭氏在此书中即便不是刻意“抬升”了中国各方面与西欧不相伯仲...
评分中国在历史上很长一段时间一直都是西方眼中神秘的,传言为“遍地黄金”的强大的国家。但自从在十八世纪以后,这种强大与优渥似乎渐渐发生了转移—以英国为代表的欧洲迅速发展,成为了新时代的强国。这种变化,以往的学者倾向于以欧洲为主的欧洲中心论,在“欧洲当时很强大的”...
评分周锡瑞老师以前的1500字命题作文,我就不介绍书了。 十年之后,当彭慕兰先生《大分流》一书仍被不断提及和争论时,即便是持反对意见的学者,也不会不承认此书的经典意义。诚如许多学者已经提出的批评那样,我认为彭氏在此书中即便不是刻意“抬升”了中国各方面与西欧不相伯仲...
评分彭慕兰与《大分流》 在中国现代学术史上,关于明清江南经济发展及其性质的研究可谓一直是学者关注的热点,其研究的关怀与温度虽随着政治风浪几经起伏,却一直保持着相当的关注。从三十年代的社会史论战,到建国以来的史学界在意识形态指导下关于资本主义萌芽问题的研究,以及二...
经济史的太多细节需要研究
评分大傻逼
评分上周刚和这哥们吃了饭
评分a must-read (though not an easy-read) for comparative world history
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。
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