>Landes has a theory, and it is a good one, and it is also Brad's or was until
>this morning. You can find a popularisation of it in Nathan Rosenberg's 'How
>the West Grew Rich' ... If ever there was any real
>evidence for the Weberian idea of European exceptionalism, it is right here in
>the very works of the Eurocentric historians, cartesian rationalists to a
>person.
Mark,
Leaving aside the question of why capitalism in the West and in Japan or why they grew rich, I want to note there may be an important difference between the Weberian rationalization and the Schumpeterian innovation view of capitalism. Rosenberg and Birdzell's book, which only seems simpler, is indeed about Western exceptionalism but its central feature is analyzed as the Schumpeterian innovation, not rationalization, encouraged by its institutions. Except for one thing: Rosenberg underlines the gradualism of growth but provides no profound explanation for its explosively cyclical nature. A strange (actually apologetic) omission for a Schumpeterian history, no?!
One other explanation for Western exceptionalism can be found in Babbage and Darwin--the idea that in the West alone a gentlemen class of scientists emerged whose theoretical advances undergird its exceptional technical advance. Of the importance of science to Western growth, there is an interesting popular book by Kurt Mendelssohn The Secret of Western Domination.
Frank's ideas about China resuming its rightful place seem bizarre to me;it sounds like a BJP statement.
Instead of talking about why capitalism emerged where it did, we could talk about its inability to capitalize the world. For example, only if all the foreign direct investment in all of the third world for two generations were concentrated in India presently would there be a significant reduction of unemployment there.
Best, Rakesh