Very recently, though, there has been a promising contribution that may reframe the debate: Kenneth Pomeranz's _The Great Divergence_. Largely a comparison of Europe and China, India comes in for some discussion as well. In Pomeranz's view, the "proto-industrialization" that one can find in China, Europe, and to some extent in India, ca. 1750 was a historical cul-de-sac that was in each place hitting ecological constraints, with land being the scarce factor of production in each case. (Proto-industrialization was not so advanced as to make capital scarce, and the greater population densities it allowed made labor very abundant).
Europe - particularly England - emerged from this cul-de-sac for two reasons: coal and colonies. England happened to have large reserves of coal near centers of production (in contrast, Chinese coal was far from its production centers). Coal removed the ecological constraint that required a great deal more land for more fuel (i.e., timber). American colonies, worked by slave labor, removed the constraint of needing more land to gro more food. Since China (and by extension India) had neither advantage, its proto-industrialization did not provide a breakthrough to industrialization.
Pomeranz notes, in passing, that British imperial policy made things even worse for India than for China, but the crucial point is that India was not on the verge of becoming an industrial power. A mixed verdict.
Michael McIntyre
>>> afenelon at zaz.com.br 08/03/01 20:39 PM >>>
-Mr. Polya teaches biochemistry in the Latrobe University (Australia). He sent me a good answer to a question I made him and, in addition, asked me to sent this following message to whoever I can. I decided to forward all the message, since it´s quite interesting. Maybe someone in the list could add something about India economy during the Bristish colonization.
Alexandre Fenelon