Words: 508
To strengthen that argument Pavlov scrutinizes the tenement made by Peer Varies, that exploration of the New World (along with other overseas colonies of European Empires) was specifically the result of British economic policy. The exploration and colonialism triggered Atlantic trade. Chinese trade prospered prior to Sixth century due to non- governmental sponsorship that was a great incentive for the merchants, in contrast to European states’ mercantilism policies which were backed, supported by and subsequently profited European governments.
Chinese trade was peripheral, whereas European colonialism helped it gain control over the vast Atlantic trade rout. The “discovery’ of new lands on other continents resulted in the foundation of modern industry and the development of commerce, communication, and navigation systems that paved the way for the extension of industrialization. Pavlov concludes that It is, however, impossible to measure the results of overseas “discoveries” just through the development of trade, communication, and industrialization; “these helped to ‘jump-start’ institutional changes that altered the nature of all of Europe” (Pavlov 5).
To establish that claim, Pavlov proceeds to analyze Andes “The Wealth and the Poverty of the Nations. ” In European system of dates, the government was too careful and tried not to intervene in the private initiatives of commerce. There was a division of power between the central authority and local government in European countries; as Landed writes, “fragmentation gave rise to competition, and competition favored good care of good subjects” (27).
He makes a comparison between the modern empires of the Orient and indicates that the Ottoman and McHugh Empires were the result of military conquest, and so therefore never possessed a unified tax system or a system of administration that could be applicable in all territories. Coming to differences within the political economies of the Chinese and European governments, there was a struggle between European elites over revenue extraction. The governments of European states needed to develop new credit institutions because they were dependent on merchants and needed to borrow money from them.
Merchants, who gained immense wealth from the Atlantic trade, were interested in institutional changes by which they could protect their property rights Existence of natural resources was another main factor for the “Divergence. ” The existence of accessible coal is considered by historians to e one of the crucial factors of England’s Industrial Revolution and technological development Coal does not explain the innovations it was used in, but without it no innovations could have made so much difference.
Examining the work of Peer Varies, Pavlov, argues that Coal Industry not only was it a major industry in its own right, by 1875 directly employing over half a million men and boys, but throughout the century it was virtually the sole supplier of energy to British expanding economy. China’s natural deposits of coal were distant from its possible utilization for the generation and industrial SE of power, so that progressive deforestation still did not make it economical to switch fuel from wood to coal.