Institutions restrict certain aspects of everyday life. They do so in order to create structures to ensure fairness in society. That is not the only thing institutions do. The other, as discussed by North, is that it allows economies to grow. Because institutions allow the growth of the economy, how did institutions affect the great divergence? Broadberry argues that the great divergence was caused by trade routes, plague, access to resources and livestock as well as other factors. However, without strong institutions to prevent unfairness and high costs, the great divergence may never have happened. It may not have been mainly trade routes, plague, etc that caused the great divergence, but rather the institutions that formed and evolved as the economies grew. After all, what incentive is there to farm if it was just going to all be seized by the king without pay? …show more content…
In Europe, GDP started to increase in the 1500s, pulling away from the GDP of Asia. Those kept growing, while Asia’s remained stagnant. It was also during that time that exploration to the Americas started. This was one of the factors that led to the divergence. This might not have been successful in increasing GDP if there were not institutions in place that kept the traders or kings in line. Without institutions that protect traders and merchants, they may not be incentivized enough to go out and risk trading in foreign lands. If the rulers were not restrained and took all the gains from trade for themselves, then traders and merchants would not want to engage in trade. It was these institutions that allowed the traders and merchants to branch out and make money which allowed GDP to
As shown contextually in document 5, Asia was replacing their barter and tax payment from goods and services to silver. Such a change requires and very large supply and circulation of said precious metal. China was willing to pay a lot for said metal as its new economic system depended on it. In order to cash in on this potential gold rush, for lack of a better word, european nations sought elsewhere for a supply of silver they could control, ultimately leading to the colonization of the Americas and military conquests of isles like the Phillipines and Indonesia. The pattern of the silver trade shifted as Europeans now expanded it to reach more of the western hemisphere by establishing mines in Brazil and other areas. Documents 1 and 3 showcase in detail how connected the west and east now became because of the silver trade, which previously resided in Asia predominantly. Silver went from the mines in the east (Japan) and sometimes isles (Philippines), to the colonies, and ultimately China after the chinese merchant ships would travel to said colonies and pick up the silver. Such an increased connected between the west and east is seen again post-Renaissance. As Europe is going through a revival, it seeks wealth elsewhere, like european nations in the later centuries. Europe begins expeditions and forges relationships with eastern nations
Between 1450 and 1750, many majors changes were going on in Europe and South Asia. In Russia, strong leaders such as Peter the Great and Catherine the Great made various social reforms. In the Middle East, the Gunpowder Empires were flourishing and spreading Islam. In China and Southeast Asia, several power struggles occurred, as well as European trade starting. Although these changes affected society and created unity and conflict, religion being part of politics created both unity and conflict in Europe and South Asia through the Protestant Reformation and the policies of some of the policies of some Mughal rulers.
Before the Modern Era, international communication was not prevalent. Many factions were present between distant regions in the world, and regional trade flourished between lands that were close in proximity. Lands in the Americas or South America did not experience a strong connection to lands further east due to these gaps in communication. However, due to the emergence of silver, regional economies all combined to form one global economy. In this global economy, different, distant regions interacted through a common trade. Silver production, common from the 1500s to 1750, helped global interactions flourish. Different regions, specifically China and the Philippines, Spain and its colonies, and England collectively experienced shifts in their societies and economies through a combined need to interpose themselves in this global flow of silver, that was then expanded upon through different methods of gaining silver.
It can be said that Eurasia underwent large changes between 1000 and 1450. Governments were changing their methods of control and trade networks increasing globalization worldwide. Along with these new changes, scientific and technological innovations in Eurasia took flight and reached new heights unseen. As new ideas traveled main trade routes, such as the Silk Road and the Mediterranean, the effects of such were felt through an influx of contact between countries due to increased desire for new information and countries gaining a larger presence on the world stage. This phenomenon can also be seen
When analyzing trade and commerce differences between Western and Eastern Europe, Islamic encouragement towards trade and commerce in Eastern Europe in the late 8th and 9th century led to the increased importation of Eastern goods into Western Europe. This increase in exotic goods ultimately increased the wealth of Western Europe and boosted its economy. This in turn, attracted the Vikings to pillage and raid communities in order to increase their own wealth in Northern Europe.
Kenneth Pomeranz‘s The Great Divergence tries to examine the classic question of ‘How do we account for the economic divergence between Europe and Asia? He acknowledged that ‘a surge in European technological inventiveness was a necessary condition of the Industrial Revolution’, but stressed on the crucial role of ‘coal and colonies’ and their critical geographic location, in lifting the constraints for sustained growth of per capita income. First the local coal deposits in Europe were closer to the cities than in China and this gave Europe a clear advantage. Second, the off-shore colonies, in particular, the closeness of Europe to the New World resources (Jones 1981, Wrigley 1988, Allen 2009) helped Europeans to overcome the difficulties
Around the beginning of the sixteenth centruy, many countires had started to explore farther away and finding new territories. New products like sugar and taobacco began to emerge around the world in many places. Many countries in Europe were gaining power due to the control of colonies in the Americas. Asian countries did not explore as much, but still managed to remain large and powerful for a while. The global flow of silver had economic effects on inflating prices of goods and stimulating econimic policy of mercantilism, and social effects on negative effects on the lower class around the world during the mid-sixteenth century to the early eighteenth century.
Great societies when key areas are not strong, such as the laws that the leader made were unfair, citizens living on the streets with little food, water, and shelter, and the wars that they went through. The bad laws of these governments were, treating the minority unfairly. Making their laws a lesser of the majority. Also treating lower social ranked people with not as many right or unfair rights( getting taxed higher). The wars destroyed areas. After losing a war, you have to pay the taxes that the war has caused. Also your area of land is destroyed. Poverty of citizens make your economy look poor. Putting people out on the streets, and not doing anything about. These are the main key points of why great societies fall.
the same level of economic activity and, as early as the middle of the thirteenth century, the
Criteria: What acts have actually been made to respond to the legacies of historical globalization? How have these effects been made in trying to respond to historical globalization? What has changed since then? What has not changed?
A case could be made that the Great Divergence ultimately grew on the basis of European technological invention and innovation. According to historian David Landes, pre-eminence had been present since the Middle Ages, due to the inventions created that had allegedly aided society in an effective manner. Landes cites the inventions of the waterwheel, eyeglasses, and the mechanical clock as having had a great impact on society. It is to his belief that working life was increased and the manual labor decreased with the aid of the waterwheel, and that the invention of eyeglasses helped to path the way towards more revolutionary inventions such as the gauge, micrometer, telescope and microscope. He ultimately attempts to highlight the multitude of methods in which Europe utilized invention and innovation, prior to and after the Great Divergence.
The Old World system was mainly Asia-centric. European states were far behind the Asian and Middle Eastern ones. According to the article of Janet Lippman Abu-Lughod which is named “The World System in the Thirteenth Century: Dead-End or Precursor”, beside the world system there were subsystems which were not “depending on each other for common survival in the thirteenth century”. There were three big circuits: Westers European, Middle Eastern, Far Eastern. “At that times the strongest centres and circuits were located in the Middle East and Asia. In contrast the European circuit was an upstart newcomer that for several early centuries was only tangentially and weakly linked to the core of the world system as it had developed between the eight and eleventh centuries.” As she mentioned, Europe joined the advanced world system of that time after 11th century, yet till 15th century it was not so effective. Although the states in east were developed, this did not reflect to political arena. Every state was powerful in its own niche and as a result of this there was not a hierarchical form of political balance. These states could be thought as pockets. Nature of this system was production. As Janet L. Abu-Lughod mentioned “the production of primary and manufactured goods was not only sufficient to meet local needs but, beyond that, the needs for export as well. Then, the way of function of this system can be understood: trade. Trade was the main economic activity of the Old System. Trade was mostly depending on exchange of goods. In spite of this, Chinese merchants were using paper money like a credit card and Arabic dinar was the dollar of that time. All of these show us that the trade was also Asia-centric. The popular trade ways were through Middle East and Asia. Beside the economic side, trade was integrating cities and societies.
There was also a trade deficit and all trade after that “flourished the east” stated on page 7 of “Fall of the classic empires”
...d how mode of production was replaced by large corporate and government organizations. In short, an institutional pattern as such would not function in society unless somehow society was overpowered by demands or conditions.
Institutions play a key role in many of the things that are happening in society today. From financial institutions to the types of goods consumers can buy in a place of business. One of the biggest aspects of an institutions influence on society is the need for supply and demand and to control society so that it can adapt to the changes caused by individuals within it. All societies necessarily make economic choices. A society is a system of social relationship while institution is the organization of rules traditions and usages. Institutions are the forms of procedure which are recognized and accepted by society and they exist for the society and govern the relations between members of society. Society represents human aspect while an institution is a social condition of com and behavior.