The Core of the Great Divergence in the United Kingdom and China: Religions, Institutions and Governments’ Priorities
The substantial rise of Western Europe starting from the sixteenth century due to the “first major sustained divergence in income per capita across different regions in the world” highlighted the many ways of dissimilarity between the East and the West. The United Kingdom and China, both powerful in different aspects, but fundamentally distinct, experienced the Great Divergence diversely. This essay argues that the different religious and cultural values, different demands, and shifts in the power dynamics between mercantile companies and political institutions in the United Kingdom and China are the main contributors of the dominance of the UK throughout the Great Divergence period.
Nations’ collective values and identities have great influence over the way society functions and how government bodies approach policy formulation. According to the cultural hypothesis of David Landes and Max Weber “economic development is associated with values such as time preferences, and work ethics and some other social values that are supportive for economic development because they affect people’s attitude towards knowledge, independent thinking, work and savings”. The global standardization of capitalism lead to different reactions from the UK and China. The two nations mainly practiced Protestantism (particularly Calvinism) and Confucianism respectively which shaped the way they they viewed the capitalist order and how they pursued commercial interest. Both beliefs support discipline and hard work but differ in purpose. Calvinist ethics highlight a competitive attitude as opposed to the Confucian value of harmony. Values based on competition, have a self serving purpose. The United Kingdom pursued 1an economic path of competition for raw material and efficiency, this often lead to conflict. Unlike China, who emphasized the necessity of individual compliancy for the order of society (Lim,2003). Cultural psychologists say that the “key aspect that distinguishes cultures is individualism versus collectivism”. This contrast between individualism and collectivism increased rapidly in the nineteenth century with the emergence of the Industrial Revolution leading to a growing gap in income and societal development between the countries (first gd 4646). The United Kingdom was able to host the societal changes the Industrial Revolution and the Great Divergence brought because of their culture and religion’s competitive and individualist values.
The United Kingdom’s appetite for commercial progress was embodied in the Atlantic Trade. The need for goods and the rapid production of it, took place in the form of colonies. Through the Atlantic Trade, the United Kingdom was able to urbanize its population at a much faster rate than other countries, therefore creating more opportunities for individual profit and economic growth. The Atlantic Trade was a marketplace for a range of items from sugar and tobacco to slaves. China did not have the same attitude nor the same antecedence. At the time China viewed overseas expeditions as opportunities for military funding and officials of the Qing dynasty had no interest in “promoting these trades”. They were concerned about security and attempted to “curtail luxury imports”. The Qing dynasty’s reluctant approach could have been influenced by its predecessor, the Ming dynasty whom halted their naval expeditions. Fifteenth century China was undoubtedly the ultimate naval power compared to the rest of the world. Their abrupt halt to their expeditions were justified by the ruling Hongle Emperor’s conservative Confucian values and other priorities. China considered themselves to be self-sufficient and did not see the need to cross oceans for goods. Being attacked by the Mongols from the west required stronger military defense on land. The United Kingdom was fortunate in that sense. They were not under attack, but rather were the ones waging war. The sixteenth century created different circumstances for the two countries resulting in different repercussions. China was ruled by a government trying to protect borders from external enemies and did not have a demand for luxurious goods that couldn’t be cultivated in their homeland or nearby. The United Kingdom possessed a government that supported intercontinental trade and a colonial diaspora for the sake of satisfying demands and the growth of their economy.
The progress of the Atlantic Trade did not result in mere economic growth but also in the increase of power in political institutions. Institutional changes impeded the power of monarchs, and enhanced individual property rights between the years 1500 and 1850. The financial contributions of the Atlantic trade “swung the balance of political power”. Jakob Madsen and Eric Yan focus on contracting institutions and property rights institutions in their article, “The first Great Divergence and the evolution of cross-country income inequality during the last millennium: the role of institutions and culture”. They identify the two types of institutions as central to the capitalistic development of the Great Divergence; . I will focus on the latter institution. Property rights institutions show great care to maximise productive endeavors. It “regulates the relationship between ordinary citizens and politicians or the elite with access to political powers and are, therefore, linked to the distribution of the political power in the society.” As the spirit of capitalism spread across society, there was a motivation to better oneself. The European Enlightenment period introduced values that enhanced “an open cultural climate that allowed for the pursuit of productivity improvements”(4642 the first). Madsen and Yan emphasize the importance of the protection property right and the accountability of those in power. They illustrate China’s failure to do so in their article through the following figure;
The vertical axis represents the scoring how much limitation can be implemented on executives’ actions. The score of 1 meaning there isn’t any, 7 meaning that the said ‘implementer’ has the same or more power over executives’ actions. Confucian leaders in China often meddled with private businesses, regulated law in their favor and even prohibited overseas trading herefore preventing significant economic and commercial growth. Whereas the United Kingdom, allowed private mercantile companies to represent the kingdom abroad and act on their behalf while still allowing personal profit for the companies. Private parties being legally protected and even encouraged in the United Kingdom opened doors for capitalism to set in their society. Without legitimized insurance for political institutions and mercantile companies, and the somewhat contemporary values the Enlightenment brought along, the United Kingdom would not have been able to give birth to a global, massive economic empire.
One may propose that these factors were not as crucial to the Great Divergence as, pure luck or exploitation of the host countries by the West. They wouldn’t be completely incorrect. Many factors can be credited to the economic success of the West that are all legitimate. The United Kingdom could not have achieved as much as it did without slavery, colonizing and forcing itself into trade routes in the East. Slaves were the backbone of the United Kingdom’s sugar and tobacco market. Their efficiency is what lead to supplies matching demands. The Silk Road was an already functioning, widespread marketplace before the British arrived. They stole methods of production, storage and transport form the Asians.
All of the aforementioned are correct but not crucial. Collective behavior does not appear out personal choice. Societal values are formed from culture and history. China was more than capable of dominating naval battles and participating in commercial trades. Confucian values that advise against competition, disrupting of the way society functions, and personal gain have molded the way citizens treat their leaders, approach international trade, and choose to work. It has created a national identity of conformism and tradition. This was not deemed as ‘bad’ by the Chinese because it worked for them. Commercial pursuits did not interest them because it went against their collective identity. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, had different values and priorities. Competition was encouraged, more was considered to be better. Their Calvinist values allowed for them to act for personal gain. The Enlightenment ignited a permissive and liberal attitude amongst elites and civilians. Religious reform indirectly encouraged individual affluence for the British.
Overall, academia acknowledges the multiplicity of the events and reasons for the emergence of the Great Divergence but underrates the West’s sociological permittance of individual agency. Culture and religion molds the perspective of rulers and citizens therefore shaping values, policies and demands. The United Kingdom, possessed Calvinist values that promoted self reliance, hard-work and individualism. Through this, the British were able to feed their hunger for economic growth and governmental support for this growth across seas. Although , the Chinese were inherently more advanced than the West in their methods of trade, navy and governmental rule, their collective values did not enable the desire for ‘more’. Their Confucian values highlighted the importance of peace, hard-work and the collective well being of their society. Unlike the United Kingdom, they did not show high regard to individual accomplishments. The contrast in the different approaches to capitalist interest based on values and policies can account for the economic eclipse the West cast on the East.