메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
김두진 (고려대학교) 이내영 (고려대학교)
저널정보
고려대학교 아세아문제연구원 아세아연구 아세아연구 통권 148호
발행연도
2012.6
수록면
39 - 73 (35page)

이용수

DBpia Top 5%동일한 주제분류 기준으로
최근 2년간 이용수 순으로 정렬했을 때
해당 논문이 위치하는 상위 비율을 의미합니다.
표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Based on some academic arguments by California school alongside Kenneth Pomerantz in his work The Great Divergence, this article aims to examine the new progress in comparative studies on the socioeconomic development in China and the West. With new breakthroughs in methodology and challenges to European centralism, this study explores the changes as well as trends of research paradigms in the field world economic history. Pomerantz argues that in both the most advanced regions of China, specifically the Yangtzi delta, and the most advanced regions of Europe, specifically England were equally favorable to growth, and the trajectories of economic evolution were similar. Pomerantz’s claims lack empirical credibility, given that geographic luck is not unique to England. The unique form of mercantilist state and merchant companies in England made possible its access to the land and raw materials, etc. of its American colonies. By contrast, China was unable to attain any industrial breakthrough despite enjoying the imperialist expansion of modern China. British technology mattered much. Over the period 1700-1850, most of the West was on a trajectory away from the Malthusian limitations as a result of sustained improvements in both labor productivity and capital- and energy-intensive innovation. We assume that the famous inventions of the British revolution were responses to Britain’s unique economic environment. Theoretically, we need to bring in politico-economic perspectives to further clarify the California revisionist explanations. We should pay attention to neglected differences and differing trajectories in terms of ‘patterns of development, institutions and politics’ in both the West and China. The assertion that we could have been Europeans may not seem to be a proper way of criticizing Eurocentrism as the approach as such ironically reinforces Eurocentric interpretation of industrial revolution in Europe.

목차

I. 서론
II. 유럽산업혁명의 성격 논쟁 : 유럽중심주의 인식 대 수정주의 견해
III. 『대분기』(Great Divergence)의 주요 논점과 대논쟁
IV. 『대분기』(Great Divergence) 논쟁에 관한 비판적 검토
V. 요약 및 결론
참고문헌

참고문헌 (54)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-910-002605903