32.18.02 · world-history / industrial-revolution

Industrialization and global inequality: divergence, living standards debate, labor movements

stub3 tiersLean: nonepending prereqs

Anchor (Master): Pomeranz, K. — The Great Divergence (2000)

Overview Beginner

The Industrial Revolution began in Britain around 1760 and reshaped the world more profoundly than any event since the adoption of farming. Steam engines, coal, factories, and railroads replaced human and animal muscle with machine power. Britain's industrial dominance opened an enormous gap between it and the rest of the globe — what historians call "the Great Divergence."

This unit asks three questions. Why did Europe industrialize first, and not China or India? Did ordinary people benefit from industrialization, or did they suffer? And how did industrialization remake the global economy, destroying some industries while building others? The answers reveal a process that created wealth and misery at the same time.

Industrialization, divergence, and inequality Beginner

Britain's industrial transformation

Mechanization spread through textiles, iron, and transport. James Watt's improved steam engine (patented 1769) made power cheap and portable. Railroads stitched regional markets into a national economy. Output per worker climbed, and by 1850 Britain was the workshop of the world.

Why Europe, not China? The Great Divergence

Kenneth Pomeranz asked the central question: why Europe, not China? Both had advanced economies in 1750. He argued the answer was coal and colonies. Britain had accessible coal near its population centers, and the Americas supplied cotton, sugar, and land that Europe lacked.

This was not a story of European cultural or inventive superiority. China's Yangtze Delta was as commercially developed as England. The divergence, Pomeranz argued, came from geographical and imperial contingency — Europe got lucky — rather than from any deep European virtue.

The living standards debate

Did ordinary people benefit? Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels described horrific conditions — child labor, slums, sixteen-hour days. Engels's The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845) documented the suffering of Manchester's workers in devastating detail.

By 1850, real wages were rising, and by 1900 Western European workers were far richer than their grandparents. The recent consensus splits the difference: the early period (1780-1820) was stagnant or declining, while the later period (1820-1860) brought genuine gains — alongside rising inequality.

Labor movements and resistance

Workers organized. The Luddites (1811-1816) broke machinery — not from hatred of technology, but to defend traditional work customs against employers who cut wages. Chartism (1838-1848) demanded universal male suffrage and the secret ballot. Trade unions won legal recognition in 1824-1825.

Marx and Engels's Communist Manifesto (1848) gave the labor movement a theoretical frame: class struggle and surplus value. The Second International (1889) coordinated socialist parties across borders and declared May Day in honor of the eight-hour workday.

Deindustrialization of India and China

Indian and Chinese textile industries collapsed under British competition. India held about 25 percent of world manufacturing in 1750; by 1900, less than 2 percent. British textile imports, backed by colonial tariffs, destroyed the Indian handloom industry that had once clothed the world.

China was forced open by the Opium Wars (1839-1842, 1856-1860) and bound by unequal treaties. This "deindustrialization" impoverished millions and reversed centuries of Asian economic leadership. The global inequality it created persists today.

Visual Beginner

Figure: The geography of industrial inequality. Britain's coal, colonies, and factories redraw the world economy between 1760 and 1900. The arrows make the extraction visible: raw materials flow inward, manufactured goods and narcotics flow outward, and Asia's manufacturing share collapses.

Check your understanding Beginner

Exercise 1. Kenneth Pomeranz argued that the economic divergence between Britain and China came from two specific advantages. Name them, and explain why his argument challenges older Eurocentric accounts.

Answer

Pomeranz identified coal and colonies. Britain had accessible coal deposits near its population centers, and the Americas supplied land, cotton, and sugar that Europe lacked. This challenges Eurocentric accounts (such as Landes's) that attribute European primacy to cultural, scientific, or institutional superiority, because it locates the cause in geographical and imperial contingency rather than in any deep European virtue.

Exercise 2. True or false: the living standards debate can be settled by looking only at average real wages.

Answer

False. Average real wages obscure distribution. Anthropometric evidence (height), mortality data, and qualitative testimony (Engels) show that early industrialization (1780-1820) was stagnant or declining for many workers even where averages later rose. Gains were unevenly distributed by skill, gender, region, and age, and inequality rose alongside average wages.

Exercise 3. In roughly what year did India's share of world manufacturing fall below 2 percent, and what share did it hold around 1750? Name one mechanism by which British policy brought this about.

Answer

India held about 25 percent of world manufacturing in 1750 and under 2 percent by 1900. British policy achieved this through tariff manipulation — banning or heavily taxing Indian textile imports to Britain while forcing India to accept British-made textiles at minimal tariffs — backed by the coercive power of the East India Company and the colonial state.

Formal definition Intermediate+

This section fixes the comparative and economic vocabulary used throughout the unit. Unit 32.18.01 defined the mechanics of the Industrial Revolution; here the focus is on the analytical categories historians and economists use to explain why it happened where it did, who gained, and how it restructured the world economy.

Industrialization denotes the structural shift from agrarian, handicraft economies to economies dominated by machine manufacturing, factory production, and inanimate energy sources — first coal and steam, later electricity, chemicals, and petroleum. The Industrial Revolution conventionally refers to the British phase (1760-1840); the Second Industrial Revolution (1870-1914) covers steel, electricity, chemicals, and the internal combustion engine.

The Great Divergence denotes the widening gap in economic output, productivity, and living standards between industrializing Europe (and its settler offshoots) and the rest of the world between roughly 1750 and 1900. The term is Pomeranz's; the debate is over why Europe diverged rather than China or India.

Deindustrialization denotes the loss of manufacturing capacity in a region. During the Industrial Revolution it was inflicted on India and other colonies through tariff manipulation and colonial coercion. In the late twentieth century the same word described the shift of manufacturing from Western to lower-wage economies.

Proto-industrialization is the expansion of rural handicraft production (the putting-out system) that preceded and in places facilitated factory production. The industrious revolution, Jan de Vries's term, describes the preceding increase in household labor effort aimed at purchasing new consumer goods — tea, sugar, cotton textiles — that wove households into market relations before factories existed.

Real wages denote wages adjusted for the cost of living, the standard quantitative measure in the living standards debate. Surplus value, Marx's term, is the difference between the value workers produce and the wages they receive — the source of profit, on his account.

World-systems theory (Wallerstein) models the global economy as a core-periphery structure in which industrialized cores extract resources and labor from peripheral colonies and dependencies. The developmental state denotes a state that actively guides industrialization through policy — Imperial Germany under Bismarck, Meiji Japan, and later the East Asian "tiger" economies.

Counterexamples to common slips

Slip 1: "Europe industrialized because Europeans were more inventive." This conflates outcome with cause. Pomeranz and Parthasarathi show that Chinese and Indian producers were technologically sophisticated in 1750; the divergence turned on coal, colonies, prices, and state power, not on a deficit of ingenuity.

Slip 2: "The Industrial Revolution raised everyone's living standards." Aggregate real wages rose after the 1820s, but the gains were uneven. Handloom weavers suffered catastrophic decline, women and children earned a fraction of male wages, and early urban workers faced falling life expectancy. Aggregate measures flatten this heterogeneity.

Slip 3: "India and China simply could not compete with superior British technology." Indian textiles remained price- and quality-competitive into the 1790s. What destroyed them was the deliberate use of colonial state power to impose unequal tariff structures — a political, not a technological, outcome.

Key concepts: industrialization as comparative framework Intermediate+

Understanding industrialization and global inequality requires a comparative framework that holds the European and the Asian, the technological and the political, the aggregate and the distributional together. Five debates organize the field.

Allen's high-wage economy thesis

Robert Allen argues that Britain industrialized because it had high wages and cheap energy (coal). High wages made labor-saving machinery profitable: the steam engine was worth inventing precisely because labor was expensive. India and China had abundant cheap labor, so there was little economic incentive to mechanize. The thesis locates the engine of industrialization in relative factor prices — the price of labor relative to energy — rather than in culture or institutions. It is an economic theory of why the right inventor, in the right place, found the right machine worth building.

The Great Divergence debate

Pomeranz's The Great Divergence (2000) argued that China's Yangtze Delta was as developed as England in 1750 and that divergence came from contingency — coal and colonies — not deep cultural or institutional superiority. This challenged Eurocentric narratives of the kind David Landes advanced in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (1998), which stressed Europe's scientific culture, secure property rights, and competitive institutions.

Peer Vries (State, Economy and the Great Divergence; Escaping Europe) pushed back, arguing that institutions and state capacity — Europe's fragmented, war-prone state system — mattered alongside coal and colonies. Parthasarathi extended the critique of Eurocentrism by showing that British colonialism actively deindustrialized India rather than merely outcompeting it. Rosenthal and Wong (Before and Beyond Divergence) argued that Europe's political fragmentation bred competitive markets and property rights, while China's unified state faced less pressure to innovate.

The living standards debate

The optimists (Clapham, Hartwell) hold that real wages rose from the 1820s and that industrialization improved material life over the long run. The pessimists, starting with Engels's The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845), stress horrific conditions and the loss of autonomy that wage figures cannot capture. Anthropometric evidence complicates both: height data (Komlos, Floud) show declining stature during early industrialization, recovering only later. Mortality data (Szreter) show urban health worsening before improving.

The recent consensus divides the period. The early phase (1780-1820) was stagnant or declining for most workers. The later phase (1820-1860) brought rising real wages — but also rising inequality, the theme Thomas Piketty generalizes as the tendency of returns to capital to exceed growth (see 30.07.03 global inequality).

Labor movements

The Luddites (1811-1816) broke machinery to defend traditional work customs against employers who cut wages and quality, not from technophobia. Chartism (1838-1848) gathered millions of signatures for its People's Charter — universal male suffrage, secret ballot, annual parliaments, and wages for MPs. It failed but shaped later reform. Trade unions won legalization in 1824-1825; the Trades Union Congress followed in 1868 and the Labour Party in 1900.

Marx and Engels supplied the theory. The Communist Manifesto (1848) framed industrialization as class struggle; Das Kapital (1867) developed the theory of surplus value (see 30.04.02 class structure). The Second International (1889) coordinated socialist parties across borders and made the eight-hour day — commemorated as May Day — a global demand.

Global consequences: deindustrialization and the periphery

British textile imports destroyed the Indian handloom industry. Clingingsmith and Williamson document India's fall from about 25 percent of world manufacturing in 1750 to under 2 percent by 1900. China was forced open by the Opium Wars (1839-1842, 1856-1860) and bound by unequal treaties (see 32.19.* for Meiji-Qing collapse and the Scramble for Africa).

Wallerstein's world-systems theory frames this as the construction of a core-periphery global economy: industrial cores extracted raw materials and labor from colonial peripheries. The inequality this built is the subject of 30.07.03 and of development economics, where Acemoglu and Robinson contrast extractive with inclusive institutions (see 31.06.03 development anthropology).

Exercises Intermediate+

Exercise 1. Allen argues that high British wages made labor-saving machinery profitable, while cheap Indian and Chinese labor gave producers there no incentive to mechanize. In 3-4 sentences, explain how Allen's thesis and Pomeranz's thesis (coal and colonies) address different parts of the same question, and why neither alone is sufficient.

Answer guide

Allen explains why it was profitable to invent labor-saving machinery in Britain: high wages plus cheap coal made the steam engine worth building, and cheap-labour economies had no comparable incentive. Pomeranz explains where the energy and the raw materials came from that sustained British industrialization — accessible coal and the resources of the Americas. Allen addresses the microeconomics of invention; Pomeranz addresses the macro-geography of inputs and land relief. Neither alone is sufficient because Britain needed both the right price signals (Allen) and the right material endowment and imperial access (Pomeranz) to industrialize first. Together they describe a system in which incentives and endowments reinforced each other.

Exercise 2. Distinguish the "optimist" and "pessimist" positions on living standards during British industrialization. What kind of evidence has complicated a simple victory for either side?

Answer guide

The optimists hold that real wages rose from the 1820s and that industrialization improved material life over the long run; the pessimists, following Engels, stress horrific factory and urban conditions and the loss of worker autonomy that wage averages conceal. Anthropometric evidence (height, studied by Komlos and Floud) and mortality data (Szreter) complicated the dispute: stature fell during early industrialization and recovered later, and urban health worsened before improving. The result is a periodized consensus — early stagnation or decline (1780-1820), later gains (1820-1860) — alongside recognition that gains were unevenly distributed by skill, gender, region, and age, and that inequality rose even as averages climbed.

Exercise 3 (hard, analytical). Parthasarathi argues that British colonialism deindustrialized India through political coercion rather than through neutral market competition. Pomeranz argues that the divergence between Britain and China was largely a matter of coal and colonies. In 4-6 sentences, explain how the Indian case supports a political reading of the divergence that Pomeranz's material reading underplays.

Answer guide

A strong answer notes that Indian textiles remained price- and quality-competitive into the 1790s, so neutral market forces did not defeat them. What destroyed the Indian industry was the deliberate use of state power — internal duties on Indian cloth under the East India Company, prohibitive tariffs on Indian imports to Britain, and the forced opening of the Indian market to British textiles. This is a political mechanism (colonial coercion and tariff manipulation) that Pomeranz's emphasis on coal endowments and New World resources does not foreground, because Pomeranz's comparison is Britain versus China rather than Britain versus India. The Indian case shows that the divergence was not only a matter of lucky endowments but also of imperial power actively disabling a rival manufacturing economy. Pomeranz's material preconditions and Parthasarathi's political mechanisms are therefore complementary: Britain needed both the endowment and the coercive capacity to direct it, while preventing colonies from competing.

Competing perspectives Master

The Great Divergence debate in detail

The divergence debate has several distinguishable positions, each locating the cause at a different level.

Pomeranz (The Great Divergence, 2000) argues for contingency: Europe got lucky. Britain had coal near its population centers, and the Americas provided land, cotton, and ecological relief that densely settled regions of Asia lacked. On this view there was no deep European cultural or institutional superiority — the Yangtze Delta was as developed as England in 1750.

Landes (The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, 1998) represents the older Weberian counter-tradition. Europe industrialized first because of its scientific culture, secure property rights, competitive markets, and institutions that rewarded innovation. On this reading Europe deserved its lead; culture and institutions, not luck, were decisive.

Allen (The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective, 2009) offers an economic synthesis: the right price signals. Britain's high wages and cheap coal made labor-saving machinery profitable, so the steam engine was worth inventing there and not in cheaper-labor India or China. The cause is neither culture nor luck but factor prices.

Rosenthal and Wong (Before and Beyond Divergence, 2011) shift the level to political economy. Europe's political fragmentation bred competitive markets and warfare that pressured states to foster productive enterprise; China's unified state faced less such pressure. Vries (State, Economy and the Great Divergence; Escaping Europe) builds on this, arguing that state capacity, warfare, and colonial extraction mattered alongside coal, and that Pomeranz underweights institutions.

Parthasarathi (Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not, 2011) re-centers India. India was as advanced as Britain in 1750; British colonialism deindustrialized it through political coercion rather than through natural market competition. The divergence was, on this reading, as much an act of imperial power as a natural economic process. Acemoglu and Robinson (Why Nations Fail, 2012) generalize a related institutional claim: inclusive institutions (secure rights, broad participation) produce growth, while extractive institutions (colonial coercion, rent-seeking) produce poverty — see 31.06.03 development anthropology and 30.07.03 global inequality.

The most defensible position is a synthesis: no single factor suffices. Endowments (coal), price signals (high wages), institutions (property rights, competitive states), and imperial power (colonies, coercion) each operated at a different level, and Britain was the place where they converged.

Industrialization outside Europe

Industrialization did not remain a British monopoly, and the timing and form of late industrialization shaped the global inequality that followed.

Japan industrialized through the Meiji Restoration (1868), a state-led program that built railways, armaments, and the zaibatsu conglomerates. The Meiji state actively recruited foreign experts, sent missions abroad, and directed investment — the prototype of the developmental state later theorized by Chalmers Johnson (MITI and the Japanese Miracle). Japan's industrialization enabled its own imperialism and its defeat of Russia in 1905 (see 32.19.*).

Russia industrialized late, under Count Sergei Witte's railway-driven program in the 1890s and later through Soviet five-year plans. State-directed, coercion-heavy industrialization produced rapid output growth at enormous human cost, a pattern repeated across the twentieth-century communist world.

Latin America pursued import substitution industrialization (ISI) in the mid-twentieth century, encouraged by Raúl Prebisch and the UN Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA). Dependency theory held that the global terms of trade systematically disadvantaged raw-material exporters, justifying protected industrialization. ISI produced growth for a generation but ran into debt and inefficiency by the 1980s.

China, after 1978 under Deng Xiaoping, combined state direction with market incentives to become the world's largest manufacturer. India liberalized in 1991 and followed a slower path. The rise of the BRICS economies partially closed the divergence that this unit describes — but the core-periphery structure that Wallerstein identified has not disappeared (see 30.07.03).

Industrialization, the state, and capitalism

Industrialization took different political forms. Britain embraced laissez-faire and the night-watchman state, though in practice it passed Factory Acts and public-health legislation (Edwin Chadwick's sanitation reforms — see 35.06.* public health). Imperial Germany under Bismarck created the first modern welfare state, with social insurance in the 1880s, partly to outflank socialist labor movements. Japan's Meiji state and its successors practiced explicit industrial policy.

Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation (1944) argued that the market society of nineteenth-century Britain was a historical novelty, not a natural state. Land, labor, and money were treated as "fictitious commodities," and their commodification provoked protective countermovements — trade unions, factory legislation, social insurance. Polanyi's framework connects this unit to 30.07.02 social movements and to 30.04.02 class structure.

Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) traced the cultural preconditions of capitalist accumulation to ascetic Protestantism — a thesis that informs the Landes side of the divergence debate and that connects this unit to 30.05.03 education and religion. Joseph Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942) described capitalism as a process of "creative destruction," driven by entrepreneurs in long Kondratieff waves that link this unit to 30.07.03 global inequality. Fernand Braudel and the Annales school placed capitalism within the longue durée of material life, linking this unit to 31.03.* archaeology and material culture.

Industrialization and gender

Industrialization reshaped gender relations. Factory labor initially drew women and children into the textile workforce, where they were paid a fraction of male wages. As the nineteenth century progressed, the "family wage" ideal — a male wage sufficient to support a household — gained ground among reformers and unions, raising men's pay while reinforcing the expectation that women belonged in the home.

The Victorian ideology of "separate spheres" prescribed a public world for men and a domestic one for women (see 30.05.02 family structure and 30.04.04 gender inequality). Women's labor activism — the match girls' strike at Bryant and May in 1888, the garment workers' unions — pushed against both low wages and domestic confinement (see 30.07.02 social movements).

Historical and philosophical context Master

The historiography of the divergence

The study of why Europe industrialized first is itself a product of the political context in which it was written. William McNeill's The Rise of the West ^{[McNeill 1963]} captured the mid-century confidence that European ascendancy was the central story of modern history. Landes's The Wealth and Poverty of Nations extended that tradition, treating European culture and institutions as the principal cause of the divergence. These accounts were written during the Cold War, when the question of why the West grew rich carried direct ideological weight.

The revision that began in the 1990s — the "California school" of Pomeranz, Goldstone, and Wong — was made possible by new comparative economic history that took Asian economies seriously on their own terms rather than as failed Europes. Pomeranz's The Great Divergence ^{[Pomeranz 2000]} was the flagship: it argued that the most advanced regions of China and Europe were comparably developed in 1750 and that the divergence turned on coal and colonies rather than on European virtue. Christopher Bayly's The Birth of the Modern World ^{[Bayly 2004]} generalized the frame, embedding European industrialization in a genuinely global process of connected transformation.

The debate is not merely academic. Whether one attributes the divergence to luck (Pomeranz), to culture and institutions (Landes, Acemoglu-Robinson), to factor prices (Allen), or to imperial coercion (Parthasarathi) has direct implications for development policy today. If institutions are decisive, then poor countries should build inclusive institutions; if colonial extraction is decisive, then the present global distribution of wealth reflects historical injustice that demands redress. The competing perspectives reviewed in this unit thus connect directly to development economics (see 30.07.03 and 31.06.03).

Industrialization and environmental history

Industrialization was the beginning of the large-scale human alteration of the Earth system. Coal combustion raised atmospheric carbon dioxide from roughly 280 parts per million to over 420 in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. William Ruddiman and others have debated whether the Anthropocene began with industrialization or earlier, with farming (see 27.07.* climate change and 27.08.03 atmosphere-biosphere evolution). The "Orbis spike" of 1610 — linked to the Columbian Exchange demographic collapse — has been proposed as an earlier geological marker (see 32.14.02).

Industrial cities were environmentally devastating: coal smoke, polluted rivers, and lethal smog (see 27.04.* atmosphere-weather and 30.08.* urbanization). London's "pea-souper" fogs killed thousands in single episodes. The ecological footprint of industrialization extended into the colonies through deforestation, plantation monoculture, and mineral extraction, themes that connect this unit to 19.10.* community ecology and the human ecological impact.

Industrialization, nationalism, and demographic change

Industrialization created national economies. Railways unified markets; standardized national languages and print capitalism, in Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities (1983), unified populations into "imagined communities" of fellow citizens (see 31.05.* linguistic anthropology and 32.17.02 Atlantic revolutions). Mass production enabled mass armies, and the connection between industrial capacity and military power pointed directly toward the total wars of the twentieth century (see 32.20.02 and 32.22.*).

Industrialization also drove demographic transformation. Urbanization emptied the countryside and filled the cities; population grew as mortality fell with improved sanitation and nutrition (see 30.08.* urbanization and 30.08.02 demographic transition). The demographic transition — from high to low birth and death rates — began in industrializing Britain and spread unevenly across the world. Falling fertility in the later stages, theorized as the "second demographic transition" by Lesthaeghe, connected industrial society to changing family structure (see 30.05.02).

Connections Master

Industrial Revolution and its global consequences 32.18.01. This unit is the analytical sequel to the prerequisite survey. Where 32.18.01 establishes the events, inventions, and primary testimony of British industrialization and its colonial impact, this unit isolates the comparative variables — endowments, prices, institutions, imperial power — that explain why Europe diverged, how the gains and losses were distributed, and how labor organized in response.
The Columbian Exchange 32.14.02 pending. Pomeranz's thesis makes the New World central to European industrialization. The resources of the Americas — land, cotton, sugar — that relieve European ecological constraints in Pomeranz's account are products of the Columbian Exchange analyzed in 32.14.02. The consumer goods (tea, sugar, cotton textiles) of de Vries's "industrious revolution" likewise circulate through the Atlantic and Indian Ocean trades that the Exchange inaugurated.
Global inequality and development 30.07.03 pending. The deindustrialization of India and China, the construction of Wallerstein's core-periphery world economy, and Piketty's dynamics of capital accumulation are the subject of 30.07.03. This unit supplies the historical origins of the distribution that 30.07.03 analyses in the present.
Meiji Japan, Qing collapse, and the Scramble for Africa [32.19.*]. Late industrialization (Japan), colonial coercion (China's unequal treaties), and imperial partition (Africa) are the direct downstream consequences of the industrial inequality this unit describes. The proposed hook to 32.20.02 carries the connection forward: industrial rivalries and the inequalities they produced contributed to the alliances and tensions that erupted in the First World War.
Class structure, social movements, and gender [30.04.02, 30.07.02, 30.04.04]. Marx's surplus value and class struggle (30.04.02), the labor and women's movements that industrialization provoked (30.07.02), and the gendered wage structure of factory production (30.04.04) are all constituted within the industrial economy analyzed here.

Bibliography Master

Pomeranz, K. (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Landes, D. S. (1998). The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. W. W. Norton, New York.
Allen, R. C. (2009). The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bayly, C. A. (2004). The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914: Global Connections and Comparisons. Blackwell, Malden, MA.
McNeill, W. H. (1963). The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Parthasarathi, P. (2011). Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not: Global Economic Divergence, 1600-1850. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Rosenthal, J.-L., & Wong, R. B. (2011). Before and Beyond Divergence: The Politics of Economic Change in China and Europe. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Vries, P. (2013). Escaping Europe: Eurocentrism in World History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Engels, F. (1845). Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England. Otto Wigand, Leipzig.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. Bildungs-Gesellschaft für Arbeiter, London.
Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, Vol. 1. Otto Meissner, Hamburg.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Farrar and Rinehart, New York.
Weber, M. (1905). Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik.
de Vries, J. (2008). The Industrious Revolution: Consumer Behavior and the Household Economy, 1650 to the Present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press, New York.
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Publishers, New York.
Clingingsmith, D., & Williamson, J. G. (2008). Deindustrialization in 18th and 19th century India: Mughal decline, climate shocks and British industrial ascent. Explorations in Economic History, 45(3), 209-234.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper and Brothers, New York.
Braudel, F. (1979). Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe siècle, 3 vols. Armand Colin, Paris.
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso, London.
Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Piketty, T. (2013). Le Capital au XXIe siècle. Éditions du Seuil, Paris.