Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
> The supply of cheap capital from the colonial trade was not the only
> crucial factor giving Europe (E) a chance to overcome its marginal
> position in the world economy. Another one was E's high wages relative to
> Asia's low wages. E's comparative wage-costs were such
> that they could not compete in the world economy (as Asia was "much
> more productive with much lower wage costs"), so E was motivated
> to introduce labor-reducing machinery. A decision which Europeans
> did not make because they were more "rational" or advanced but
> because they had different relative factor (capital/labor) prices.
> That is, for Frank, the "real explanation" for E's industrialization
> does not lie in any "internal" superiority but in E's differential
> comparative costs *within* the world economy.
>
I have found the postings on Frank's book fascinating. I
haven't myself yet had time to do more than browse a bit of Frank's
book and check a reference or two, but the I am saving the various
comments on Frank's book for later restudy. Meanwhile, I would like
to raise one point.
It would seem that Frank's logic ignores the obvious question:
why, if Asia really was wealthier per capita than Europe, were the
wages so much lower in Asia? I was checking into the 1700 figures
cited by Frank, and his reference to Braudel. These figures, if I
recall right, claim that per capita England was a bit less wealthy
than France, which in turn was somewhat under India. However, in
checking the reference for these figures to Braudel given by Frank,
it turns out that Braudel also claims that, around 1700, wages in
France, although they were substantially less than those in England,
were *six times* higher than those in India at this time. Frank
recognizes lower wages in India, and apparently cites the same
reference for this as used by Braudel, but doesn't seem to cite *how
much* lower they were (maybe I missed it), and tries -- rather
feebly, it seems to me -- to explain away most of the significance of
this.
So what's the significance of all this? Frank's argument at
base seems to treat the wage difference as not an internal
factor, but simply a question of "comparative cost" in the world
market. But the more obvious issue is: if the wages are so much lower
in a country that is supposedly just as wealthy, if not more so, as
the country with higher wages, then doesn't this strongly suggest
that there may be internal differences in the class relations in
these countries?
It seems, in their struggle against "stage-ism", "Eurocentrism",
etc. , various theorists have given up any serious consideration of
of the internal factors. Instead there is recourse in Frank's book
to the crudest factor of all--just compare societies by wealth per
capita. (By the way, wouldn't these be very speculative figures
with respect to these economies of centuries ago? How does one get
such a figure? I really am curious about this. My guess is that
various calculations must depend on first making assumptions about
the economy of the country, and then extrapolating very, very partial
data to the whole country.) The fact that the wealthier society may
have incredibly lower wages doesn't seem to faze these theorists at
all.
--Joseph Green
