Broadberry, Guan & Li (2018) — China, Europe, and the Great Divergence

Citation. Broadberry, Stephen, Hanhui Guan, and David Daokui Li. “China, Europe, and the Great Divergence: A Study in Historical National Accounting, 980–1850.” Journal of Economic History 78(4), 2018: 955–1000.

Summary

The single most consequential quantitative challenge to the California School’s claim of European-Asian parity in 1750. Broadberry, Guan, and Li construct a continuous series of Chinese GDP per capita from 980 to 1850, using historical national-accounting methods (sectoral output reconstructions, urbanization rates, occupational structures) comparable to those underlying the British and European long-run series. The reconstructed series shows that:

• Chinese GDP per capita peaked in the Northern Song (~1080), reached comparable European levels in the medieval period, and then declined or stagnated through the Ming and Qing.
• By 1700, the most advanced regions of China (the Yangzi delta) had per-capita incomes well below those of NW Europe — not, as Pomeranz argued, at parity.
• The Great Divergence between China and NW Europe begins much earlier than the California School allowed: by 1500 or earlier the gap is opening, and by 1700 it is substantial.

The paper, with subsequent papers by the same authors and the broader Broadberry-led project, has reframed the empirical baseline of the Great Divergence debate. The California-school strong-form parity claim has been substantially eroded, although the data are themselves contested (notably by Deng & O’Brien and others arguing the Broadberry estimates rest on questionable assumptions about Ming-era government expenditure).

Key claims

• Chinese GDP per capita can be reconstructed continuously from 980 to 1850 using historical-national-accounting methods.
• Chinese per-capita GDP peaked in the Northern Song (~1080) and stagnated or declined through subsequent dynasties.
• By 1700, NW European per-capita GDP substantially exceeded that of even the most advanced Chinese regions, contradicting the California School’s parity claim.
• The Great Divergence began earlier than the California School argued (~1500 or before), but somewhat later than older Eurocentric narratives implied.
• The empirical baseline of the Great Divergence debate must be reset to accommodate these revised estimates; many causal accounts that depend on late-18th-century parity require reconsideration.