Rating: 
Summary: academic overspecialization at its worst
Review: I am an economics major at the University of Chicago. I started this book on a reccomendation from an economist friend of mine, and while I was not impressed by his language in the first chapter, I can honestly say that I still seriously expected to find some penetrating economic analysis. What I found was a really bad case of somebody trying to do something he obviously wasn't trained to do. His main point is that culture, or more precisely, values, matter to economic development. This has long been of interest to anthropologists and sociologists and they have done a lot of good, sophisticated writing on the subject, which David Landes obviously hasn't read. The really sad thing about this is that, in addition to being much more subtle and clever, they make a lot of the same points (but without the vulgarity and racism). See, for example, Benedict Anderson's Imagined_Communities, which discusses the rise and role of nationalism. He supports his arguments with a crude analysis of European and Japanese cultural and industrial developments. But as he says, the questions of why the West industrialized and why the rest of the world didn't are really one and the same. And he singularly fails to give an effective analysis of the other cultures. Here's an example: he says that the armies "Oriental despots" fought poorly because they had no reason to be loyal to a despotic government. He cites as evidence (if it can even be called that) just one case where British troops fought against an Indian ruler, whose troops mostly ran away. He never asks whether they did this in battles against other Indian rulers who didn't have the prestige or technical sophistication of the British. He even goes so far as to say that these "Oriental despotisms," which he does not differentiate, appointed officials by fiat and not by merit. I shouldn't need to mention the Chinese examination system. Even he does't think knowledge of Confucian classics counts as merit, he should have known that during the Tang dynasty the officials were selected by a practical exam rather than Confucian classics. But that's exactly the problem--he's trying to write a history of the world that compares European and non-European cultures starting from the assumption that since Europe invented almost everything, only Europe needs to be seriously researched (if you don't believe me, check the bibliography). And he finds (surprise) that only Europe has made significant contributions to the industrial revolution and that this was contributed to by its culture (was anything any society ever did not influenced by the culture?). The reasoning is highly circular. Anybody that disagrees with him is, he says, just writing feel-good history with no regard to the facts (the irony here is just unbearable). I would say that he should leave history to the historians and sociology to the sociologists, but most of these don't know economics well enough to write an economic history. What we really need is for more economists to throw away their ridiculous pretension that economics is the only "scientific" social science and start taking the other social sciences seriously. This one in particular clearly has a lot to learn from them.
Rating: 
Summary: tripe
Review: Chief problems with Mr. Landes' oeuvre are not its' amazing dishonesty, lack of basic erudition or blatant racism (although he's got a good deal of racism that amply compensates for other deficiencies, such as the lack of sound historic knowledge). Main problem with this book is the terrible fact that it actually became (very) successful. It sells well. That is a real pity, because the Wealth and Poverty is an imposter-sort of book. It pretends to be what it is clearly not. Like being a good history book. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations is an ideological propaganda piece. Like other works of this genre, it carries main ideological concept (dogma, belief, albeit an irrational one) and "supporting material". Because it is virtually impossible to prove this kind of ideological belief from scientific standpoint, beliefs are beliefs, and facts and figures are lacking, then other methods are applied. [...]
Rating: 
Summary: fascinating
Review: It will keep you reading, it will keep you interested, it will make you think. What more can you ask of a book? Oh, right, some people want a book thatexempts culture from a role in human affairs. Since culture is one of the few factors over which humans have complete control, I would not care to have it turn out not to matter. I hope that we can tease out the cultural attitudes that lead, for example, to a non-racist social atmosphere. For those who enjoy Landes and for those who find him politically incorrect, I have some suggestions. Read CULTURE MATTERS,How Values Shape Human Progress, a collection of essays that attempt to prove or disprove Landes-style thinking on economic history using the full arsenal of social research techniques. Or try Diana Muir's BULLOUGH'S POND which, besides being one of the best-written non-fiction titles I've ever read, is the history of a region where culture, indeed seems to have mattered. Or try The Great Divergence, in which Kenneth Pomeranz struggles to explain the rise of the west without resorting to culture.
Rating: 
Summary: Very interesting but bias lets it down
Review: This is a fascinating book. As other reviewers have noted, it contains a wealth of interesting facts and information that would be very hard to come by elsewhere. It is fairly well-written (though not well proof-read in the hardback edition at least). On top of this, the volume is exceptionally well-sourced for a non-academic book and the arguments about different societies, and why they act the way they do, are extremely convincing. Why only three stars? Because in my view, though the arguments are extremely cogent, they are let down by some obvious throwaway unsupportable remarks. Frequently, after spending three pages of dense and sourced text to make a point, a footnote will appear that makes some kind of derogatory remark about "political correctness". As a result, the thorough research is undermined by off-the-point nasty references to other schools of thought. 99.9% of this book is spent making its own point very well; but the other 0.1% lets down the work by exposing the biases of the author. The author should let the facts speak for themselves, as should his opponents.
Rating:
Summary: Eurocentric hogwash!
Review: This is the least radical history book written in the last half century. It is rife with archaic ideas. Mr. Landes is no kind of intellectual. If you want this kind of nonsense, read a history textbook from the 50's.
Rating:
Summary: Utter racism
Review: This person, David Landes, does not seem to give much importance to people from other countries and their achievements. He does not realize that in different times in the history of this world, different cultures thrived due to favorable conditions in those places at the time. These conditions include good and stable government, good climatic conditions, lack of natural disasters like floods, famine, and pestilences, peace and stability, encouragement of innovation and trade. Some of the societies which were at their peak due to these reasons include Tokugawa Japan, Sung China, India in Akbar's time, Mayan Golden period, Italian Renaissance, Tang China, Islam in the Middle Ages, etc. For example, the starting of civilization and agriculture began in Sumeria, Egypt, Central America (Olmecs), and South America (Chavin), due to a change from village life to the building of temples and increases in population arounbd these centres. These societies encouraged favorable methods of production, distribution, education, the arts, and sciences. They provided incentives to people and were receptive to new ideas. Likewise, as time went by, these societies became stable and static and were replaced in their place in world politics, arts, and sciences by societies which started encourage the favorable conditions in their own societies. These societies took the world into an entire new level with their own innovations (which was created by building on the innovations of the older societies). So there was a cycle, whereby a society started, reached a peak, and then started to decline, and later started to reach a peak again. So, In times of Greece and Rome, Europe was at its peak with the other civilizations of Han CHina, and Maurya India. In the dark Ages, while Europe went into decline, Islam, China, and India continued to thrive. Then as these socities became more static in science and technology and commerce starting in the 1700s, Europe started to make great contributions all over again. Europe built on the inventions of China (paper, printing, compass, wheelbarrow, rockets, gunpowder, guns, cannons, rotor blade, zoetrope, suspension bridge, segmental arch bridge, innoculation, cast iron, blast furnace, steel, etc), Asia's great art forms later in the 1800s and 1900s (Japanese UKiyo-e prints, Chinese and African arts), and on Native American plants and medicines (corn, potato, peanut, soyabean, tomato, squash, etc., chocolate, rubber, quinine, tobacco, etc.). With these things, Europe became enriched and with the lands from the Americas and Australia could thrive and flourish. So Europe built on other people' inventions and in time made their own. Later in the 1900's Japan used Europe's inventions to make herself into a great nation, while making her own technological and industrial contributions as she matured in her learning from the West. Today, people from Europe, Asia, China, India, Africa, and the Native Americans have all contirbuted to the greatness of this world's "present" most richest, advanced, and innovative nation, the USA. So ever man, woman and child fromn every society have contributed tpo the greatness of this world. To simply say that culture contributes to how much a people achieves is just not true. It is pure racism! One should have to look at the history, and the present economic, political, and industrial wealth of a nation. At different times, every country, people, and society was at their peak and at the peak of the world. It just happens to be that Europe had been in her best and greatest in the last 250 years.
Rating:
Summary: A truly remarkable book
Review: This book purports to answer one of the most fundamental questions of all: Why have some nations achieved relative wealth and others relative poverty? The answer Landes provides one with is rigorous and well agrued. In a nut-shell this book sees economic growth occuring as a consequence of: 1.)some new technology; 2.)one area thus spurting ahead; 3.)then catchup by the laggards resulting in 4.) long-run convergence. It is refreshing that the author provides room for luck in his method of analysis (no silly 'dialectic' here); for example the Dutch betting on Indonesia and spices (used, incidently, mainly as a perservative) while Great Britain and France chanced India and textiles. The latter ending up as the more profitable. With the benefit of hindsight it could seem that the outcome of the example was in some way determined (some malign capitalist ploy? ). But, I am sure that at the time, for the players, it certainly did not seem like that! (For a clear and concise destruction of determinism in historiography see Karl Popper's "The Poverty of Historicism"). There is no doubt that many reviewers dislike this magnificent book. Reality can be a bitter pill to swallow. But this is Landes's topic: HOW THINGS ARE. Now, I know that due to the cancer that is political correctness (a creed that breeds amoral, intolerent bigots by the lorry-load), many are uneasy with the truth: That the West IS dominant, that capitalism HAS triumphed, that Imperalism spread much that was good, that much of the latter was concerned with profit (and there is nothing wrong with this - "God, Gold and Glory" to quote Landes) and that socialism HAS failed (completely). Like it or not this is simply the honest-to-God truth. Amen.
Rating:
Summary: In the tradition of Adam Smith
Review: A highly readable, even entertaining, study of economic development and its causes. Its scope, range and command of detail is awe-inspiring and its analysis is fresh, sceptical of all dogma and challenging. It is a work in the grand tradition of Adam Smith and his contemporaries, written for the general reader. The author seeks to 'trace and understand the main stream of economic advance and modernization.' In doing so, he ranges from ancient times to the present (but concentrates mainly on the period since about 1450) and across all major geographic areas and cultures. As is true of Smith, Landes' analysis is founded on acute observation of what has actually happened in economic history and on an analysis of possible causes that ranges across all aspects of human behaviour and institutions, not merely those aspects that are conventionally deemed to be 'economic'. The questions he addresses are: How and why did we get where we are? How did the rich countries get so rich? Why are the poor countries so poor? Why did Europe ("the West") take the lead in changing the world? To grossly oversimplify a very sophisticated analysis, his conclusion is that culture has been a dominant influence. Looking forward, he sees a continuing tension between growth and social equity in which one can not be dogmatic about either the continuance or the proper role of the State. He mentions but gives little real attention to the issue of ecological sustainability, which many would see as the dominant issue to be faced within the next few decades. He assigns a major role to the conditions that allow a free market to operate, but does not fall into the trap of quasi-religious dogma about the virtues of a free market as such. What I like most about the book is that the author treats his readers as intelligent people who are entitled to form their own opinions. He does not conceal his own, but nor does he force them down your throat. For me, the main lack in the book is that little attention is given to the all-important questions - has the growth in population and resource use caused a change in the way we need to look at our relationship to the natural world? is the way that we choose to measure wealth still appropriate to the situation that we have created? The author touches on these vital questions but does not seek to address them in depth. This book makes an interesting companion/comparison to Jared Diamond's brilliant 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.
Rating:
Summary: A lot of eurocentric ideas and views, ...
Review: The writer is a very narrow-minded and an arrogant person. He does not know much about the history of the world prior to 1400 AD. He says that modern science, technology, and the commercial expansion throughout the world, developed mainly due to European achievements from 1400 AD to present. In doing so, he ignores and many times- sarcastically tries to discredit the "fact" that China had a more advanced technology than Europe's as late as 1750 AD and that India was richer than Europe as late at 1700 AD. He also fails to highlight the Asian (Chinese, Indian, & Middle-Eastern), Native American, and Southern European achievements from 5000 BC to 1400 AD in starting civilizations, world's great art forms, cultures, musical genres, architectures, religions, science, technology, and material wealth. He does not speak about Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Persian, and others), American (Mayan, Zapotecs, Mochicas, Chimor, and others), Southern European, and African (Egyptian) civilizations prior to 1400 AD? My question to him: What economic stage and wealth was NorthWestern Europe in prior to 1500 AD? Answer: With the exception of Mediterranean Europe in those years, all of Europe was populated by Germanic and Slavic people. These people did not have paper, compass, gunpowder, rudder, printing, rockets, plough, cast iron, blast furnaces, and many other inventions (all of which were Chinese inventions), the material wealth (silk, spices, porcelain, etc), the food crops (corn, rice, potato, tomato, tea, and numerous others), or any thing which is indicative of higher culture and civilization (for example novel, publishing, money, toilet, etc, all of which originated in Asia and the Americas). He sarcastically teases China's technological, economic, and industrial achievements, which was the world's best, as late as 1750AD. This he does by frequently citing H-World online conversations. He speaks badly of Africa, which was plundered by imperialists since the late 1800s. He does however admit the horrendous crimes carried out against the Native Americans, but states that only 50 - 70 million Native Americans lived in the America's in 1492 (most scholars would now agree that there were 100+ million people in the Americas in 1492, 95% of whom were wiped out by 1692 AD). He does not agree that it was really the wealth of the Aztec, Inca, and other Native American peoples (like gold and silver artworks), which fueled the Spanish treasury, which itself fueled the beginning of the "Commercial Revolution" in northwestern Europe from 1600 AD on. What about the fact that Europeans learned about growing potato, tobacco, tomato, corn, soybean, peanut, avocado, pepper, squash, chocolate, rubber, quinine, birth control pill, and many other plants and drugs from the Native Americans. Does he say that Europe's maritime achievement was achieved because of the compass, rudder, watertight compartments, good sails (all of which were Chinese inventions) ? No! Does he say that Europe's educational achievement was achieved because of paper and printing (all of which were Chinese inventions) ? No! Does he say that Europe's military achievement was achieved because of guns, gunpowder, cannon, rockets, crossbow, bombs, flame-thrower (all of which were Chinese inventions)? No! Does he give any credit to the greatness of Asian and African arts (those of China, Japan, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle-East), that shaped and influenced modern European art forms (like Impressionism, Art Noveau, Symbolism, Cubism, Tachism, and others) in music, painting, architecture, and sculpture, and decorative arts to ancient Greek and Roman sculpture, architecture, music, painting, and other art forms? No! He only speaks of modern science and technology, European might and imperialism, and how great Europe was in the short period from 1400 AD to present in industry, science, and technology, and politics. The fact that Europe owes so much to the vast achievements of non-European peoples, that China was as richer and technologically advanced as Europe was in 1750 AD, and that so much was learnt from the Native Americans is never spoken by David Landes. Instead he basks in northwestern European achievements and glory from 1600 AD onwards in science, commerce, and politics, and completely ignores everyone else's greatness in those fields even late as 1800 AD (like China's technological advantage over Europe as late as 1750 AD, India's vast wealth as late as 1700 AD, Native American people's contributions to agriculture, medicine, precious metals, and to beginning of world commerce from 1492 AD onwards, to Persian, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian civilizations which inspired the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, to Sub-Saharan Africans, whose lands were plundered by the imperialists from 1880 AD to present), or to Southern Europeans, who were the pioneers of civilization in Europe as long as one can remember. David Landes is a very NorthWesternEurope-centric man, who should try to love people from everywhere else in the world and respect their achievements. These include people from Asia, Africa, the native peoples of the Americas, and Southern Europe.
Rating: 
Summary: An Economic History view of the modern world
Review: Personally, I must say that many of the revisionist claims about the state of the modern world--why some civilizations have succeeded and others have not--appeal to me. However, I must also say that in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Landes gives sound reasoning for his arguments about the role of culture in creating industrial societies. I admire Landes' meticulous application of economic theory to explain what we call success and how we came to arrive at this state in human history. There is no doubt, more than just an element of truth to the theory that competition has driven development, though it leads me to wonder how far apart Landes and the revisionists truly are. Landes does not make a strong attempt to explain away the differences between cultures and their views on the value of competition. Could it possibly be that both Diamond and Landes are right? Could it be that resources and geography have created the different cultures that have led to different levels of economic success and industrialization? It is a very interesting and still relevant debate and to understand it fully, one must at least read and understand Landes' arguments, if not fully agree with his assessment. This is a well written book, at times a bit dense, but with enough anecdotal evidence to keep the reader interested. Landes does a thorough job supporting his claims and covers broad topics in this treatment of the study of economic history.
|
