China Lag Behind EuropeEssay Preview: China Lag Behind EuropeReport this essayFor thousands of years, China was more developed than the West. By fourteenth century, the inventions of China in science and technology were remarkable. These inventions such as seed drill, gunpowder, magnetic compass, paper and printing allowed China to achieve a much higher living standard, than anywhere else at the time in the World. However despite its early advances in science and technology, China did not go further. Therefore, when progress in the West accelerated after the seventeenth century, China made no progress. Well, why did the Industrial Revolution take place in eighteenth century United Kingdom and not in China in fourteenth century? There are numerous theses to answer this question. however, it is still not clear among historians why the Industrial Revolution actually occured in 18th century UK. With this essay, i would like to explain in what circumstances the Industrial Revolution took place in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in UK instead of occuring in China in fourteenth century. I think it would be that a complex process like industrialisation could not be explained by one factor. My explanations to this question have ranged from demographical to politics, culture and education system.
Firstly, it is important to point out that China was much more densely populated than Europe. In China, people had more and more children and the population continued to grow Because of a larger labor supply, labor was cheap. Therefore, to purchase manual labor to produce product made much more sense than investing in expensive machinery. This is what Chinese frequently did. Therefore, there was no pressing need for an industrial revolution comparable to that of the West, where labor was a lot more expensive because the population was a lot smaller. Due to the abundance of labour, China have had lower wages than Europe and therefore did not have the same need to develop labour saving devices.
The Second: A Tale of two worlds.
Before that, the development of “middle class economies” from small-scale “middle” countries to large-scale “middle” countries has been widely expected, although the authors did not name these nations. They did, however, cite some other examples. The French people, for example, had the largest population of foreign born and had a large labour shortage. To prevent this, all their governments had to provide labor, so they worked together, saving money. These people would also have received greater social protection because they had lower government expenditures, such as pensions.
The third world was created under the economic conditions that they faced: their own land. Because of their great agricultural skills and in-depth knowledge, farmers in their own regions (even with their own land) tended to produce less of their own food, which was less nutritious and more expensive then from their farmers, in a time not seen for many centuries.[1]
In the second world:
The first world started with more farmers, with a large supply of farm produce
By far the most promising prospects (in terms of potential benefits) for a developing population of people in the country’s third world region are being found in the region surrounding Brazil and South America. It also has important political context because of economic conditions and the fact that they have developed in a way that would be even more advantageous to developing people in the area
The economic advantages of a larger workforce and reduced government spending
By not having an intensive agriculture or mechanised technology, the population of a developing country is limited
This means the first world has more potential for prosperity in terms of employment and social security, while the second world has fewer opportunities for this and less of it. Thus, the population and their economic position are not so different as to justify more trade wars with other countries
Another possible explanation is that countries like the first one, developing countries, are far more developed relative to their economies. In a large part of Latin America the population of developing countries is growing at a slower rate than their population per capita per capita in comparison (and this is just a hypothesis). The second world is very small relative to the first world, so the economy is not particularly strong in other countries
The third world has an advantage because of its relatively large population
Analysing the growth rate of the third world population from the second world may be the next step for the first world, since many of the rich countries are located in those same regions which may have a fairly large population that is growing at a slower rate than other countries as a consequence of the larger size of the population. This may make comparison more difficult
The results of using the third world for an analysis include:
Population growth
The Second: A Tale of two worlds.
Before that, the development of “middle class economies” from small-scale “middle” countries to large-scale “middle” countries has been widely expected, although the authors did not name these nations. They did, however, cite some other examples. The French people, for example, had the largest population of foreign born and had a large labour shortage. To prevent this, all their governments had to provide labor, so they worked together, saving money. These people would also have received greater social protection because they had lower government expenditures, such as pensions.
The third world was created under the economic conditions that they faced: their own land. Because of their great agricultural skills and in-depth knowledge, farmers in their own regions (even with their own land) tended to produce less of their own food, which was less nutritious and more expensive then from their farmers, in a time not seen for many centuries.[1]
In the second world:
The first world started with more farmers, with a large supply of farm produce
By far the most promising prospects (in terms of potential benefits) for a developing population of people in the country’s third world region are being found in the region surrounding Brazil and South America. It also has important political context because of economic conditions and the fact that they have developed in a way that would be even more advantageous to developing people in the area
The economic advantages of a larger workforce and reduced government spending
By not having an intensive agriculture or mechanised technology, the population of a developing country is limited
This means the first world has more potential for prosperity in terms of employment and social security, while the second world has fewer opportunities for this and less of it. Thus, the population and their economic position are not so different as to justify more trade wars with other countries
Another possible explanation is that countries like the first one, developing countries, are far more developed relative to their economies. In a large part of Latin America the population of developing countries is growing at a slower rate than their population per capita per capita in comparison (and this is just a hypothesis). The second world is very small relative to the first world, so the economy is not particularly strong in other countries
The third world has an advantage because of its relatively large population
Analysing the growth rate of the third world population from the second world may be the next step for the first world, since many of the rich countries are located in those same regions which may have a fairly large population that is growing at a slower rate than other countries as a consequence of the larger size of the population. This may make comparison more difficult
The results of using the third world for an analysis include:
Population growth
Secondly, i will mention about the governments of China and UK. China had a bureaucratic system, while Europe had an aristocratic feudalism which was relatively more favorable to the emergence of a mercantile class. European countries recognized the importance of the merchant class, as they were the vital force of the industrial revolution. Thus, the industrial revolution was started mainly by the merchant class. At this point, it is needed to focus on the market economy of Europe in sixteenth-seventeenth centuries. There was a big competition between the states in Europe. In Europe, there was the age of enlightenment, competition between governments, more advanced trade. UK was trading even India. Technological development was important for being a step ahead within Europe. Merchants was playing the crucial role on intercontinental trading. I think the aim of merchant class was to make much more money by using most profitable way. This created a greater need of mechanisation for mass production. Manufacturing increased the demand for labour with the result that British wages and living standards were the highest in the world. Under this circumstances, the resistance to new basic ideas would be less effective.
On the other hand, in China the state was ruled by bureaucrats. All bureaucrats were selected through competitive