Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not（I***N=9780521168243） 阿里云 lit azw3 txt pdf caj 下载 在线

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

1. Introduction;

Part I. Setting the Stage: Europe and Asia before Divergence:

　2. India and the global economy, 1600–1800;

　3. Political instituti*** and economic life;

Part II. The Divergence of Britain:

　4. The European resp***e to Indian cott***;

　5. State and market: Britain, France, and the Ottoman

Empire;

　6. From cotton to coal; Part III. The Indian Path:

　7. Science and technology in India, 1600–1800;

　8. Industry in early nineteenth-century India;

　9. Conclusion.

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not（I***N=9780521168243）在线阅读

在线听书地址：Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not（I***N=9780521168243）在线收听

在线购买地址：Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not（I***N=9780521168243）在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

编辑推荐

　　Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not provides a striking new

answer to the classic question of why Europe industrialised from

the late eighteenth century and Asia did not. Drawing significantly

from the case of India, Prasannan Parthasarathi shows that in the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the advanced regi*** of Europe

and Asia were more alike than different, both characterized by

sophisticated and growing economies. Their subsequent divergence

can be attributed to different competitive and ecological pressures

that in turn produced varied state policies and economic outcomes.

This account breaks with conventional views, which hold that

divergence occurred because Europe possessed superior markets,

rationality, science or instituti***. It offers instead a

groundbreaking rereading of global economic development that ranges

from India, Japan and China to Britain, France and the Ottoman

Empire and from the textile and coal industries to the roles of

science, technology and the state.

　　? Explains divergence for the first time from the perspective of

the Indian subcontinent as opposed to a European or Chinese

perspective ? Re-evaluates the premise that Europe industrialised

first because it was very different to Asia, and highlights instead

the similarities between the political and economic instituti*** in

advanced areas of Asia and Europe ? Argues that the failure of

modern industry in nineteenth-century India was not due to lack of

technical ability, but to the policies of the colonial state