The source paper (Jack A. Goldstone, 2015, SSRN preprint) argued that neither Holland nor England exhibited sustained growth of GDP per capita concurrent with population growth before about 1780, that China's most advanced region (the Jiangnan/Lower Yangzi delta) tracked European living standards through 1800, and that the so-called Little Divergence within Europe is a myth created by pasting together transient pre-modern growth episodes, or efflorescences. The problem the paper's own evidence leaves unsettled is its central question of chronology: determine, from the contested regional and sectoral reconstructions together with the independent micro evidence, when and where modern economic growth actually began. This requires (i) establishing the trajectory of Chinese living standards c. 1600–1850 — especially for the Jiangnan region and the service sector — and reconciling the contested macro series with micro-level evidence and with stated uncertainty; and (ii) applying an explicit efflorescence-versus-modern-growth criterion to the leading regions for which sectoral reconstructions exist — Holland, England/Great Britain and the Yangzi delta/Jiangnan, benchmarked against the earlier efflorescences of Song China and Renaissance northern Italy — to date the Great and Little Divergences. A 2021 Journal of Global History exchange and a still-unresolved 2025–2026 controversy over the Chinese series (Rawski versus Broadberry–Guan–Li in the Asia-Pacific Economic History Review) show both components remain open.

Background

The Great Divergence is the name given to the separation of Western European — ultimately British — living standards from those of the rest of Eurasia. Pomeranz (2000) argued that as late as about 1750 the most developed parts of China (the Yangzi delta) and Europe (England, the Netherlands) were comparable in real income and market development, and that the divergence came late and depended on coal and New World resources; this is the California School position. Against it, economic historians reconstructed national accounts for pre-industrial economies: Broadberry, Campbell, Klein, Overton and van Leeuwen (2015) built sectoral output estimates for England back to 1270, van Zanden and co-authors did the same for Holland, and these series appeared to show a much earlier divergence — a Little Divergence within Europe (the north pulling ahead of the south after the Middle Ages) plus a large lead over Asia well before 1800. Historical national accounting means reconstructing GDP sector by sector (agriculture, industry, services) from contemporary production, price, and population data. Real-wage comparisons used welfare ratios, the annual earnings of a building laborer divided by the cost of a bare-bones subsistence basket for a family; welfare ratios for London and Amsterdam far above those of Asian and southern European cities were read as confirming an early divergence. Goldstone (2002) had coined the term efflorescence for the recurring pattern of pre-modern economies — Song China, Renaissance Italy, seventeenth-century Holland — generating substantial but ultimately temporary rises in output per head that later reverted to the Malthusian norm, where income gains are eroded by population growth; modern economic growth, by contrast, is sustained growth of income per head occurring together with population growth, without reversion. In the 2015 source paper Goldstone re-examined the new data and argued that Holland's growth ceased after the 1640s, that England's pre-1780 per-capita gains came only in two episodes of demographic decline or stagnation, that welfare ratios for ordinary workers outside the capital cities (south English towns, the Lower Yangzi, Milan, Valencia) showed no systematic divergence, that heights and life expectancy in Europe and China diverged only after about 1850, and that the Chinese macro series showing a 40–50 percent decline in GDP per capita between 1600 and 1800 (Broadberry–Guan–Li's flat agricultural output; the flat service-sector output in the Xu–Shi–van Leeuwen et al. reconstruction) rest on internally inconsistent assumptions contradicted by farm-budget evidence for the Yangzi delta and by the early-nineteenth-century scissors movement in the terms of trade between raw cotton and woven cloth documented by Li and van Zanden (2012). His conclusion — no marked divergence in output per capita until after 1780 — makes the dating of the divergence hinge on exactly the data he identified as too fragile to settle it. The source paper confines itself to that chronology: it offers no explanation of the divergence ('I do not offer any explanation of the Great Divergence in this paper; that is a topic for other works'), and, to save space, it concentrates its comparison on Europe and China while noting that GDP-per-capita estimates already exist for India and for the Ottoman Empire.

Problem Statement

Where and when did modern economic growth begin? Building on Goldstone (2015), the problem is to determine the true onset of sustained economic growth — the transition from pre-modern efflorescences, in which temporary rises in income per head eventually revert under Malthusian population pressure, to self-sustaining growth of GDP per capita concurrent with population growth — by resolving the evidentiary dispute the source paper identified. Goldstone's own dating is the claim to be tested, not a premise: his conclusion that prior to 1780 no area of Europe had yet been able to sustain the combination of rapid population increase and per-capita income growth, and that the Great Divergence was therefore late, rests on the very macro series he identifies as internally inconsistent. Concretely: (1) establish the trajectory of Chinese living standards c. 1600-1850 rather than assume it, in particular for the Jiangnan (Lower Yangzi) region and the service sector: any such trajectory must resolve the internal inconsistencies documented in the contested macro series (agricultural output flat from 1580 to 1780 while population doubled, a result driven by the contested low 1661 population baseline; and no growth at all in service output from 1660 to 1812 despite a more than doubling of population), be internally consistent with population and urbanization evidence, engage the documented critiques of those series — the government-spending corrections of Solar 2021 and the error-margin objections of Rawski 2025, which the criticized authors dispute in print — without presupposing their outcome, and be reconciled with the independent micro evidence (farm budgets, real wages, heights, life expectancy), with stated uncertainty; and (2) apply an explicit, uniform criterion of modern economic growth — sustained per-capita income growth occurring together with population growth, without reversion to Malthusian dynamics — to the leading regions for which sectoral reconstructions exist (Holland, England/Great Britain, and the Yangzi delta/Jiangnan, benchmarked against the earlier efflorescences of Song China and Renaissance northern Italy), in order to date the Great and Little Divergences with quantified uncertainty where the evidence supports a date. The causal explanation of why Britain escaped Malthusian constraints lies outside the source paper's scope, which expressly offers no explanation of the Great Divergence; the question posed here is the chronology — where lies the true onset of modern economic growth.

References

  1. Jack A. Goldstone (2015). The Great and Little Divergence: Where Lies the True Onset of Modern Economic Growth? SSRN working paper. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2599287. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2599287
  2. Jack A. Goldstone (2015). Why and where did modern economic growth begin? TSEG — Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis 12(2): 17-30. DOI: 10.18352/tseg.53. https://doi.org/10.18352/tseg.53
  3. Jack A. Goldstone (2002). Efflorescences and Economic Growth in World History: Rethinking the "Rise of the West" and the Industrial Revolution. Journal of World History 13(2): 323-389. DOI: 10.1353/jwh.2002.0034. https://doi.org/10.1353/jwh.2002.0034
  4. Kenneth Pomeranz (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton University Press (JSTOR digital edition 2009). DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt7sv80. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7sv80
  5. Stephen Broadberry, Bruce M. S. Campbell, Alexander Klein, Mark Overton, Bas van Leeuwen (2015). British Economic Growth, 1270-1870. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781107707603. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107707603
  6. Robert C. Allen, Tommy E. Murphy, Eric B. Schneider (2012). The Colonial Origins of the Divergence in the Americas: A Labor Market Approach. The Journal of Economic History 72(4): 863-894. DOI: 10.1017/s0022050712000629. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022050712000629
  7. Bozhong Li, Jan Luiten van Zanden (2012). Before the Great Divergence? Comparing the Yangzi Delta and the Netherlands at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century. The Journal of Economic History 72(4): 956-989. DOI: 10.1017/s0022050712000654. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022050712000654
  8. Yi Xu, Zhihong Shi, Bas van Leeuwen, Yuping Ni, Zipeng Zhang, Ye Ma (2017). Chinese National Income, ca. 1661-1933. Australian Economic History Review 57(3): 368-393. DOI: 10.1111/aehr.12127. https://doi.org/10.1111/aehr.12127
  9. Stephen Broadberry, Hanhui Guan, David Daokui Li (2018). China, Europe, and the Great Divergence: A Study in Historical National Accounting, 980-1850. The Journal of Economic History 78(4): 955-1000. DOI: 10.1017/s0022050718000529. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022050718000529
  10. Peter M. Solar (2021). China's GDP: Some Corrections and the Way Forward. The Journal of Economic History 81(3): 943-957. DOI: 10.1017/S0022050721000309. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050721000309
  11. Stephen Broadberry, Hanhui Guan, David Daokui Li (2021). China, Europe, and the Great Divergence: A Restatement. The Journal of Economic History 81(3): 958-974. DOI: 10.1017/s0022050721000292. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022050721000292
  12. Jack A. Goldstone (2021). Dating the Great Divergence. Journal of Global History 16(2): 266-285. DOI: 10.1017/S1740022820000406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022820000406
  13. Stephen Broadberry (2021). Historical national accounting and dating the Great Divergence. Journal of Global History 16(2): 286-293. DOI: 10.1017/S1740022820000388. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022820000388
  14. Jan Luiten van Zanden, Jutta Bolt (2021). Two concerns about the interpretation of the estimates of historical national accounts before 1850. Journal of Global History 16(2): 294-300. DOI: 10.1017/s174002282000039x. https://doi.org/10.1017/s174002282000039x
  15. Stephen Broadberry, Johann Custodis, Bishnupriya Gupta (2015). India and the great divergence: An Anglo-Indian comparison of GDP per capita, 1600-1871. Explorations in Economic History 55: 58-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.eeh.2014.04.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2014.04.003
  16. Thomas G. Rawski (2025). Weak data nullify bold claims about economic trends in Qing China. Asia-Pacific Economic History Review 65(2): 273-299. DOI: 10.1111/aehr.70010. https://doi.org/10.1111/aehr.70010
  17. Stephen Broadberry, Hanhui Guan, David Daokui Li (2026). Economic trends in Qing China: A response to Rawski's bold claims. Asia-Pacific Economic History Review 66(1): 99-116. DOI: 10.1111/aehr.70019. https://doi.org/10.1111/aehr.70019
  18. Stephen Broadberry, Hanhui Guan (2026). Regional variation of GDP per head within China, 1080-1850: Implications for the great divergence debate. Explorations in Economic History 100: 101753. DOI: 10.1016/j.eeh.2026.101753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2026.101753
  19. Runzhuo Zhai (2026). Agricultural growth in the Yangzi Delta: 1393-1953. Explorations in Economic History 101: 101763. DOI: 10.1016/j.eeh.2026.101763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2026.101763
  20. Stephen Broadberry, Runzhuo Zhai (2026). Innovation and the great divergence. The Economic History Review (advance online publication). DOI: 10.1111/ehr.70151. https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.70151
  21. Philip T. Hoffman (2020). The Great Divergence: Why Britain Industrialised First. Australian Economic History Review 60(2): 126-147. DOI: 10.1111/aehr.12192. https://doi.org/10.1111/aehr.12192