kemsuСибСкриптSibScript2949-21222949-2092Kemerovo State University10.21603/2078-8975-2017-3-21-25kemsu-2238Research ArticleИСТОРИЯ РОССИИRussian history«ВЕЛИКАЯ ДИВЕРГЕНЦИЯ» В ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯХ «КАЛИФОРНИЙСКОЙ ШКОЛЫ» ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЙ ИСТОРИИ«THE GREAT DIVERGENCE» IN THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF ECONOMIC HISTORYБулдыгинС. С.BuldyginSergey S.

650000, г. Кемерово, ул. Красная, 6.

6, Krasnaya St., Kemerovo, 650000.

buldygin.sergey@mail.ruКемеровский государственный университет.РоссияKemerovo State University.Russian Federation201723102017032125Copyright © Булдыгин С.С., 20172017Булдыгин С.С.Buldygin S.S.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.sibscript.ru/jour/article/view/2238

В статье анализируются взгляды ученых «Калифорнийской школы» на «возвышение» стран Европы в Новое время, названное в 1990-е гг. «Великой дивергенцией». Представители школы исходят из положения о том, что передовые страны Востока вплоть до XIX в. не отставали по уровню развития от стран Западной Европы. Китай и Индия по уровню жизни, заработной платы и производительности труда ничем не уступали Западу. Исследователи, точки зрения которых представлены в данной статье, считают, что до 1800 г. наиболее развитые области Евразии обладали рядом сходств. Они указывают на то, что «Великая дивергенция» между Западом и Востоком началась только в ходе индустриальной революции, а также что это временное явление. В статье предпринимается критический анализ идей и концепций, дается оценка теоретического вклада в развитие проблематики становления современной промышленной цивилизации.

The article discusses works of California School scientists in order to analyze their views on the "rise" of Europe in Modern era, called in 1990s "The Great Divergence". The researchers argue that such advanced countries of the preXIXth century East as India and China did not fall behind, and in some cases even surpassed, most developed regions of Western Europe in the level of their economic development, trade and use of technology. The scholars of California School believe that before 1800 the most developed regions of Eurasia had a number of similarities. They point out that the "Great Divergence" between East and West began only during the industrial revolution, and that this is a temporary phenomenon. The article presents the criticism of California School and draws conclusions about the role and influence of the school on the development of issues related to the search for the causes of the formation of modern industrial civilization.

Калифорнийская школаВеликая дивергенцияпромышленная революцияэкономический ростевропоцентризмCalifornia SchoolThe Great DivergenceIndustrial Revolutionthe economic growthEurocentrismReferencesWallerstein I. The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, 1974. 411 p.Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, 1974, 411.Frank A. G. Review of The Great Divergence // Journal of Asian Studies. 2001. Vol. 60(1). P. 180–183.Frank A. G. Review of The Great Divergence. Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 60(1) (2001): 180–183.Goldstone J. A. The rise of the West – or not? A revision to socio-economic history // Sociological Theory. Davis, 2000. P. 173–194.Goldstone J. A. The rise of the West – or not? A revision to socio-economic history. Sociological Theory. Davis, 2000, 173–194.Wong R. B. China transformed: Historical change and the limits of the European experience. Ithaca, 1997. 327 p.Wong R. B. China transformed: Historical change and the limits of the European experience. Ithaca, 1997, 327.Frank A. G. ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1998. 557 p.Frank A. G. ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1998, 557.Lee J., Feng W. Malthusian Models and Chinese Realities: The Chinese Demographic System 1700–2000 // Population and Development Review. 1999. Vol. 25(1). P. 33–65.Lee J., Feng W. Malthusian Models and Chinese Realities: The Chinese Demographic System 1700–2000. Population and Development Review, vol. 25(1) (1999): 33–65.Голдстоун Дж. Почему Европа? Возвышение Запада в мировой истории, 1500–1850. М.: Изд-во Института Гайдара, 2014. 224 c.Goldstoun Dzh. Pochemu Evropa? Vozvyshenie Zapada v mirovoi istorii, 1500–1850 [Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History, 1500–1850]. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gaidara, 2014, 300.Eng R. From «The West and the Rest» to Global Interconnectedness: China Historians and the Transformation of World History as a Discipline // ASIANetwork Exchange. 2015. Vol. 22(2). P. 35–48.Eng R. From «The West and the Rest» to Global Interconnectedness: China Historians and the Transformation of World History as a Discipline. ASIANetwork Exchange, vol. 22(2) (2015): 35–48.Pomeranz K. The great divergence: China, Europe, and the making of modern world economy. Princeton, 2000. 393 p.Pomeranz K. The great divergence: China, Europe, and the making of modern world economy. Princeton, 2000, 393.Goldstone J. A. The Origins of Western Superiority: a Comment on Modes of Meta-History and Duchesne’s IndoEuropeans Article // Cliodynamics: the Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical History. 2013. Vol. 4(1). P. 54–66. Режим доступа: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1144d4t7 (дата обращения: 28.02.2016).Goldstone J. A. The Origins of Western Superiority: a Comment on Modes of Meta-History and Duchesne’s IndoEuropeans Article. Cliodynamics: the Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical History, vol. 4(1) (2013): 54–66. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1144d4t7 (accessed 28.02.2016).Landes D. S. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York, 1999. 658 p.Landes D. S. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York, 1999, 658.Landes D. S. Why Europe and the West? Why Not China? // Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2006. Vol. 20(2). P. 3–22.Landes D. S. Why Europe and the West? Why Not China? Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 20(2) (2006): 3–22.Gupta B., Ma D. Europe in an Asian mirror: The great divergence // The Cambridge economic history of modern Europe: 1700–1870. Vol. 1. Cambridge, 2010. P. 264–285.Gupta B., Ma D. Europe in an Asian mirror: The great divergence. The Cambridge economic history of modern Europe: 1700–1870. Cambridge, vol. 1 (2010): 264–285.Koot G. M. The Great Divergence: Explaining why Asian economic growth lagged behind European growth, 1500– 1870 // University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. 2013, 11 p. Режим доступа: http://www1.umassd.edu/euro/resou rces/worldeconomy/3.pdf (дата обращения: 13.03.2016).Koot G. M. The Great Divergence: Explaining why Asian economic growth lagged behind European growth, 1500–1870. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, 2013, 11. Available at: http://www1.umassd.edu/euro/resou rces/worldeconomy/3.pdf (accessed 13.03.2016).Аллен Р. С. Британская промышленная революция в глобальной картине мира. М.: Изд-во Института Гайдара, 2014. 448 с.Allen R. S. Britanskaia promyomyshlennaia revoliutsiia v global'noi kartine mira [The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective]. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gaidara, 2014, 448.Vries P. Via Peking Back to Manchester: Britain, the Industrial Revolution, and China. Leiden, 2003. 121 p.Vries P. Via Peking Back to Manchester: Britain, the Industrial Revolution, and China. Leiden, 2003, 121.Vries P. The California School and Beyond: How to Study the Great Divergence? // History Compass. 2010. Vol. 8(7). P. 730–751. DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2010.00698.x (дата обращения: 11.03.2016).Vries P. The California School and Beyond: How to Study the Great Divergence? History Compass, vol. 8(7) (2010): 730–751. DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2010.00698.x.Vries P. Are Coal and Colonies Really Crucial? Kenneth Pomeranz and the Great Divergence // Journal of World History. 2001. Vol. 12(2). P. 407–446.Vries P. Are Coal and Colonies Really Crucial? Kenneth Pomeranz and the Great Divergence. Journal of World History, vol. 12(2) (2001): 407–446.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.