( Neither argues that caste was 'invented' in modern times, which is a strawman argument used by critics. They both acknowledge its antiquity. But they both argue caste identities were hardened / made less flexible in modern times )
In light of the genetic evidence about very long-run jati endogamy, what is the best case for the arguments put forth by Bayly and Dirks? I consider Bayly superior, but they both assume, as a matter of course, that caste identities had always been fluid in the pre-modern period without elaboration
I am by nature a hate-poster. When I hate, I post far more extensively, far more volubly, than when I like, let alone when I love (🪢). Last year I disliked. This year I approve highly. So I won't be clogging up your feeds this year as I did last year ;-)
Many people are sceptical of Mokyr's idealist take on the Industrial Revolution, but even if you are suspicious, The Enlightened Economy is still a tremendous book. I think this review in JEL gives the correct flavour. It says the comprehensiveness is a curse, but the 'curse' teaches you a lot !!!
Pseudoerasmus
Pseudoerasmus
Pseudoerasmus
Pseudoerasmus
Aghion (et al) have a paper on China, they recognised long ago & before many that the Chinese model departs from the East Asia model in having a Darwinian struggle-to-the-death competition of firms behind a wall of protection. It pairs Schumpeterian growth theory w the economics of industrial policy
Pseudoerasmus
The single biggest challenge to previous work on the 'why Europe?' question & which inspired a mountain of new work, came from Pomeranz, The Great Divergence, published by Princeton University Press. One of their bestsellers.
That was published in a series of which Mokyr has been editor in chief.
