Early Modern European and Chinese Political Economy, and the Great Divergence

Abstract This article studies the comparison between mercantilism and orthodox Confucianism, two kinds of political economy which respectively dominated many important European countries and China in the early modern period. This article finds that mercantilism was industrialistic, proluxury, and pro-innovation, whereas orthodox Confucianism was physiocratic, antiluxury, and anti-innovation. Interpreting such distinction with the modern theories of increasing and decreasing returns, this article finds that mercantilism advocated an increasing-return strategy of economic development, but orthodox Confucianism insisted upon the economic path of decreasing returns. This article believes that such distinction can be added as a parameter to the discussion about the Great Divergence, because, as the Great Divergence was driven by the divergence between the behaviors of early modern European and Chinese states, this article presents that such divergence between the behaviors of states happened in the context of the divergence between the political economy that guided the behaviors of states.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
History of Political Economy
Published
2026-02-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-12436590
Primary Topic
Historical Economic and Social Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Early Modern European and Chinese Political Economy, and the Great Divergence

Xuan Zhao
History of Political Economy
Historical Economic and Social Studies
article

Early Modern European and Chinese Political Economy, and the Great Divergence

Xuan Zhao
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article studies the comparison between mercantilism and orthodox Confucianism, two kinds of political economy which respectively dominated many important European countries and China in the early modern period. This article finds that mercantilism was industrialistic, proluxury, and pro-innovation, whereas orthodox Confucianism was physiocratic, antiluxury, and anti-innovation. Interpreting such distinction with the modern theories of increasing and decreasing returns, this article finds that mercantilism advocated an increasing-return strategy of economic development, but orthodox Confucianism insisted upon the economic path of decreasing returns. This article believes that such distinction can be added as a parameter to the discussion about the Great Divergence, because, as the Great Divergence was driven by the divergence between the behaviors of early modern European and Chinese states, this article presents that such divergence between the behaviors of states happened in the context of the divergence between the political economy that guided the behaviors of states.

History of Political Economy
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (CN)
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Historical Economic and Social Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Early Modern European and Chinese Political Economy, and the Great Divergence — Xuan Zhao · History of Political Economy (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS