Why is the end of the XX century - and, as many think, suddenly - China and Asia as a whole began to rapid development? This question, which deals with contemporary political economy of the Eastern countries, can not be answered only by analyzing the current economic situation. To understand what is going on with Asia, we should take a deep historical analysis. Only in this case we can understand why such a powerful development of China and other Eastern countries is not a fluke, an anomaly, but rather a return to the lost no time positions. Domestic and European researchers have long been influenced by theories that say that in socio-economic terms, the East will always follow the "advanced" West. For example, Max Weber spoke of the "catching-up" with respect to the East of the West. On the idea of ??the advanced development of the West based intellectual constructs Montesquieu, Marx, Toynbee, Braudel, Wallerstein. It was argued that the West much earlier and much more effectively as a developed commodity-money relations and the banking and financial system, which provided greater stability of capital and greater economic success. As a result, the West has realized the idea of ??sustainable economic development in the XIX century literally crushed forever introspective East. But over the past decade, we have significantly revised our views to the East. In my opinion (and I'm here to join many of his colleagues), just ahead of East always the West and its "loss" in the XIX century on the socio-cultural and economic development - it is rather a failure mechanism than the standard of development. If we look at China's development until the middle of the XIX century, that is, until the arrival of the Europeans active, we will see that it is produced according to various estimates from 23% to 32% of world GDP. And only when the Europeans have turned China into a semi-colonial power, the volume of GDP began to fall. For example, China's GDP in the 50 years of the twentieth century. It drops to 5% of the world. And today when China starts to produce in the region of 15% of world GDP, and together with India it soon, in spite of market fluctuations, will produce at least a quarter of world GDP, we understand that there is a restoration of the traditional model. And it is important to understand than the traditional model is characterized by. First of all, China surpassed the West in terms of the development of economic institutions. For example, in the XII-XIII centuries in China there were large organizations, which we might call the corporations in which the work of 400-500 people. Commodity-money relations - not just printing money, but also, for example, loans, issuance of promissory notes - also were quite developed already in the XII century. China has set up a bank (or "quasi-banking") system long before it appeared in Europe. This was due to the fact that the country occupies a vast territory, and shipping, for example, from south to north along the Grand Canal is not just time consuming - it is dangerous, as well as trade along the Silk Road. Therefore, those papers were issued, we would today call notes, and serviced by the relevant agencies. In China, there is also the largest trading houses and supports the freedom of business. And, for example, in the field of textile manufacturing and dyeing fabrics pre-industrial Europe was influenced by Indian and Chinese technology and, in fact, imitated in this respect Asians. Another important point - the preservation of the industrial and manufacturing experience. The fact that Europe is constantly covered with an epidemic that knocked out a third of the population. Thus, the population of London was almost completely destroyed by the plague. Famous American researcher Kenneth Pomeranz shows clearly what is the difference in the preservation of experience. In Europe, the epidemic is men carried away, that is, media production experience. And in China, the major calamities were flooding, locust attacks, destroying what is called the "capital": houses, fields, crops, who then restored. Another very important difference is in the structure of supply and related life. In China and Japan, these figures were higher than in pre-industrial Europe. If a number of countries - Britain, Germany and France - the average life expectancy fluctuated around 30-37 years, in China it was over 40 years. Thus, in the "production cycle" Chinese or Japanese are much longer, thereby accumulating more production skills. Another indicator: the level of urbanization, which has always been so proud of Europe. If the number of cities in Asia were lower than in Europe, the number of population living in urban areas was higher. Asia lagged behind Europe for only a few options, but they were critical. Firstly, Asia has not developed its military force. Even the XIX century China and Japan is in this sense in the deepest Middle Ages. Second, as much or more precisely about this Ian Morris in his book "Why the West dominates - is» («Why the West Rules - For Now»): a huge role played by the ability of Europeans to store grain. Finally, the third factor: Asia was not aggressive with respect to the outside world.

What the Chinese, the Japanese policy was operated in the same "Asian region". China, in fact, turned his interest to the outside world after the XIV century, while Europe in search of new markets went outside, capturing the first South-East Asia, and finally came to China, who did not know much about the "economic" world. Thus, what happens in the world economy last decade - is the return of Asia to the status it once lost.

Original article: How China lost world leadership.