A satisfactory comprehensive history of the social and economic development of pre-modern China, the largest country in the world in terms of population, and with a documentary record covering three millennia, is still far from possible. The present work is only an attempt to disengage the major themes that seem to be of relevance to our understanding of China today. In particular, this volume studies three questions. Why did the Chinese Empire stay together when the Roman Empire, and every other empire of antiquity of the middle ages, ultimately collapsed? What were the causes of the medieval revolution which made the Chinese economy after about 1100 the most advanced in the world? And why did China after about 1350 fail to maintain her earlier pace of technological advance while still, in many respects, advancing economically? The three sections of the book deal with these problems in turn but the division of a subject matter is to some extent only one of convenience. These topics are so interrelated that, in the last analysis, none of them can be considered in isolation from the others.
Still the best overarching narrative of Chinese history. Elvin takes technology seriously, is perhaps a bit simplistic in his understanding of changing social trends post Song (from the present perspective). The high-level equilibrium trap is still a somewhat persuasive analytical framework.
This book took me a while to read, but it was very good. I bought it after reading Mark Elvin's obituary and some drafts in "New Left Review," mostly because I was very interested in what he had to say about the high-level equilibrium trap. Unfortunately for me, that part came at the very end. Still though, the rest of the book was pretty interesting, even if I couldn't get myself to focus as much as I would have liked. The primary sources in here were often fascinating, and Elvin's ability to analyze China across various fields makes for dense but manageable reading.
Why is it that medieval China of the Song era showed many signs of industrial revolution and declined in later eras without reaching the explosive growth known from Britain of 19th century? For such a short book, Elvin makes an erudite and persuasive argument regarding his resolution of this riddle, which even after 50 years must be taken seriously. But, it cannot be your first encounter with Chinese history. Basic familiarity with this enormous subject is a prerequisite. One must also approach the topic with the understanding that it may not allow of a simple answer.
I haven't re-read this in many years, but it was certainly a highly influential text when I encountered it in university and helped to shape my understanding of the flow of Chinese history.
The stagnation theory of Chinese history is an interesting one. But in light of China's tremendous changes in the last 30 years, the stagnation theory of China is probably not in fashion.