LAUSR

to stand out as exceptional enough to trigger a major shift in cultural attitudes. Where does Mokyr stand on the Great Divergence debate? There are some interesting comparisons in later chapters between Britain and China, where the latter is said to have had the wrong form of enlightenment, education, and business community. Mokyr locates himself between the Californian School and the long-run Eurocentrics by emphasizing the medium-term changes in conditions between Europe and the rest. While not the big history of the likes ofMorris, his approach seems more akin to a modified Eurocentric view than to the Californian School. His somewhat perfunctory dismissal of the latter is indicative of judgments made elsewhere in the book—opposing ideas are said to have been demolished, mistaken, or shortsighted and in various parts of the book he niggles at Stephen Epstein. It might have been preferable to make clear in one place the nature of their differences. This book is, nonetheless, a stimulating and enjoyable read. Like the Republic of Letters movement, its appearance and constructive discussion will contribute to extending our understanding of the origins of economic growth.