Since the times of Karl Marx and Max Weber social scientists and historians have studied the origins, causes, nature and consequences of global economic inequality. Some scholars, most notably David Landes and Eric L. Jones speculated at least implicitly about an inherent economic superiority of Europe (due to the fact that the first transition into an industrial economy occurred in Western Europe) which was sometimes interpreted as a result of implied superior cultural traits. The most recent attempt at explaining away global income disparities in the longer run comes from Acemoglu and Robinson who claim that it was inclusive (i. e. again we must say implicitly: “superior”) economic institutions that were more beneficial for economic growth than others and that it was in those regions that first implemented inclusive (i. e. non-extractive) economic institutions (i. e. post-1688 England and then north-west Europe) that we find the origins of modern economic growth, i. e. the type of trajectory that would eventually lead to industrialization. Here again it was, of course, England (and then other European regions) that came before other world regions. Since the last decade or so the idea of a “European miracle” has come under attack. Scholars have emphasized a “world of remarkable resemblances” suggesting that prior to the 1800s differentials in economic performance between Asia and Europe were less marked than usually thought, especially with regard to the potential of developing the first industrialization process. In recent years “Euro-centrist” explanations have gained some ground again.

There is still life in the “Great Divergence” metaphor; the recent dynamics in the field call for new questions, approaches and methodological configurations. The workshop brings together scholars from across the world with the aim at highlighting new approaches to the “Great Divergence”. This involves a cross-section of academic disciplines, from economics to economic history and history of migration.
It is intended to (1) provide an overview on the current state of the art regarding models and research on global income and development inequality in history (“Great Divergence”); (2) to highlight different methodological and epistemological approaches to the subject: from social & economic history to financial history, global history, Asian/Indian history, European history, colonial history, political history, area studies etc.; (3) highlight the discursive nature of the topic, especially the problem(s) that arise in terms of scope and focus of each individual narrative, depending upon each author’s methodological upbringing, training and background when studying the “Great Divergence” – and the resulting (possible) biases that may be added to the story plot. (4) Select case studies from different methodological, geographical and chronological backgrounds will address specific problems and examples of the “Great Divergence” and the origins, causes and consequences of economic inequality across time and space beyond the already known trajectories of the debate during the past decade. We would especially highlight the fact that within the greater geographical areas such as “Europe” or “Asia” there were markedly different levels of social and economic development at any point in time. There were also considerable changes and different trajectories within Europe over time that cannot be grasped within a fairly brief reference framework for the “Great Divergence” of 1750 / 1800–2013. Moreover, debates on divergence should not be too closely or exclusively modelled on an economic rationale. Factors such as culture, migration and networks also had a bearing in this process.