Flynn, Dennis and Arturo Giráldez. "Born Again: Globalization's Sixteenth Century Origins". Pacific Economic Review, Vol.13, No.3 (2008): 359-387.

Flynn, Dennis and Arturo Giráldez. "Born Again: Globalization's Sixteenth Century Origins". Pacific Economic Review, Vol.13, No.3 (2008): 359-387.

• There are two definitions of 'globalization' used by historians, leading to different dates for the beginning of the globalization process: one in the 1600s and one in the mid 1800s. They are presented here:
• The O’Rourke–Williamson position uses an economic definition for globalization and marks the starting point of globalization when the markets for key commodities begin to converge globally, as measured by convergence in global prices. This process began around 1820, first in Europe and spreading lastly to China (360).
• The authors argue that the narrow measurement of price indexes, or any other economic data, is insufficient to capture the wide–ranging changes experienced during globalization. Their measurements are important, but they measure a specific phenomenon of globalization, not its totality (361, 366, 368).
• Drs. O'Rourke and Williamson imply in their argument that globalization is a process of free trade, with a transition away from continental autarkies towards globalized free trade and single commodity markets. This is widely untrue, as global trade was dominated by mercantalist and monopolist joint–stock companies, such as the East India company and the VOC (363).
• Moreover, this experience was not universal. Although European states transition from mercantalism to free trade, most Indian Ocean countries and Imperial China had essentially free trade regimes, a system that actually moved towards mercantalism during the 1700s (364–365).
• The Flynn–Giráldez position defines globalization as a historical period when all majorly populated landmasses began deep and permanent interaction, starting around the 1600s. This represented by ecological, environment, and economic impacts of the different landmasses on one another (360).
• This definition is based on the idea that the globe can be divided into thirds: one third for the Pacific Ocean, one third of Afroeurasia and the Indian Ocean, and one third for the Americas and the Atlantic Ocean. Prior to 1500, these thirds were disconnected, so globalization began when permanent contact developed between the thirds (370).
• The impact of contact between the Americas and Afroeurasia was both deep and permanent. From initial contact, diseases killed over half of the native American population, while American foodstuffs became permanent staples in Afroeurasia, especially in Africa, allowing for significant population expansions (370–371).
• The colonization of the Americas and exploitation of Andean and Mexican silver mines finally gave Europeans something that they could trade for Chinese goods. Although contact had been previously established, China did not want European goods, so instead Europe fed its hunger for silver (373). This new Pacific trade had tremendous economic effects globally, and established a permanent connection between the Pacific and the Americas, as well as their European overlords (374).
• Drs. O'Rourke and Williamson have claimed that this European and American exchange of silver for Asian goods demonstrates a trade imbalance with Europe acting as a net importer and Asia a net exporter. This is a false belief predicated on an understanding of silver as money rather than a good; during this period, silver was a good and therefore goods were exchanged for goods, not a universal modern concept of money. Labeling continents as imports or exports in total terms is thus incorrect (376–377).
• The silver trade with China can be split into two rough periods. The first 'Mexican Silver Cycle' from the 1540s to the 1640s as American silver met Chinese demand for silver, often with Japan as an intermediary and alternative silver supplier. The second cycle lasted from 1700 to 1750, as the population boom caused by new American crops in China again increased demand for American silver (378).
• Contrary to claims by Dr. Pomeranz that Asian countries did not have access to American calories in the same sense that European countries did, such as through consumption of Caribbean sugar, Asia did have access to these crops by the 1600s. The difference was that whereas African labour allowed increased population in Europe to work in industry, the cultivation of American crops in Asia allowed for population growth without freeing up urban populations for industry (380–381).