Abstract: Although the Californian school ruled that the "Great Divergence" of the Chinese and western economies was in the late 18th century, there was no denying that the two sides had already buried many of the factors. By looking at the various aspects of the development of the handicraft industry in China and Western Europe in the 7th and 14th centuries, this paper holds that the development trajectories and characteristics of the two are similar, but the internal mechanism is still quite different: First, the technological innovation path is different as the driving force of development. The technological innovation of urban handicraft industry in China is mainly complicated and refined, while Western Europe develops along the path of mechanization and automation. The second is the market mechanism that affects the development space is different. The links between the various links and departments of the urban handicraft industry in Western Europe mainly depend on the regional foreign market or overseas market exchange. China is the center of the “Skinnerian Model" market, which provides handicraft products to the high market level by level. The difference between internal drive and external inducement force caused the "Great Divergence" in the economic fate of China and Western Europe after the industrial revolution.

摘要： 加州学派将中西方经济“大分流”的时间判定在18世纪晚期，然而不可否认在此之前双方早已埋下了分道扬镳的诸多因子。通过考察7—14世纪中国和西欧城市手工业发展的诸般面相，本文认为二者发展轨迹和特征虽相似，但内在机制仍颇有差别：一是作为发展动力的技术创新路径不同。中国城市手工业技术创新主要是走工艺复杂化、精细化路径，而西欧则沿着机械化、自动化的效率型路径发展；二是影响发展空间的市场机制不同。西欧城市手工业各环节、部门间的联系主要靠区域外市场或海外市场交换推动。中国则是“施坚雅模式”中心地等级市场，由基层市场逐级向高级市场提供手工业消费品。内部驱动和外部诱导力量的迥异，迨至工业革命后造成中国和西欧经济命运上“大分流”。