Until the 15th century, the east held power and wealth while the west was impoverished.  But the relative status was reversed.  The rise of the west was due to various empowering factors, that the east either lost or lacked.  As the west rose, the rest began to adapt western institutions and operational methods. 

Six factors brought power to the west which were competition, science, property rights, medicine, a consumer society, and a work ethic.   Decentralized decision making enabled competition, that created conditions for a need to improve to be able to overcome rivals.  Science was used to systematically understand the world, which provided military advantages.  Property rights provided an incentive for people to invest in their future, and resolve disputes peacefully.  Medicine improved health and life expectancy.  The consumer society enabled a sustainable system of economic development.  A work ethic that enabled the production of wealth. 

 

The west and east are homogenized, using different states to compare and contrast each other.  Making each state representative of other western or eastern states.  The different factors are represented through different states, rather than how they coalesced and effected a state.  Although the factors can be generalized, they did not affect each state on either side the same way.  

The factors were influential, but there is a survivorship bias.  The evidence given supported the claim that the factors gave rise to the west, but nothing on societies that had the factors while did not rise.  The book focuses on events and the factors during and after the 15th century, with some information about the empowering factors before the 15th century in the east.  Showing the effect of the factors before the 15th century on the east would have given the factors more validity. 

The empowering factors were not the only factors effecting states.  Historically wealthy states had their successes, and problems.  The focus on only the empowering factors leading to success, creates data gaps that can lead to a wrong understanding on the effect of the factors. 

The author complains about the lack of historic learning.  That when people do learn from history, that they learn idiosyncratic history without connection.  This book does not improve historic explanations by much, as the examples are idiosyncratic even if they are generalized.  Sometimes the context and explanations do not match.  The explanations need to be improved.