Three reviews of Secular Cycles
(from Piter
Turchin’s site)
Kristian Skrede Gleditsch writes in Journal of Peace Research: "Although I am generally
sceptical of many variants of Malthusian arguments and claims about regular
cycles in political dynamics, it is hard not to be impressed by this book. The
authors provide a rigorously developed theoretical model and evaluate this by
an impressive wealth of historical data for the cases studies, including
innovative sources such as coin hoards as a proxy for internal warfare and
instability. The book provides a strong case for parsimonious theories and
quantitative historical analysis. However, I missed a
discussion of the theory’s wider implications, in particular whether it only
applies to agrarian-based empires or whether demographic-structural trends may
tell us something about future prospects for conflict and stability." PDF here (Commentary: Challenge
accepted.)
Jan de Vries concludes in Population Studies: "In a crowded field of
Malthus-inspired historical analysis, their book stands out for its careful
specifications and candid discussions of the limitations of the findings. I can
recommend it to demographers with an interest in big-picture societal
evolution." Earlier he writes: "Yet, I would be
more comfortable with their synthetic theory or secular cycles if it
incorporated non-agrarian economic life." PDF here (Commentary: well, Rome was not built in
a single day... I am working on extending the theory
to industrializing and industrialized societies right now)
Jeremy F. Walton writes in Insight Turkey: "Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov’s
book focusing on recent theoretical analysis of economic and sociological
history, is a text of limitless ambition. In its scope and certitude, this
ambition itself is anachronistic, more characteristic of an earlier era of
social science in which grand-unified, universal models of history, economy,
society and culture were the order of the day. Both the appeal and the
fundamental difficulties of Secular
Cycles stem from this outdated aspiration to a trans-historical and
transsocietal model of social, political and economic change. In an
intellectual and scholastic context in which the subject of the researcher
herself is far too often a more interesting object of theorization than
phenomena in the social world, Secular
Cycles evinces a refreshing willingness to cross both disciplinary
boundaries and historical eras. Unfortunately, however, this daringness is not
complimented by an acute, reflexive awareness of the very critiques of social
science that have made such universal arguments largely passé." PDF here (Commentary: actually the review is not
as scathing as I would expect from a postmodernist, given our diametrically
opposed worldviews)
A review of Secular Cycles on EH.net by Harry Kitsikopoulos
"In the end,
notwithstanding the noted shortcomings, I am fascinated by this book,
particularly by the theoretical framework which is laid out in the introductory
and concluding chapters. Economic historians, particularly those dealing with
the Middle Ages where my expertise lies, have tended to advance explanations of
historical dynamics based on a fairly dogmatic adherence to particular models
and downplay the merits of competing explanations. In contrast, Turchin and
Nefedov stress the need of coming up with “a synthetic theory that encompasses
both demographic mechanisms (with the associated economic consequences) and
power relations (surplus-extraction mechanisms). In the dynamical systems
framework, it does not make sense to speak of one or the other as ‘the primary
factor’. The two factors interact dynamically, each affecting and being
affected by the other” (p. 4).
But the main strength of
the book lies in its scope, reminiscent of the broad perspectives of classical
economists. It is the type of scholarship which proves that historical
narrative can be fascinating."
See the full text of the review on EH.net