The article is not good. It is not terrible either but it seems a little like the author is shoehorning in their preconceptions about what they think historians

The article is not good. It is not terrible either but it seems a little like the author is shoehorning in their preconceptions about what they think historians believe about China. But, there is no lack of study into China pre-Industrial Revolution or the period mentioned by the author. This was maybe true when Landes was writing (the author picks the leading culprit of Eurocentric economic history...this is somewhat inaccurate, Landes just didn't know much about China but his books are valuable) but isn't true anymore. There is a huge volume of books comparing China and Europe: Pomeranz is probably the best, there are many others. Many of these also look at India...Tirthankar Roy has some great stuff on Indian business history but India is also in Pomeranz (Great Divergence is by far the most important book here...it is huge). So yeah: I would say that what the field is lacking a good bottom up history of Chinese business (say pre-1900) but documentation is tricky and there is a fairly complete top-down understanding of capitalism/how people worked/etc. anyway. And just generally, I would actually say that most economic historians that look at this period don't actually look at Europe at all anymore...they almost solely focus on the integration of hinterlands into the capitalist global economy (I studied economic history in the UK...I did precisely no courses on UK/European economic history...in this period: Australia, the US, China, Caribbean/early US colonial...and all looking at the interactions that the author alludes too...talking about Eurocentrism is largely an anthropology student's meme of history students at this point) which was the most interesting trend in the period.