So far we have compared the “average” efficiency or performance as well as the broad trends of integration in two very big geographical entities. However, these two regions labeled “Europe” and “India” were by no means homogeneous entities, but were characterized by substantial differences along various dimensions, such as climate (cropping pattern, climatic variability, seasonal differences), transport infrastructure (quality and density of roads, availability of water transport, topographic suitability, year-round accessibility), legal and political framework (in different nations [Europe] and different states/realms [India] with different legal regimes, different policies, different polities, tariffs, etc.), agricultural technology (tools used, subsistence or cash crop production, heavily relying on imports/exports), social and economic structure (specialized merchants, credit markets and readily available capital, tax system, standard of living), and barriers of trade (restrictions, trade policy, tariff levels, differences in units, currencies, etc.).

The results of the macro analysis in Chapter 3 on the extent of market integration within as well as between India and Europe therefore hide or blur substantial heterogeneity. Indeed, various insights in the first three chapters were calling for more regional differentiation. Thus, to get a better understanding of how markets actually worked and to better map out differences between Europe and India, as well as differences within these territories, we now want to narrow the geographical scope and to draw a comparative picture confined to smaller areas. Such “micro” comparisons are really complementary to the macro study, and together they provide the reader with a view of the broad differences and some more detailed analysis of underlying causes for such differences.