It has become a very common claim that Eric Jones’ world-acclaimed 1981 book, The European Miracle, is a perfect articulation of Eurocentric World History. Certainly, James Blaut’s book (2000) Eight Eurocentric Historians was a key driver of this claim given that one of his chapters focused on Jones’ book. And others have followed in this assessment. But in 1988, Jones published a far lesser-known book, Growth Recurring. Though the E-word (Eurocentrism) was not referenced explicitly there, this chapter argues that this book moves beyond Eurocentrism in part because it focuses on examples of early growth-producing countries in East Asia. This book moves beyond Eurocentrism in part because it focuses on examples of early growth-producing economies in East Asia. This chapter also produces a potential non-Eurocentric solution to the ‘Needham Problem/Question’ that, I believe, converges with Jones’ 1988 approach to World Economic History. Accordingly, I believe that critiques of Jones as a Eurocentric historian are wide of the mark. Given the increasing popularity of non-Eurocentric World History, it is argued here that critiques of Jones as Eurocentric are problematised by what might be viewed as the non-Eurocentric thesis that underpins his vitally important book Growth Recurring. Not surprisingly, this chapter views Growth Recurring as at least, if not more, important than The European Miracle, and that non-Eurocentric scholars would do well to visit it and reimagine Jones anew.