4 ms·

> On the other hand, which Early Modern countries had institutions aimed primarily at "economic development"? It's probably debatable in the cases of the Nether

> On the other hand, which Early Modern countries had institutions aimed primarily at "economic development"? It's probably debatable in the cases of the Netherlands and England. IIRC Spain was the first major European country to see serious state centralization (large moves toward the modern nation-state) plus a major state focus on policy aimed at economic development across their entire controlled territory (well, the core of it, anyway—Spain proper, not sure how far that control extended to farther-flung territories). England and others followed.

stereolambda 7y ago
This is consistent with what I was taught, but I interpreted the goalposts here a little differently. Of course kings of Spain wanted economic development but probably not for the sake of it, but to build up their own power. Most political regimes want development in this sense and in the East, PLC, Muscovy and the Ottomans all had some kind of pro-economic policies (even if in the PLC it was mostly maintaining low taxation and duties on everything). If they were successful it's another matter, I understand it as a question of motivation. [for the OP's argument anyway] In this sense there were not many countries ran mostly, primarily to build wealth on a large scale, and not only for the purposes of the social circle controlling the government -- with some wider ideology (which I believe was more the case for Spain than for France) or not. In fact this is, to mind, in that period, equivalent to the dominance of a merchant class.
- shantly 7y ago
  I think a powerful, centralized, and stable (across transitions of power, especially) state is likely a necessary pre-requisite to focused economic development across larger kingdoms. Otherwise there's too much temptation to treat parts of "your" territory as potentially part of a future rebel state you (or one of your children) will have to fight for control of the crown, because there's a really good chance that will in fact happen at some point in the not-so-distant future. Might be better to undermine the development of some of them, even. Not a great environment for cohesive, grand, long-term economic planning. Gotta quash the infighting, gotta get the inheritance laws sorted out so the crown's territory's not being carved up all the time among kids who'll often end up going to war with one another. Then the serious economic development can start. I think that's one of the key differences between how a monarch of France and a monarch of Spain, say, would have approached economic development, around the time Spain was starting to get serious about the whole nation-state thing. I think there may actually have been different incentives and motivations driving less-effective patterns of economic development in less-centralized or less-internally-secure states, caused, more or less, by differences in effective state power. I'm not sure how politically stable and internally secure Eastern states were then, but my guess would be less so than what Spain was beginning to achieve.

stereolambda 7y ago

This is consistent with what I was taught, but I interpreted the goalposts here a little differently. Of course kings of Spain wanted economic development but probably not for the sake of it, but to build up their own power. Most political regimes want development in this sense and in the East, PLC, Muscovy and the Ottomans all had some kind of pro-economic policies (even if in the PLC it was mostly maintaining low taxation and duties on everything). If they were successful it's another matter, I understand it as a question of motivation. [for the OP's argument anyway] In this sense there were not many countries ran mostly, primarily to build wealth on a large scale, and not only for the purposes of the social circle controlling the government -- with some wider ideology (which I believe was more the case for Spain than for France) or not. In fact this is, to mind, in that period, equivalent to the dominance of a merchant class.

shantly 7y ago
I think a powerful, centralized, and stable (across transitions of power, especially) state is likely a necessary pre-requisite to focused economic development across larger kingdoms. Otherwise there's too much temptation to treat parts of "your" territory as potentially part of a future rebel state you (or one of your children) will have to fight for control of the crown, because there's a really good chance that will in fact happen at some point in the not-so-distant future. Might be better to undermine the development of some of them, even. Not a great environment for cohesive, grand, long-term economic planning. Gotta quash the infighting, gotta get the inheritance laws sorted out so the crown's territory's not being carved up all the time among kids who'll often end up going to war with one another. Then the serious economic development can start. I think that's one of the key differences between how a monarch of France and a monarch of Spain, say, would have approached economic development, around the time Spain was starting to get serious about the whole nation-state thing. I think there may actually have been different incentives and motivations driving less-effective patterns of economic development in less-centralized or less-internally-secure states, caused, more or less, by differences in effective state power. I'm not sure how politically stable and internally secure Eastern states were then, but my guess would be less so than what Spain was beginning to achieve.