4 ms·

> Until very recently much of the European wealth can be attributed to colonisation, territorial expansionism (Americas) & slavery. The trade at best can be des

> Until very recently much of the European wealth can be attributed to colonisation, territorial expansionism (Americas) & slavery. The trade at best can be described as mercantilism (checkout salt tax). Northern European growth went above trend for the rest of civilization starting in the 1300s, well before the Age of Exploration or colonization. Things accelerated with the Great Divergence, when the Industrial Revolution spread starting in the 1800s. Colonialism was a result of becoming rich and powerful far more than a cause. See the lack of effects on GDP per capita with losing an empire after WW2, or how Nordic countries were near as rich as Britain or Austria-Hungary as rich as Germany. > Accounting for the ‘Little Divergence’ What drove economic growth in preindustrial Europe, 1300-1800? > The Little Divergence is the process of differential economic growth within Europe in the period between 1300 and 1800, during which the North Sea Area developed into the most prosperous and dynamic part of the Continent. We test various hypotheses about the causes of the Little Divergence, using new data and focusing on trends in GDP per capita. The results are that institutional changes (in particular the rise of active Parliaments), human capital formation and structural change are the primary drivers of the growth that occurred, which contrast sharply with previous findings by Robert Allen (who however focused on real wages as dependent variable). We also test for the role of religion (the spread of Protestantism): this has affected human capital formation, but does not in itself have an impact on growth. Moreover, we find an insignificant effect of the land-labour ratio, which shows the limitations of the Malthusian model for understanding the Little Divergence. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucg/wpaper/0046.html#:~:text=The%20Little%20Divergence%20is%20the%20process%20of%20differential,and%20focusing%20on%20trends%20in%20GDP%20per%20capita https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucg/wpaper/0046.html#:~:text=The%2....

naruvimama 5y ago
"Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India, it took a really long time for the British to compete with Indian goods in spite of all the mercantilism. Revolution like Renaissance is often suggestive of a sudden explosion of new ideas, but in reality it requires an active transfer of knowledge or takes a really long time to establish. Successful colonisation can be attributed to the political unity brought about by the church, very much the same way Islam allowed the various Arab tribes to bring down the mighty Persian empire.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  The Arabs brought down the Persian Empire because they and the Eastern Romans had just spent 30 years at war before Muhammad led them out. Peace of exhaustion is not the best place to be in when a genius warlord shows up.
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    Similarly the Europeans showed up around the same time when the Islamic rule was in decline and the Maratha Empire & Sikh Empire had pretty much ended the Mughals. For quite sometime the East India company was working as a mercenary making deals with smaller kingdoms, the concentration of wealth from exports to Europe did give them the resources to initially run trading ports and eventually become the force behind the famed puppet rajas, often children. The Europeans rarely engaged in direct conflict until much later when they had amassed enormous power.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > "Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India That's oddly specific. What starting date do you put on the Industrial Revolution, and why do you pick that exact starting date? I would have described the Industrial Revolution as a gradual process, building up over a century or so. What basis is there for picking one specific year and saying "that's the start"?
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    That is the the official year, the coincidence is too compelling. The French had a separate ministry for espionage. Columbus set out precisely to find a trade route to India and Vasco da Gama eventually managed by circumnavigating Africa with the precise intent of finding a route to India to import goods into Europe. Similar to renaissance, the sudden explosion of enlightenment or industrialisation did not happen, there was significant transfer of knowledge, materials and skills from very likely India. And like with renaissance, this is often covered up. I do not see why there is a need to deny that today, it has happened through out history and is quite suspicious that something happened independently.

naruvimama 5y ago

"Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India, it took a really long time for the British to compete with Indian goods in spite of all the mercantilism. Revolution like Renaissance is often suggestive of a sudden explosion of new ideas, but in reality it requires an active transfer of knowledge or takes a really long time to establish. Successful colonisation can be attributed to the political unity brought about by the church, very much the same way Islam allowed the various Arab tribes to bring down the mighty Persian empire.

barry-cotter 5y ago
The Arabs brought down the Persian Empire because they and the Eastern Romans had just spent 30 years at war before Muhammad led them out. Peace of exhaustion is not the best place to be in when a genius warlord shows up.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  Similarly the Europeans showed up around the same time when the Islamic rule was in decline and the Maratha Empire & Sikh Empire had pretty much ended the Mughals. For quite sometime the East India company was working as a mercenary making deals with smaller kingdoms, the concentration of wealth from exports to Europe did give them the resources to initially run trading ports and eventually become the force behind the famed puppet rajas, often children. The Europeans rarely engaged in direct conflict until much later when they had amassed enormous power.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> "Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India That's oddly specific. What starting date do you put on the Industrial Revolution, and why do you pick that exact starting date? I would have described the Industrial Revolution as a gradual process, building up over a century or so. What basis is there for picking one specific year and saying "that's the start"?
- naruvimama 5y ago
  That is the the official year, the coincidence is too compelling. The French had a separate ministry for espionage. Columbus set out precisely to find a trade route to India and Vasco da Gama eventually managed by circumnavigating Africa with the precise intent of finding a route to India to import goods into Europe. Similar to renaissance, the sudden explosion of enlightenment or industrialisation did not happen, there was significant transfer of knowledge, materials and skills from very likely India. And like with renaissance, this is often covered up. I do not see why there is a need to deny that today, it has happened through out history and is quite suspicious that something happened independently.