3 ms·

For most of human history (and before that), the norm is not growth, but stagnation. Centralized empires tend to strangle economic development. The ascendancy o

by iwwr 15y ago

For most of human history (and before that), the norm is not growth, but stagnation. Centralized empires tend to strangle economic development. The ascendancy of Europe was not a fluke, but rather a condition where a free market philosophy could take hold in a decentralized political system. Had Europe been ruled by a monolithic empire, it would have been very easy to snuff out the industrial revolution before it had a chance to be entrenched.

Symmetry 15y ago
Yes and no. Too much centralization can be bad, but then again it took until around 1600 or so for Europe to finally catch up with China in terms of general wealth and technology. So clearly the fact that China was a centralized empire at peace with itself had something to do with it having developed such a large lead. I suspect that the actual situation is far more complex than either "centralization is good" or "centralization is bad", and that different ways of being centralized or decentralized are better or worse, and that different stages of technological development might have different ideal conditions.
- iwwr 15y ago
  The point about decentralization is to ensure development can continue unhindered by political factors. With an empire it's very easy for the ruling aristocracy (or autocrat) to kill development. Yes, you can have enlightened rulers, but then the system hinges precariously on just a few people. For that matter, it's much more devastating when an uncontested empire falls, rather than when one of many powers may fail.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    Yes, that's one of the mechanisms by which centralized empires can inhibit development. But on the other hand the lack of them can mean too many wars which destroy advances people are trying to build, and a lack of trade that prevents regional specialization.

3 ms·

For most of human history (and before that), the norm is not growth, but stagnation. Centralized empires tend to strangle economic development. The ascendancy o

by iwwr 15y ago

Symmetry 15y ago
Yes and no. Too much centralization can be bad, but then again it took until around 1600 or so for Europe to finally catch up with China in terms of general wealth and technology. So clearly the fact that China was a centralized empire at peace with itself had something to do with it having developed such a large lead. I suspect that the actual situation is far more complex than either "centralization is good" or "centralization is bad", and that different ways of being centralized or decentralized are better or worse, and that different stages of technological development might have different ideal conditions.
- iwwr 15y ago
  The point about decentralization is to ensure development can continue unhindered by political factors. With an empire it's very easy for the ruling aristocracy (or autocrat) to kill development. Yes, you can have enlightened rulers, but then the system hinges precariously on just a few people. For that matter, it's much more devastating when an uncontested empire falls, rather than when one of many powers may fail.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    Yes, that's one of the mechanisms by which centralized empires can inhibit development. But on the other hand the lack of them can mean too many wars which destroy advances people are trying to build, and a lack of trade that prevents regional specialization.