This is truly an amazing analysis. I've seen all of this elsewhere and in my econ training, but assembled together like this, it's a truly devastating argument.
"I can find no evidence that a shorter Growing Season seriously undermined English agricultural productivity"
Consider what David Ricardo chose to illustrate his theory -- Portugese wine and English wool -- clearly aware of the constraints of English agriculture. For Ricardo, latitude and precipitation IS comparative advantage. In the progress equation, the multiplier of the "ag-efficiency" variable may be quite high, but there are many other variables, as you say. Clearly, the Anglo-Norman people found a way (Ricardo implies using grazing instead of row crops) to overcome their weakness in this area and make the jump to a commercial society: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?country=GBR~FRA As weird as it sounds, their comparative weakness may have encouraged that jump. I wonder what the meat/grain caloric ratio of Medieval France vs England was?
"For the first time, other regions could escape the trap of geography."
It is ironic that literally while Ricardo was creating his theories predicated on latitude and precipitation, other events were rendering those variables far less significant to comparative advantage and progress.
Yes, it is amazing to me how often economic history (and history in general) neglects geography.
As for England, I think the transition came long after the Norman conquest. It was certainly present by the 17th Century. The English wool trade played a key role, but it was more the industry to transform raw wool into textiles and clothes.
I enjoy all these write-ups. Speaking of geography, NW Europe really stands out when you look at a population density map of the world and notice that it's by far the northernmost part of the world that is densely inhabited. Cities like London and Paris share latitudes with parts of Manchuria and Siberia that are barely inhabited. Which tells you that there must be something very peculiar about NW Europe's geography. I understand this to be, primarily, the Gulf Stream, which I didn't see you call out directly, but presumably it's what accounts for NW Europe's unusually long growing season.
>I can find no evidence that a shorter Growing Season seriously undermined English agricultural productivity, so I am not quite sure what is going on here.
While I'll admit that I don't have detailed knowledge of the differences between medieval French and English agricultural production, didn't medieval France have something like 5x the population of medieval England on less than 2x the land area? I've always assumed this was mainly a result of French land being much more productive under the state of agricultural technology in that era.
Yes, you are absolutely correct about the importance of the Gulf Stream. Ocean currents and latitude are key factors that create biomes. So, in many ways, you can think of biomes as a secondary geographical factor where more fundamental geographical factors, such as latitude and ocean currents create the biomes. Sometime in the future, I would like to write about this, but for now, I want to convince people that they should care about biomes.
As for the agricultural productivity of medieval France compared to medieval England, you are likely correct. The soil around Paris was unusually fertile compared to the rest of Europe, so not surprisingly, this became one of the great cities in Europe. It is important to recognize, however, that southern France was much less fertile. I plan to write an article on this in the future.
I'll look forward to that follow-up article. That's interesting about southern France -- does that include Aquitaine or are we speaking more of southeast France? My understanding was that Aquitaine was considered an exceptionally wealthy region.
"Impossible" seems like a stretch as far as anywhere else going industrial first, but NWE indeed had many advantages.
Personally, I think that certain cultural changes were necessary to make it happen. Per Gregory Clark, Medieval Christianity really did help tame the North Sea warriors just enough to set up a positive feedback loop where positive sum types outbred negative sum types.
I also wonder to what extent the Black Death was a necessary precursor to modern progress. Medieval Christianity tamed the warrior and made life itself a worthy value, but if we remained at the Malthusian edge there would not have been as much progress.
Finally, Christian chastity seems to have been a huge part of the success. You can't keep off the Malthusian edge without it, and it seems to be an aide to eugenic selection.
This is truly an amazing analysis. I've seen all of this elsewhere and in my econ training, but assembled together like this, it's a truly devastating argument.
"I can find no evidence that a shorter Growing Season seriously undermined English agricultural productivity"
Consider what David Ricardo chose to illustrate his theory -- Portugese wine and English wool -- clearly aware of the constraints of English agriculture. For Ricardo, latitude and precipitation IS comparative advantage. In the progress equation, the multiplier of the "ag-efficiency" variable may be quite high, but there are many other variables, as you say. Clearly, the Anglo-Norman people found a way (Ricardo implies using grazing instead of row crops) to overcome their weakness in this area and make the jump to a commercial society: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?country=GBR~FRA As weird as it sounds, their comparative weakness may have encouraged that jump. I wonder what the meat/grain caloric ratio of Medieval France vs England was?
"For the first time, other regions could escape the trap of geography."
It is ironic that literally while Ricardo was creating his theories predicated on latitude and precipitation, other events were rendering those variables far less significant to comparative advantage and progress.
Glad that you enjoyed the article.
Yes, it is amazing to me how often economic history (and history in general) neglects geography.
As for England, I think the transition came long after the Norman conquest. It was certainly present by the 17th Century. The English wool trade played a key role, but it was more the industry to transform raw wool into textiles and clothes.
Here are a few related articles on the topic:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/another-way-at-looking-at-pre-industrial
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/did-the-industrial-revolution-occur
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-agriculture-made-commercial-societies
I enjoy all these write-ups. Speaking of geography, NW Europe really stands out when you look at a population density map of the world and notice that it's by far the northernmost part of the world that is densely inhabited. Cities like London and Paris share latitudes with parts of Manchuria and Siberia that are barely inhabited. Which tells you that there must be something very peculiar about NW Europe's geography. I understand this to be, primarily, the Gulf Stream, which I didn't see you call out directly, but presumably it's what accounts for NW Europe's unusually long growing season.
https://www.luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#3/20.00/10.00
Let me also comment on this:
>I can find no evidence that a shorter Growing Season seriously undermined English agricultural productivity, so I am not quite sure what is going on here.
While I'll admit that I don't have detailed knowledge of the differences between medieval French and English agricultural production, didn't medieval France have something like 5x the population of medieval England on less than 2x the land area? I've always assumed this was mainly a result of French land being much more productive under the state of agricultural technology in that era.
Thanks for the comment.
Yes, you are absolutely correct about the importance of the Gulf Stream. Ocean currents and latitude are key factors that create biomes. So, in many ways, you can think of biomes as a secondary geographical factor where more fundamental geographical factors, such as latitude and ocean currents create the biomes. Sometime in the future, I would like to write about this, but for now, I want to convince people that they should care about biomes.
As for the agricultural productivity of medieval France compared to medieval England, you are likely correct. The soil around Paris was unusually fertile compared to the rest of Europe, so not surprisingly, this became one of the great cities in Europe. It is important to recognize, however, that southern France was much less fertile. I plan to write an article on this in the future.
I'll look forward to that follow-up article. That's interesting about southern France -- does that include Aquitaine or are we speaking more of southeast France? My understanding was that Aquitaine was considered an exceptionally wealthy region.
Yes, it was referring more to the Mediterranean coast and the Massif Central.
"Impossible" seems like a stretch as far as anywhere else going industrial first, but NWE indeed had many advantages.
Personally, I think that certain cultural changes were necessary to make it happen. Per Gregory Clark, Medieval Christianity really did help tame the North Sea warriors just enough to set up a positive feedback loop where positive sum types outbred negative sum types.
I also wonder to what extent the Black Death was a necessary precursor to modern progress. Medieval Christianity tamed the warrior and made life itself a worthy value, but if we remained at the Malthusian edge there would not have been as much progress.
Finally, Christian chastity seems to have been a huge part of the success. You can't keep off the Malthusian edge without it, and it seems to be an aide to eugenic selection.
https://www.stpaisiosbrotherhood.com/blog/necessity-of-chivalry-by-c-s-lewis