The Ancient Greek city-states share a strong resemblance to later Commercial societies. I seriously thought about including them in my list of examples in my book. In the end I decided that there was not enough data on their economic characteristics to show that they were Commercial societies, so I decided not to do so.
Since publishing my book, I have read new evidence that suggests they were. I will likely be writing an article on the topic in the future.
Note that I said “decentralized political power” not decentralized government. Decentralized government is one way to decentralize power, but not the only way. English common law, the Magna Carta and a strong Parliament played a strong role in decentralizing political power in England. Same with the lack of a standing Royal army.
Yes, Britain is very centralized today, and I think it is a serious problem.
Britain is very centralised today and probably more centralised in the past. There was some economic decentralisation when Manchester was the heart of the industrial revolution. But then again at the time Scotland, Wales and Ireland were kind of like colonies back then.
Again, you are not understanding what I mean by decentralized power. Perhaps the term "checks and balances" expresses what I mean better.
The powers of the English king were probably more constrained by checks and balances than in any monarchy in Europe (with the exception of Poland). This was particularly true after 1688.
Yes, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland were basically colonies, but that is not where the economic growth occurred before 1800 (except for Lowland Scotland).
But could you have had strong property rights without centralised political power?
Another example would be France during its industrial revolution. They had to centralise power to knock down internal trade barriers and put tariffs on their borders.
Yes, strong property rights have nothing to do with centralized political power. You must have a government, but it does not have to be a centralized government. Centralized governments are far more likely to abuse property rights. Totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century are the clearest examples.
Eliminating internal tariffs and other trade barriers is not centralizing power. Tariffs also have nothing to do with centralized government. The USA in the 19th Century had a very decentralized government with high tariffs.
Centralising and decentralising is a spectrum. I'm just saying that having tariffs within in a country was very common in feudal Europe. You had to create a centralised government to get rid of these tariffs which was very source of revenue at the time. It just doesn't seem like a big deal to us in retrospect.
To what extent were the Ancient Greek city states commercial societies?
That is an excellent question.
The Ancient Greek city-states share a strong resemblance to later Commercial societies. I seriously thought about including them in my list of examples in my book. In the end I decided that there was not enough data on their economic characteristics to show that they were Commercial societies, so I decided not to do so.
Since publishing my book, I have read new evidence that suggests they were. I will likely be writing an article on the topic in the future.
I dedicate this article to Eugine Nier:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/were-the-ancient-greek-citystates
Wasn't England the most centralised state in Europe. To this day Britain remains the most centralised government in Europe.
Thanks for the comment.
Note that I said “decentralized political power” not decentralized government. Decentralized government is one way to decentralize power, but not the only way. English common law, the Magna Carta and a strong Parliament played a strong role in decentralizing political power in England. Same with the lack of a standing Royal army.
Yes, Britain is very centralized today, and I think it is a serious problem.
Britain is very centralised today and probably more centralised in the past. There was some economic decentralisation when Manchester was the heart of the industrial revolution. But then again at the time Scotland, Wales and Ireland were kind of like colonies back then.
Again, you are not understanding what I mean by decentralized power. Perhaps the term "checks and balances" expresses what I mean better.
The powers of the English king were probably more constrained by checks and balances than in any monarchy in Europe (with the exception of Poland). This was particularly true after 1688.
Yes, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland were basically colonies, but that is not where the economic growth occurred before 1800 (except for Lowland Scotland).
But could you have had strong property rights without centralised political power?
Another example would be France during its industrial revolution. They had to centralise power to knock down internal trade barriers and put tariffs on their borders.
Yes, strong property rights have nothing to do with centralized political power. You must have a government, but it does not have to be a centralized government. Centralized governments are far more likely to abuse property rights. Totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century are the clearest examples.
Eliminating internal tariffs and other trade barriers is not centralizing power. Tariffs also have nothing to do with centralized government. The USA in the 19th Century had a very decentralized government with high tariffs.
Centralising and decentralising is a spectrum. I'm just saying that having tariffs within in a country was very common in feudal Europe. You had to create a centralised government to get rid of these tariffs which was very source of revenue at the time. It just doesn't seem like a big deal to us in retrospect.