A happy and prosperous July 4th to all of Michael's US and non-US readers.
One aspect of relative ranking we don't seem to mention or appreciate enough is what the future probably holds. The US is about 5% of the world's population and has about 25% (or more?) of the world's GDP. But if progress proceeds across the globe as this project envisions and hopes, then that relative ranking will change as other groups/ nations also gain increased productivity, prosperity, political freedoms, etc. So we need to keep track that what might look like a relative decline for the US is actually a rise in the rest of the world, as all groups may also increase their absolute measures of wealth, health, longevity, liberty, etc.
"Decline" under those conditions should be explicitly appreciated as an improvement for mankind, not any embarrassment for the US -- which in fact as you state has been a beacon of what is possible, if only more and others would learn from and follow it.
My mention of "liberty" below triggered (retriggered actually) a question that perhaps you have the experience and background to answer somewhat definitively: viz;
It seems there is not yet a clear explanation about the respective sources (or precursors) of liberty vs. prosperity. Did the developing liberty of the early Renaissance as people flooded into towns and away from feudal obligations, formed guilds, etc., lead to their increasing commercial prosperity since they had increasing freedom to engage in business, etc.? Or did the ability to accumulate some levels of wealth (especially post Black Plague?) foster demands for increasing political voice, responsibility, accountability, etc., such that more politically liberal institutions came to the fore?
Or maybe things just developed in parallel and no clear progenitor can be ascertained?
I understand that some of the legal protections and privileges evolved out of the development of Church canon law, coupled with rejuvenating an understanding of prior Roman law. Presumably this also evolved in parallel with the advances obtained by the commercial societies you have discussed.
On the origins of Progress, I would tend to line up more with how Jack Goldstone categorizes it in his book Efflorescences. The Dutch, Northern Italians, and Athenians had rising prosperity which could not be sustained absent adequate command of fossil fuels. Ming China and Rome are other likely examples of temporary efflorescences. The Industrial Revolution was something completely different and unprecedented and truly deserving of the term progress, especially since it was the only breakthrough that could scale globally.
I strongly agree with your take on lead nations, and would emphasize how the institutions, mindsets (and view) of the "lead husky" probably differs from those following behind.
I will write much more on these points, so I will be brief here.
It has been a while since I have read Jack Goldstone (but he did write a recommendation for my book), but I disagree with that part of his argument. I admit that I am in the minority within economic history, though.
What he calls "temporary efflorescences" actually lasted for multiple centuries, which is roughly the same amount of time since we experienced the Industrial Revolution. Our economic growth may turn out to be just as temporary as theirs, but that does not mean that the IR does not matter.
I do not remember him mentioning fossil fuels, but if so that only reinforces my Five Keys to Progress argument.
I see no reason why the Northern Italians, Flanders, Dutch Republic, and pre-Industrial England could not keep growing. Perhaps it was inevitable that one would eventually apply fossil fuels (assuming that they existed which is not a given).
There is also clear evidence for the increased material standard of living in all those societies, so they should be included in the history of progress as well.
I agree with you that the Industrial Revolution was "different" and "unprecedented" and "it was the only breakthrough that could scale globally." I do not agree that it started human material progress (though again I admit that I am in the minority in the field of economic history).
I can’t believe the volume and quality of what you have been producing of late. Impressive.
Differentiating efflorescences from progress is somewhat subjective or based on how we choose to label and draw borders around concepts. IOW, it is somewhat a matter of framing.
Goldstone digs into some of what he believes differentiate the two concepts on pages 354-7 of this article:
He then addresses the importance of new sources of energy on p360-1, with a great summary on p378-9
My take on the issue is that humans have created lots of improvements in technologies and institutions over the past ten thousand years. Sometimes the improvements are significant enough to lead to centuries long improvements in local living standards. Eventually though, Malthusian forces, internal stagnation and exploitation, and external predation have brought people back down to slightly above subsistence. Something not just different in degree but kind occurred around 1800 in Western Europe, which continued to grow and expand in a way which can truly be referred to as global human progress.
A happy and prosperous July 4th to all of Michael's US and non-US readers.
One aspect of relative ranking we don't seem to mention or appreciate enough is what the future probably holds. The US is about 5% of the world's population and has about 25% (or more?) of the world's GDP. But if progress proceeds across the globe as this project envisions and hopes, then that relative ranking will change as other groups/ nations also gain increased productivity, prosperity, political freedoms, etc. So we need to keep track that what might look like a relative decline for the US is actually a rise in the rest of the world, as all groups may also increase their absolute measures of wealth, health, longevity, liberty, etc.
"Decline" under those conditions should be explicitly appreciated as an improvement for mankind, not any embarrassment for the US -- which in fact as you state has been a beacon of what is possible, if only more and others would learn from and follow it.
My mention of "liberty" below triggered (retriggered actually) a question that perhaps you have the experience and background to answer somewhat definitively: viz;
It seems there is not yet a clear explanation about the respective sources (or precursors) of liberty vs. prosperity. Did the developing liberty of the early Renaissance as people flooded into towns and away from feudal obligations, formed guilds, etc., lead to their increasing commercial prosperity since they had increasing freedom to engage in business, etc.? Or did the ability to accumulate some levels of wealth (especially post Black Plague?) foster demands for increasing political voice, responsibility, accountability, etc., such that more politically liberal institutions came to the fore?
Or maybe things just developed in parallel and no clear progenitor can be ascertained?
I understand that some of the legal protections and privileges evolved out of the development of Church canon law, coupled with rejuvenating an understanding of prior Roman law. Presumably this also evolved in parallel with the advances obtained by the commercial societies you have discussed.
On the origins of Progress, I would tend to line up more with how Jack Goldstone categorizes it in his book Efflorescences. The Dutch, Northern Italians, and Athenians had rising prosperity which could not be sustained absent adequate command of fossil fuels. Ming China and Rome are other likely examples of temporary efflorescences. The Industrial Revolution was something completely different and unprecedented and truly deserving of the term progress, especially since it was the only breakthrough that could scale globally.
I strongly agree with your take on lead nations, and would emphasize how the institutions, mindsets (and view) of the "lead husky" probably differs from those following behind.
I will write much more on these points, so I will be brief here.
It has been a while since I have read Jack Goldstone (but he did write a recommendation for my book), but I disagree with that part of his argument. I admit that I am in the minority within economic history, though.
What he calls "temporary efflorescences" actually lasted for multiple centuries, which is roughly the same amount of time since we experienced the Industrial Revolution. Our economic growth may turn out to be just as temporary as theirs, but that does not mean that the IR does not matter.
I do not remember him mentioning fossil fuels, but if so that only reinforces my Five Keys to Progress argument.
I see no reason why the Northern Italians, Flanders, Dutch Republic, and pre-Industrial England could not keep growing. Perhaps it was inevitable that one would eventually apply fossil fuels (assuming that they existed which is not a given).
There is also clear evidence for the increased material standard of living in all those societies, so they should be included in the history of progress as well.
I agree with you that the Industrial Revolution was "different" and "unprecedented" and "it was the only breakthrough that could scale globally." I do not agree that it started human material progress (though again I admit that I am in the minority in the field of economic history).
I can’t believe the volume and quality of what you have been producing of late. Impressive.
Differentiating efflorescences from progress is somewhat subjective or based on how we choose to label and draw borders around concepts. IOW, it is somewhat a matter of framing.
Goldstone digs into some of what he believes differentiate the two concepts on pages 354-7 of this article:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jack-Goldstone/publication/236762755_Efflorescences_and_Economic_Growth_in_World_History_Rethinking_the_Rise_of_the_West_and_the_Industrial_Revolution/links/0046351d45c5908616000000/Efflorescences-and-Economic-Growth-in-World-History-Rethinking-the-Rise-of-the-West-and-the-Industrial-Revolution.pdf
He then addresses the importance of new sources of energy on p360-1, with a great summary on p378-9
My take on the issue is that humans have created lots of improvements in technologies and institutions over the past ten thousand years. Sometimes the improvements are significant enough to lead to centuries long improvements in local living standards. Eventually though, Malthusian forces, internal stagnation and exploitation, and external predation have brought people back down to slightly above subsistence. Something not just different in degree but kind occurred around 1800 in Western Europe, which continued to grow and expand in a way which can truly be referred to as global human progress.
Thanks for the compliment, and I look forward to chatting with you when my series on Society Types gets to the Industrial Revolution.