No abstract

The Dutch Republic holds a marginal position in the debate on the transition from feudalism to capitalism, despite its significance in the early stage of the development of global capitalism. While the positions of those Marxists who did consider the Dutch case range from seeing it as the first capitalist country to rejecting it as an essentially non-capitalist commercial society, all involved basically accept an image of Dutch development as being driven by commerce rather than real advances in the sphere of production. Their shared interpretation of the Dutch 'Golden Age', however, rests on an interpretation of Dutch economic history that does not match the current state of historical knowledge. Rereading the debate on the Dutch trajectory towards capitalism in the light of recent economic historiography seriously challenges established views, and questions both major strands in the transition-debate.

Eric Williams's Capitalism and Slavery, published in 1944, is one of the most influential and controversial historical studies of the twentieth century. 1 This relatively short book firmly associated the name of its author to key debates about the connections between capitalist development, slavery, the slave trade, abolitionism, and the roots of racismtopics that have recently re-emerged in quite remarkable fashion. 2 This fact in itself * I would like to thank Angelie Sens, Artwell Cain, and Karel Davids for reading and commenting on the draft version of this article. I also profited from extensive discussions on Eric Williams's work with Marcus Rediker and Seymour Drescher during my time at the University of Pittsburgh. Marcel van der Linden encouraged me to delve into the origins of the Williams Thesis, and I am grateful to Dale Tomich for convincing me to study Williams's dissertation, as well as for his efforts to make it available to scholars internationally. Of course, all the customary disclaimers as to their responsibility for the contents of this article firmly apply.

Taxation is accepted as a fact of modern life, despite recurring political conflict over the nature and direction of fiscal policies. Most financiers regard obligations issued by the state as a safe investment option. Neither taxation nor state obligations were taken for granted during much of the history of public finance, however, at least not before the early 1800s. The ‘tax state’ developed in fits and starts, driven by the exigencies of warfare, which provided the main rationale for raising state income. Although wartime fiscal innovations eventually facilitated the rise of an efficient military state, the options available for implementing such improvements and preferences for specific fiscal or financial instruments varied greatly across early modern states. Focusing on the ‘long’ eighteenth century, this introduction presents a framework for assessing these differences and introduces the other articles in this special issue.