Abstract:This article offers an architectural blueprint for the study of economic connections between warfare in the early modern period and the long-term growth of Europe's competing national economies. It surveys and critically investigates the concepts derived mainly from economic theory and the statistical evidence accessible in primary and secondary sources for the investigation of this meta-problem for students of economic theory.
“…In line with the neoclassical growth model, this negative impact on capital labour ratio, together with other disruptive effects of wars, generates a negative response of GDP per capita. At the same time, wars—unlike pandemics—have no statistically significant effect on GDP per capita in the long run, contradicting the claims that they were one of the drivers of growth in pre-industrial Europe (Voigtländer and Voth 2013 ; O’Brien 2018 ). Fig.…”
Section: Baseline Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The paper is also related to the literature on the pre-industrial economic growth in Europe, which debates whether per capita growth took place before 1750 (Jones 2000 ; Goldstone 2002 , 2019 ; Broadberry and Wallis 2017 ), in particular in England and the Netherlands (Broadberry 2013 ; de Pleijt and van Zanden 2019 ), pointing to the Black Death, overseas expansion and wars as potential sources of structural changes and growth (Pamuk 2007 ; Voigtländer and Voth 2013 ; de Pleijt and van Zanden 2016 ; O’Brien 2018 ; Jedwab et al 2019 ; Prados De La Escosura and Rodríguez-Caballero 2020 ). Since the effects of pandemics are found to be prolonged and positive in Northern Europe, but not so much in the South of the continent, the results of this paper support the view that pandemics played a role in spurring pre-industrial growth and the “Little Divergence” between the North Sea Area and the rest of Europe.…”
The paper estimates dynamic effects of pandemics on GDP per capita with local projections, controlling for the effects of wars and weather conditions, using a novel dataset that covers 33 countries and stretches back to the thirteenth century. On average, pandemics are found to have prolonged and highly statistically significant effects on GDP per capita—a pandemic killing 1% of the population tends to increase GDP per capita by approx. 0.3% after about 20 years. The study of a more detailed dataset available for the UK reveals that this results mainly from an increase in per capita land and a disproportionate impact of pandemics on low-productivity workers, while monetary expansion, institutional change and innovation could also play some role. At the same time, the effects of pandemics are found to vary with scale and across time and countries, with positive effects present following the Black Death and the Spanish flu pandemics, especially in Northern Europe. This suggests that only the largest and most unexpected pandemics have a positive impact on income.
“…In line with the neoclassical growth model, this negative impact on capital labour ratio, together with other disruptive effects of wars, generates a negative response of GDP per capita. At the same time, wars—unlike pandemics—have no statistically significant effect on GDP per capita in the long run, contradicting the claims that they were one of the drivers of growth in pre-industrial Europe (Voigtländer and Voth 2013 ; O’Brien 2018 ). Fig.…”
Section: Baseline Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The paper is also related to the literature on the pre-industrial economic growth in Europe, which debates whether per capita growth took place before 1750 (Jones 2000 ; Goldstone 2002 , 2019 ; Broadberry and Wallis 2017 ), in particular in England and the Netherlands (Broadberry 2013 ; de Pleijt and van Zanden 2019 ), pointing to the Black Death, overseas expansion and wars as potential sources of structural changes and growth (Pamuk 2007 ; Voigtländer and Voth 2013 ; de Pleijt and van Zanden 2016 ; O’Brien 2018 ; Jedwab et al 2019 ; Prados De La Escosura and Rodríguez-Caballero 2020 ). Since the effects of pandemics are found to be prolonged and positive in Northern Europe, but not so much in the South of the continent, the results of this paper support the view that pandemics played a role in spurring pre-industrial growth and the “Little Divergence” between the North Sea Area and the rest of Europe.…”
The paper estimates dynamic effects of pandemics on GDP per capita with local projections, controlling for the effects of wars and weather conditions, using a novel dataset that covers 33 countries and stretches back to the thirteenth century. On average, pandemics are found to have prolonged and highly statistically significant effects on GDP per capita—a pandemic killing 1% of the population tends to increase GDP per capita by approx. 0.3% after about 20 years. The study of a more detailed dataset available for the UK reveals that this results mainly from an increase in per capita land and a disproportionate impact of pandemics on low-productivity workers, while monetary expansion, institutional change and innovation could also play some role. At the same time, the effects of pandemics are found to vary with scale and across time and countries, with positive effects present following the Black Death and the Spanish flu pandemics, especially in Northern Europe. This suggests that only the largest and most unexpected pandemics have a positive impact on income.
“…Esta subordinación, tanto a un recurso estratégico, como a un suministro regional especializado, plantea una serie de interrogantes con los que queremos ampliar el debate existente en la actualidad, en la línea de lo sugerido por Patrick K. O'Brien (O'Brien, 2018). En concreto, nos interesa saber si los gobiernos imperiales de España e Inglaterra fueron conscientes de las posibilidades que podrían ofrecer sus respectivos dominios coloniales para solucionar su dependencia del imperio ruso.…”
Kenneth Pomeranz, en su trabajo sobre la divergencia económica producida entre Oriente y Occidente a partir de la Revolución Industrial, utilizaba el concepto de ghost acreages para referirse a las mejores posibilidades de crecimiento económico que tuvo Gran Bretaña por el mero hecho de disponer grandes superficies cultivables e insumos alternativos en sus dominios coloniales. Siguiendo esta línea argumental, nosotros pretendemos averiguar, gracias al manejo de fuentes españolas e inglesas, si los gobiernos de ambos imperios fueron conscientes de las posibilidades alternativas que, según la actual literatura científica, les ofrecían a este nivel los territorios americanos que dominaron. Y lo haremos centrándonos en el caso concreto del cáñamo, el cual, en la época moderna, se había convertido en una materia prima estratégica de primer orden, al punto de haber sido exportado tempranamente su cultivo al Nuevo Mundo con la esperanza de que éste resolviese las ambiciones geoestratégicas y comerciales de España e Inglaterra.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
