scholarly journals 1688 and all that: Property rights, the Glorious Revolution and the rise of British capitalism

2017 ◽  
pp. 63-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. M. Hodgson

In a seminal 1989 article, Douglass North and Barry Weingast argued that by making the monarch more answerable to Parliament, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 helped to secure property rights in England and stimulate the rise of capitalism. Similarly, Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson later wrote that in the English Middle Ages there was a “lack of property rights for landowners, merchants and proto-industrialists” and the “strengthening” of property rights in the late 17th century “spurred a process of financial and commercial expansion”. There are several problems with these arguments. Property rights in England were relatively secure from the 13th century. A major developmental problem was not the security of rights but their feudal nature, including widespread “entails” and “strict settlements”. 1688 had no obvious direct effect on property rights. Given these criticisms, what changes promoted the rise of capitalism? A more plausible answer is found by addressing the post-1688 Financial and Administrative Revolutions, which were pressured by the enhanced needs of war and Britain’s expanding global role. Guided by a more powerful Parliament, this new financial system stimulated reforms to landed property rights, the growth of collateralizable property and saleable debt, and thus enabled the Industrial Revolution.

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
GEOFFREY M. HODGSON

AbstractIn a seminal 1989 article, Douglass North and Barry Weingast argued that by making the monarch more answerable to Parliament, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 helped to secure property rights in England and stimulate the rise of capitalism. Similarly, Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson later wrote that in the English Middle Ages there was a ‘lack of property rights for landowners, merchants and proto-industrialists’ and the ‘strengthening’ of property rights in the late 17th century ‘spurred a process of financial and commercial expansion’. There are several problems with these arguments. Property rights in England were relatively secure from the 13th century. A major developmental problem was not the security of rights but their feudal nature, including widespread ‘entails’ and ‘strict settlements’. 1688 had no obvious direct effect on property rights. Given these criticisms, what changes promoted the rise of capitalism? A more plausible answer is found by addressing the post-1688 Financial and Administrative Revolutions, which were pressured by the enhanced needs of war and Britain's expanding global role. Guided by a more powerful Parliament, this new financial system stimulated reforms to landed property rights, the growth of collateralizable property and saleable debt, and thus enabled the Industrial Revolution.


2012 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
GARY W. COX

Douglass North and Barry Weingast's seminal account of the Glorious Revolution argued that specific constitutional reforms enhanced the credibility of the English Crown, leading to much stronger public finances. Critics have argued that the most important reforms occurred incrementally before the Revolution; and that neither interest rates on sovereign debt nor enforcement of property rights improved sharply after the Revolution. In this article, I identify a different set of constitutional reforms, explain why precedents for these reforms did not lessen their revolutionary impact, and show that the evidence, properly evaluated, supports a view of the Revolution as a watershed.


Art History ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Bork ◽  
Marc Schurr

The architectural tradition now known as Gothic flourished across most of Europe throughout the later Middle Ages, producing spectacular structures that dominate their home cities even in the 21st century, such as the cathedrals of Chartres, Lincoln, Strasbourg, Milan, and Segovia. All of these buildings incorporate pointed arches, ribbed vaults, traceried windows, spires, pinnacles, and prominent buttresses, including flying buttresses. The development of these stereotypically Gothic features involved the bold extrapolation of motifs seen in the preceding Romanesque style. Although these period labels were not used in the Middle Ages, the Gothic mode was recognized as innovative when it first emerged in the 12th century, and it continued to be identified with the modern in the four centuries that followed. This mode first arose in northern France, and by the middle of the 13th century, French builders had created cathedrals and churches with daringly skeletal structures whose lightness would not be rivaled until the Industrial Revolution. Meanwhile, the fashion for Gothic forms had begun to spread across Europe so that the interplay between international currents and indigenous influences gave rise to a wide variety of national and regional styles. The Gothic mode achieved its fullest expression in the realm of church design, but even there its application was less than wholly systematic, and many important church buildings thus lack one or more of the features stereotypically associated with the style. Many forms originally developed in the context of church design, conversely, eventually became fashionable in secular construction, despite the different functional requirements of these building types. In the meantime, Gothic builders engaged in fruitful dialogue with makers of manuscripts, goldwork, stained glass, sculpture, and liturgical furniture, fostering the cross-medium exchange of ideas and motifs. The Gothic mode dominated European architectural production until the early 16th century, more than a century after the revival of Antique architectural fashions began in Renaissance Florence. The term “Gothic,” in fact, has its roots in the writings of Italian Renaissance authors who falsely associated this highly sophisticated late medieval tradition with the supposedly barbaric Goths who had sacked Rome a millennium earlier. Although profoundly misleading from a historical perspective, this terminology has endured, in part perhaps because it captures an idea of the Gothic as a foil to the classical tradition. Indeed, while the Gothic mode lost its leading position in the decades after 1500 because of the growing taste for Renaissance classicism, it enjoyed several afterlives in the following centuries, inspiring the designers of structures ranging from scrupulously historicizing neo-Gothic churches and university buildings to soaring skyscrapers. The Gothic tradition thus ranks among the most significant currents in the history of Western architecture. For sake of coherence, the present article considers only the development of the original Gothic tradition in medieval Europe, and for sake of concision it cites only books, with an emphasis on synthetic studies whose own bibliographies can serve as useful pointers to monographic studies and more specialized periodical literature.


2011 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary W Cox

I reexamine Douglass North and Barry Weingast's argument regarding credible commitment and sovereign debt in post-revolution England. The central problem that the architects of the revolution settlement had to solve, I argue, was not the king's frequent reneging on financial commitments (a symptom), but the moral hazard that generated the kings' malfeasance (the underlying cause). The central element of the revolution settlement was thus not better holding kings to their commitments, but better holding royal advisors to account for all consequences of the Crown's policies—through what we now call ministerial responsibility.


Author(s):  
Peter Grajzl ◽  
Peter Murrell

Abstract This is the second of two papers that generate and analyze quantitative estimates of the development of English caselaw and associated legal ideas before the Industrial Revolution. In the first paper, we estimated a 100-topic structural topic model, named the topics, and showed how to interpret topic-prevalence timelines. Here, we provide examples of new insights that can be gained from these estimates. We first provide a bird's-eye view, aggregating the topics into 15 themes. Procedure is the highest-prevalence theme, but by the mid-18th century attention to procedure decreases sharply, indicating solidification of court institutions. Important ideas on real-property were substantially settled by the mid-17th century and on contracts and torts by the mid-18th century. Thus, crucial elements of caselaw developed before the Industrial Revolution. We then examine the legal ideas associated with England's financial revolution. Many new legal ideas relevant to finance were well accepted before the Glorious Revolution. Finally, we examine the sources of law used in the courts. Emphasis on precedent-based reasoning increases by 1650, but diffusion was gradual, with pertinent ideas solidifying only after 1700. Ideas on statute applicability were accepted by the mid-16th century but debates on legislative intent were still occurring in 1750.


1998 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann M. Carlos ◽  
Jennifer Key ◽  
Jill L. Dupree

In this article we use a unique source—a 30-year time series of the share transactions of two joint-stock companies—to examine the growth of the London capital market prior to and immediately after the Glorious Revolution. We argue that the London experience with open capital markets was not solely the result of 1689. Rather it was the learning by private individuals and goldsmith bankers which took place in the decades before 1689 that allowed the market to take full advantage of the property rights changes which occurred with the change in regimes.


2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Aldo R. Flores-Quiroga

This article proposes an institutional interpretation of Mexico's long economic crisis of the end of the twentieth century. It argues that the inability of the Mexican government to commit credibly to protecting property rights is largely responsible for the stagnation of private investment levels between 1982 and 1995. This inability is similar to that of the English Crown in the seventeenth century, which resorted to property rights assaults to confront recurrent fiscal crises. The English solution to this problem came in the form of the Glorious Revolution and its associated reforms that stabilized the property rights regime by constraining the Crown's discretion. England's economic growth increased substantially afterwards. Mexicans have attempted a similar reform, through the adoption of domestic and international mechanisms that, as discussed in this article, stabilize the property rights regime. The reform is still unfinished, and it still faces considerable challenges, but if they are surmounted, a return to sustained economic growth is very likely. Este artíículo propone una interpretacióón institucional de la extensa crisis econóómica de Mééxico a finales del siglo XX. Aquíí se establece que la ineptitud delgovierno mexicano paracomprometerse verazmente aprotegerlos derechos de propiedad es laresponsible delestancamiento de los niveles de las inversiones privadas entre 1982 y 1995. Esta ineptitud es similar a la de la Corona inglesa en el siglo XVII, la cual recurrióó a atropellos a los derechos de propiedad para confrontar las reiteradas crisis fiscals. La solucióón inglesa a dicho problema fue la Revolucióón Gloriosa y sus reformas que estabilizaron elregimen de los derechos de propiedad limitando el poder de la Corona. Posteriormente, Inglaterra tuvo un crecimiento econóómico sustancial. Los mexicanos han intentado hacer una reforma similar a travéés de la adopcióón de mecanismos doméésticos e internacionales que,como se arguye en este artíículo, estabilizan el regimen de los derechos de propiedad. La reforma aúún no ha terminado, y todavíía se enfrenta a desafííos considerables, pero si ééstos se superan, es probable el retorno a un crecimiento econóómico sostenido.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document