When I took a gen ed history course in Freshman year if undergrad, this topic was taught as the evil capitalists stealing commons from the commoners (enclosure acts). Afaict no mention of the downside of the open system was made, nor any mention of the benefits of consolidation and helped usher in the Industrial Revolution
As a college history major I stumbled into a course taught by (I later realized) one of the department's sidelined profs whose work was ignored by the others. He had no TAs assigned to him, etc. The course was on the "Economic History of Europe" and turned out to be eye opening precisely because he, though not an economist, insisted that we consider the practical economics of things like enclosure. I didn't then understand why that perspective was considered eccentric, but anyway actual human history started making way more sense. Still does.
The glorious revolution of 1688 should be considered the beginning of modernity not the French revolution (failed pseudo communist project) , but Napoleon was cool. And yes I judge history in an anacronistic way and with modern lenses etc etc
This reminds me of Michael Heller's 2008 book 'The Gridlock Economy.' On a wider note, though, we do tend to forget just how much rests on really basic things like adequate infrastructure. This is particularly true for anywhere more than a few miles or km from the coast or a serious river port. You could be the best entrepreneur in the world in mediaeval England, and your ambitions would likely be limited to selling turnips locally unless you lived in a port city that could trade with other port cities. As one of the Scottish kings put it, the interior landscape (specifically, that of the Kingdom of Fife in his telling) was a "beggar's mantle fringed with gold."
I think that you are greatly exaggerating the importance of the Glorious Revolution. Most of the factors that you mentioned were not direct outcomes of the political events of 1688. Just because something happened after 1688, does not mean that the Glorious Revolution caused it.
This was a really fascinating piece! As one other commenter mentioned, enclosure’s more common story in classrooms today is one of theft, and I had never considered the downstream benefits. If there’s any further reading on the subject that Kara or Ben could share, I’d love to read more!
When I took a gen ed history course in Freshman year if undergrad, this topic was taught as the evil capitalists stealing commons from the commoners (enclosure acts). Afaict no mention of the downside of the open system was made, nor any mention of the benefits of consolidation and helped usher in the Industrial Revolution
As a college history major I stumbled into a course taught by (I later realized) one of the department's sidelined profs whose work was ignored by the others. He had no TAs assigned to him, etc. The course was on the "Economic History of Europe" and turned out to be eye opening precisely because he, though not an economist, insisted that we consider the practical economics of things like enclosure. I didn't then understand why that perspective was considered eccentric, but anyway actual human history started making way more sense. Still does.
Loved this piece.
The glorious revolution of 1688 should be considered the beginning of modernity not the French revolution (failed pseudo communist project) , but Napoleon was cool. And yes I judge history in an anacronistic way and with modern lenses etc etc
This reminds me of Michael Heller's 2008 book 'The Gridlock Economy.' On a wider note, though, we do tend to forget just how much rests on really basic things like adequate infrastructure. This is particularly true for anywhere more than a few miles or km from the coast or a serious river port. You could be the best entrepreneur in the world in mediaeval England, and your ambitions would likely be limited to selling turnips locally unless you lived in a port city that could trade with other port cities. As one of the Scottish kings put it, the interior landscape (specifically, that of the Kingdom of Fife in his telling) was a "beggar's mantle fringed with gold."
I think that you are greatly exaggerating the importance of the Glorious Revolution. Most of the factors that you mentioned were not direct outcomes of the political events of 1688. Just because something happened after 1688, does not mean that the Glorious Revolution caused it.
For a more balanced history, I would read this:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/rethinking-the-glorious-revolution
Is India a modern counter example of a country that won’t meet its potential because it is seemingly unable to reform land laws?
Another advantage was the creation of a class of poor people with whom the factories could be fed. Two centuries of misery followed.
Thank you so much for this lovely article!
Hey.. this was a fantastic piece... it would be great to understand the treatment of these issues in two other contexts ... US and China.
This was a really fascinating piece! As one other commenter mentioned, enclosure’s more common story in classrooms today is one of theft, and I had never considered the downstream benefits. If there’s any further reading on the subject that Kara or Ben could share, I’d love to read more!
This was a fun read! Thank you so much!
A title I can’t scroll past!