Abstract

The Princeton Economic History of the Western World seems to have a patent on important, agenda-setting monographs. Oscar Gelderblom’s Cities of Commerce: The Institutional Foundations of International Trade in the Low Countries, 1250-1650 surely fits this description and earns its inclusion in this important series. Cities of Commerce argues that institutional change was fuelled by urban rivalry; cities competed which each other and as a result adapted commercial, legal and financial institutions to suit the needs of merchants. The book draws on the experiences of three successive commercial success stories: Bruges, Antwerp and Amsterdam from the fourteenth until the seventeenth centuries. These cities managed to attract large groups of foreign and native merchants through the creation of open-access institutions allowing all merchants to trade in these cities. The book is noteworthy in four aspects. Firstly, it synthesizes two social science traditions dealing with the history of long-distance trade prior to the Industrial Revolution: New Institutional Economics and economic history. Scholars in the New Institutional Economics tradition following Douglass North and Avner Greif have singled out those institutions that are thought to have mattered for the spectacular development of trade since the medieval Commercial Revolution, isolated them and verified both their theoretical and practical benefits and constraints. They have done so primarily by means of modelling and game theory in order to identify the key features of these institutions. Economic historians, on the other hand, have pointed out the plethora of institutions that merchants in the past have used. Historians have produced detailed, qualitative descriptions of how and when merchants used particular institutions. Gelderblom combines the strengths of both traditions: analytical precision and historical contextualization.

Highlights

  • Urban competition combined with starting institutional quality does not emerge as a positive factor for the growth of European cities in general: this is interpreted as a call for more research rather a decisive counter-argument

  • It seems that the dominant centre of institutional innovation, London, was not in a situation of municipal competition

  • Urban competition is always associated with faster city growth – though the result has more than 10 percent probability of being due to chance in the balanced panel estimates

Read more

Summary

Can the hypothesis be generalised?

All the preceding points might be linked to my lack of understanding of the mechanisms explored in the book. The subsequent relative decline of Italy suggests that maybe competition between city-states was too intense in late medieval Italy and led to the demise of the whole system. Later in time, it seems that the dominant centre of institutional innovation, London, was not in a situation of municipal competition (the book discusses this point on page 206). Looking at medieval Italy and mercantilist Britain suggests that maybe the three cities studied are at a “sweet spot” for the type of urban competition the book describes. Maybe Avner Greif’s point of view about the crucial ingredients for institutional building was true before (or elsewhere), and North and Acemoglu’s point of view was true after (or elsewhere)

How can we test the hypothesis?
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call