Abstract
This article argues that cultural and political legacies from the Middle Ages were crucial for the sustained economic growth that led to the Industrial Revolution. The medieval social/political orders had an exceptional openness to innovations (technological, organizational and institutional) when compared to other contemporary civilizations. Such openness was caused by the competition between them, as well as by the existence of multiple organizations independent from the State. The emergence of national states changed the medieval scenario but a legacy of some of its important cultural/institutional features remained and played a decisive role in the forthcoming Industrial Revolution: the Rule of Law, individualism, representative assemblies, the respect for labor and professions (notably the merchants) and the embryo of a culture of economic growth. Also, the legacy of a process of accumulation of capital, which was translated into a superior level of labor productivity when compared to those prevailing in any other civilization until that moment.
Highlights
The exploration of the origins of the Industrial Revolution (IR) in Europe has generated a long-standing and controversial debate
The criticisms addressed to Landes (1998) last work, were representative of the main controversy divide: the accusation of "Eurocentrism", which means explaining the European success by its unique character signaling superiority
A group of scholars, baptized by Goldstone (2009) as the “Californian school”, proceeded to show that from the beginning of modernity in the XVI century to the end of the XVII, the level of wealth, development, and growth between the two extremes of Eurasia was similar and the supposedly unique character of Western society was the product of the "imagination of Eurocentric historians
Summary
The exploration of the origins of the Industrial Revolution (IR) in Europe has generated a long-standing and controversial debate. The criticisms addressed to Landes (1998) last work, were representative of the main controversy divide: the accusation of "Eurocentrism", which means explaining the European success by its unique character signaling superiority. A group of scholars, baptized by Goldstone (2009) as the “Californian school” , proceeded to show that from the beginning of modernity in the XVI century to the end of the XVII, the level of wealth, development, and growth between the two extremes of Eurasia was similar and the supposedly unique character of Western society was the product of the "imagination of Eurocentric historians. It was the "Eurasian similarity thesis." For Perdue (2005), it would be wrong even to point out the competition
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
