Abstract

Large parts of the Netherlands saw an early rise in market traffic during the late Middle Ages already. Exchange via the market became the dominant form not only for goods, but also for land, labour and capital, and this during the course of the sixteenth century already. This contribution investigates why it should be that the market form of exchange arose so early here specifically; how markets were organised as institutions and how they functioned. It will be demonstrated that the markets here had a favourable organisation, with low transaction costs, a high level of integration of the markets and a large degree of certainty for parties entering these markets. Nevertheless, the consequences of the rise of the market were not all positive. The rise of a market economy did not lead to any appreciable economic growth, while the social effects were largely negative. Social polarisation, pollution and the need to work ever harder depressed standards of living for most people in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This article is part of the special issue 'The International Relevance of Dutch History'.

Highlights

  • One of the fiercest and most productive historical debates – and one of the most ideology-laden – has been that on the transition from feudalism to capitalism.[1]

  • While some argue that these causes are located in the modern period, others would hold that their roots go back much further, perhaps even to the Middle Ages

  • This links up with the question of what role has been played by the differences in the organization of economy and society in these different parts of the world, and of the changes that have occurred within this organization, as well as with the transition to capitalism.[3]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

While the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century is widely acknowledged as one of the decisive transformations in world history, few historians of science would dare state this really was a revolution; or even that it was a revolution in science. The historical importance of the radical shift in our view of the natural world that occurred in the early modern period is not in dispute: but everything else is. The easiest way out would of be to stop using the term altogether. This would not solve the problem: we would still face the need to analyse and explain the fundamental changes in the perception of the natural world in the early modern period. A better way to address the problem is to study these changes within a geographically restricted or ‘national’ context.

On this divergence
A main example
This is a leading theme in
Chronological development of market exchange
Processes of proletarianization
Geographical differences
22 For these regional differences
Institutional organization of markets
Quality and functioning of markets
Social and economic effects
Findings
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.