Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Which is why England went to a hard money standard.

It is hard to imagine that a Stuart 18th Century Britain would have outperformed the historical one. More likely GB would have ended up with fits and spurts of modernization like the French enjoyed/endured until '89.

The Whig political economy ran pretty close to the edge. But what was the alternative? A War of the English Succession?

BTW I thought a cute name for the 2nd Iraq War would have been the War for Bush's Ear. Nothing cute about that disaster now.

JamesII had been brought up at the court of Louis , and thought his was the way to behave. According to Sam P. he was smart and clued in otherwise. He just couldn,t grasp the fact that his father had lost his head by fighting parliament, and tried to fight it himself.

I hope I don't sound too whiggish if I suggest that a little uncertainty in economic growth and development was a cheap price to pay for parliamentary democracy . . .

So. . . for how long did it slow British growth? All of the 18th century?

Is there a link to the paper itself?

I'm with rea.

Plus, as an ignoramus on the subject (but one who was nearly named Oliver by his parents) I had never heard it had much of an impact on the economy. Didn't the reforms stop pretty high up? (witness the inspiring but failed efforts of the Diggers and other "world turned upside down" types) -- too high up to change much about the pattern of ownership.

Dear Brad--Off-thread, but is there a copy of Drew Keeling's paper on ocean shipping before WWI online?

Several comments seem appropriate:

The counter-factuals: What would have happened as the result of continuing religious conflict in England had James II not fled? To what extent was the rising cost of capital attributable to the South Sea Bubble of 1720 and its aftermath?

We can accept, I think, that the transfer of "competences" - to apply currently fashionable EU jargon - from the monarchy to Parliament would entail learning curve costs. There were through the 19th century recurring debates over the connected issue of franchise reform for elections to Parliament. As the Duke of Wellington commented after the franchise extension of the 1832 Reform Act, "I never saw so many shocking bad hats in my life." Britain did not have full adult suffrage until 1928.

However, recall that Voltaire, living in exile in England (mostly London) 1726-9, would reckon England "the land of liberty", which was the only nation "on earth which has succeeded in controlling the power of kings by resisting them." [Julian Hoppit: A Land of Liberty? - England 1689-1727 (OUP 2000)]. The last occasion on which a reigning monarch refused to sign an Act of Parliament was Queen Anne in 1707.

Consider a parallel: Keynes visited Germany, then with its Weimar constitution, in January 1932 to give a lecture, writing afterwards: "Germany today is in the grip of the most powerful deflation any nation has experienced." [DE Moggridge: Maynard Keynes (Routledge 1992) p.540].

On the ascent to power of the National Socialists a year later, "Schacht fought hard to prevent deficit financing rising to a dangerous level until his resignation in 1938. . . The effect was rapidly to reduce unemployment from 6 million in October 1933 to 4.1 million a year later, 2.8 million in February 1935, 2.5 million in February 1936, and 1.2 million in February 1937." [CP Kindleberger: The World in Depression 1929-1939 (1973), p.240]

What should we conclude?

By almost any standard the reign of the Stuarts demonstrated that the structure of the monarchy was no longer suitable for governing a commercial nation such as Britain. That the startup of full parliamentary government would be uneven is hardly surprising when you consider the uneven sittings of Parliament during Stuart reign.

In retrospect there's also no reason to believe that any restoration of the Stuarts was remotely possible after 1688. With the ascension of William of Orange the Parliament had secured a powerless King and a quasi-alliance with another mercantile Protestant nation. Not only could they hope for a similar future good stroke of fortune, they also achieved it when the house of Hanover succeeded the house of Orange.

Of particular interest to us would be the effect of the rise of the great monopolies and the burden they placed on the English state. Particularly so because the most spectacular failure of English policy- the loss of the American colonies- did not result in any substantial reforms of the monopolistic practices. And thereby hangs a tale....

Also, while replacing James II of course resulted in a questionable, uncertain succession to the throne, it is far from clear that the alternative would have been more certain. James II's son was widely believed at the time to be a fraud, e. g. not really related to James, and substituted at birth to secure a Catholic succession. And James himself is usually credited for destablizing things. He really does seem to have wanted to convert the country to Catholicsm by force, and that's how he lost the support of long-time supporters like the future Duke & Duchess of Marlborough. If James had his way, that surely would have been more destabilizing to the country than any lingering uncertainty as to the legitimacy of the protestant succession.

Second the earlier post -- is there a link?

And....the Stuarts DID return, sort of...Queen Anne...so I suppose they mean the James/"Charles III" line...need to see the paper to see how Stuart return is defined.

Here is a paper by the two authors likely to be very close to the one some have asked for:

Nathan Sussman and Yishay Yafeh (2003), "Constitutions and Commitment: Evidence on the Relation between Institutions and the Cost of Capital."
http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~melchior/conf-5-03/Nathan%20Sussman.pdf

Online Casino Directory

Culpam poena premit comes - Punishment closely follows crime as its companion. (Horace)

Noli me vocate. Ego te vocabo - Don't call me. I'll call you

Mors ultima linea rerum est - Death is everything's final limit. (Horace)

Potius sero quam numquam - It's better late than never. (Livy)

Animis opibusque parati - Prepared in minds and resources (ready for anything)

Cum grano salis - With a grain of salt. (Pliny the Elder?)

Nil Sine Numine - Nothing without providence

Nil Sine Numine - Nothing without providence

Nil Sine Numine - Nothing without providence

Per angusta in augusta - Through difficulties to great things

Minime senuisti! - You haven't aged a bit!