Search

Many people believe that the early development of sovereign debt depended on institutions, but there are two very different ways of presenting this narrative and two very different conclusions one might draw for sovereign debt today. According to the first, this was an impartial story involving executive constraints, shared governance, increased monitoring, and increased transparency — in other words things that sound unambiguously good. According to the second narrative this was a story of distributive politics. States had the best access to credit when institutions gave government creditors privileged access to decision making while restricting the influence of those who paid the taxes to reimburse debts. This was a situation where institutions fostered commitment, but at a cost, and sometimes they may not even have been welfare enhancing. In this paper I present evidence from seven centuries of European history, and I suggest that available data support the distributive politics interpretation. I then draw implications for how we think about the politics of sovereign debt today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pre-modem growth was to a large extent dependent on processes of commercialization and specialization, based on cheap transport. Seminal interpretations of the process of economic growth before the Industrial Revolution have pointed to the strategic importance of the rise of the Atlantic economy and the growth of cities linked to this, but have not really explained why Europeans were so efficient in organizing large international networks of shipping and trade. Most studies concerning early modem shipping have focused on changes in ship design (capital investments) in explaining long-term performance of European shipping in the pre- 1800 period; in this paper we argue that this is only part of the explanation. Human capital - the quality of the labour force employed on ships - mattered as well. We firstly demonstrate that levels of human capital on board European ships were relatively high, and secondly that there were powerful links between the level of labour productivity in shipping and the quality of the workforce. This suggests strongly that shipping was a 'high tech' industry not only employing high quality capital goods, but also, as a complementary input, high quality labour, which was required to operate the increasingly complex ships and their equipment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]