What can slow-growing western economies do to boost their productivity? The answer lies behind us, but also beneath our feet. Or, to put it less gnomically, history shows us that land reform is crucial to economic progress.
A fascinating example is the relationship between the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 16th Century England and the Industrial Revolution a couple of centuries later. This is the subject of a rather brilliant piece of research by Leander Heldring, James Robinson and Sebastian Vollmer, which they write about for VoxEU.org.
They begin with the historical context:
“…[when] Henry VIII decided to break with the Catholic Church… he expropriated all monasteries in England, which collectively held about one third of all land in the country…
“When the management of these vast properties turned out to outstrip the bureaucratic capacity of his government, Henry sold all monastic assets in England.”
This was a lot of land, but why was its change of ownership so significant?
“Where lands were before held in long leases whose rates were set by medieval custom, lands now changed hands frequently and at market rates. In a few years between 1535 and 1542, the majority of monastic land was sold…
“The historical consensus on the immediate impact of the Dissolution was to break up archaic forms of land tenure and create a land market…”
Markets are all about the efficient allocation of scarce resources; and land (which they’re not making anymore) is an indispensable input to just about every economic activity. Henry was a brutal despot, but in selling off so many stolen acres, he accidentally created the basis for a modern enterprise economy – one capable of nurturing the seeds of an industrial revolution.
That’s the theory, but where’s the proof? Luckily for the researchers, English land records go back a long way. It also helps that monastic land holdings were not evenly distributed – thereby allowing those villages that were impacted by Henry’s ‘reforms’ to be compared against those that weren’t (because they didn’t contain much, or any, monastic land for Henry to confiscate):
“We choose comparison villages that lie close to impacted villages so as to make them comparable. When we statistically estimate the effect of having more monastic assets in a village in 1535 on industrialisation, we find a large positive effect – villages that had more monastic assets (by value) were more likely to have at least one textile mill by 1836 and employed more people in the textile industry.”
As well as a more industrialised workforce, the researchers also found that the former monastic villages had “higher productivity in agriculture” and were associated with a greater number of agricultural patents.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe