Medieval England twice as well off as today’s poorest nations

[Abdul Alhazred]

Medieval England twice as well off as today’s poorest nations (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/medieval_england_twice)
Professor Stephen Broadberry
Department of Economics
University of Warwick (UK)

...

New research led by economists at the University of Warwick reveals that medieval England was not only far more prosperous than previously believed, it also actually boasted an average income that would be more than double the average per capita income of the world’s poorest nations today.

In a paper entitled British Economic Growth 1270-1870 published by the University of Warwick’s Centre on Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE) the researchers find that living standards in medieval England were far above the “bare bones subsistence” experience of people in many of today’s poor countries.

The figure of $400 annually (as expressed in 1990 international dollars) is commonly is used as a measure of “bare bones subsistence” and was previously believed to be the average income in England in the middle ages.

However the University of Warwick led researchers found that English per capita incomes in the late Middle Ages were actually of the order of $1,000 (again as expressed in 1990 dollars). Even on the eve of the Black Death, which first struck in 1348/49, the researchers found per capita incomes in England of more than $800 using the same 1990 dollar measure. Their estimates for other European countries also suggest late medieval living standards well above $400.

This new figure of $1,000 is not only significantly higher than previous estimates for that period in England – it also indicates that on average medieval England was better off than some of the world’s poorest nations today ...

[psionl0]

From the same source (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/medieval_england_twice) comes a more important (but as yet unanswered) question:

He also said:

“Of course this paper focuses only on average per capita incomes. We also need to have a better understanding of the distribution of income in medieval England, as there will have been some people living at bare bones subsistence, and at times this proportion could have been quite substantial. We are now beginning research to construct social tables which will also reveal the distribution of income for some key benchmark years in that period”

[Abdul Alhazred]

It also leaves out some quality of life issues that are not so easily quantified.

But it's an interesting line of inquiry.

[kittynh]

well if you read Barbara Tuchman's novel "A Distant Mirror" things weren't so bad. For one thing peasants got a LOT of holy days off. I mean, there were a lot of festivals and celebrations...and no working on Sundays. Plus after the Black Death standards of living rose. People that had no chance at moving up the social ladder found that with 1/3 of the population dead...those that were alive were more valuable. Serfs had higher wages (despite laws passed saying they could not get higher pay, everyone just ignored that) teachers were hired that taught in English since not enough French/Latin speakers were alive to fill the teaching posts. Land became cheaper to own.

The real problem was warfare. Left alone the average peasent was able to feed and clothe their family. Throw in a war or two, and then things got miserable

Much like third world nations today. War is still the number one cause of poverty.

[Corsair 115]

Just wondering, but might the wealth of the monarchy and other nobles perhaps skew the per capita figures higher than they really were for regular population?

[Abdul Alhazred]

I suspect the medieval inequality of wealth was less than the modern USA, proportionately speaking.

Yes our poor people are very much richer than a medieval peasant, but the sheer overall amount of wealth is so much greater.

[ReverendClog]

I used to have good and internationally recognised expertise in this kind of thing - especially tithe barn construction, but now I cant bring myself to care.
Peasants were not misnamed and the whole 'medieval idyll' is a myth promulgated by socialist historians in the fifties.
Let's bring back feudalism - we'll all be happier - not.

[psionl0]

Much like third world nations today. War is still the number one cause of poverty.
I thought it was debt.

[rjh01]

Just wondering, but might the wealth of the monarchy and other nobles perhaps skew the per capita figures higher than they really were for regular population?

I think that depends on the country today. Some countries nearly everyone is poor, in others there are the super rich as well as the poor.

If anyone can understand this reference they can say more than me https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html.

[Puppycow]

I wonder what the median income was though. That seems a little more important than the average, because the royalty and aristocracy would probably skew the average quite a bit.

[Francesca R]

Just wondering, but might the wealth of the monarchy and other nobles perhaps skew the per capita figures higher than they really were for regular population?I suspect the medieval inequality of wealth was less than the modern USA, proportionately speaking.I wonder what the median income was though. That seems a little more important than the average, because the royalty and aristocracy would probably skew the average quite a bit.This book (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aQryk684bg8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Unveiling+Inequality:+A+World-Historical+Perspective&ots=k8C6M9fHj2&sig=XZKIgaU7T1nqkzkmO6crgMNvflM#v=onepage&q&f=false) has some examination of very historical gini index numbers. IIRC because the ruling elite was such a small part of the population, the results were not all that skewed.

Also, since the main form of economic output prior to 1700 was overwhelmingly agricultural produce and housing, it doesn't really lend itself to appropriation by the elite, because they can only consume/occupy so much of it (and there is no point in taxing the population so high that they can't afford to consume it themselves). Therefore I think the message of this analysis is that middle-ages English folk had access to a food consumption basket that was some way above the $400/day subsistence level, and probably better housing than the poorest countries on earth today also. (Ancient historical output/income per person is never assumed to be lower than this because it would probably entail population crashes)

The Warwick paper references the late Angus Maddison data (which it revises up) which can be accessed here (http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/oriindex.htm)

[stilicho]

I suspect the medieval inequality of wealth was less than the modern USA, proportionately speaking.

That's a pretty tough one to measure. Consider that quo warrantum made even the income potential of the landholders themselves to be extremely tenuous. And, of course, fewer people had any income whatsoever in medieval times.

The political structures weren't that much different in medieval England than they are now in many of the world's poorest nations. Property rights were insecure too.

Maybe the good professor should have called his paper "Sucks To Be Poor" because it really does regardless of the era.

[stilicho]

Therefore I think the message of this analysis is that middle-ages English folk had access to a food consumption basket that was some way above the $400/day subsistence level, and probably better housing than the poorest countries on earth today also.

That works for most of the years in any given century but not in successive years of poor harvests. There was no integrated market in operation in those days so if you had two or more years of drought, too much rain, soil exhaustion, etc, then your village or homestead stood a very good chance of losing population.

The better documented Irish Potato Famine shows what typically happened in medieval times and this in spite of a much better integrated economic system.

[Skeptic]

Peasants were not misnamed and the whole 'medieval idyll' is a myth promulgated by socialist historians in the fifties.

Actually, the look back at the "good old days" before the modern world was ruined by the internet / computers / feminism / nuclear power / the Jews / universal sufferage / decline in education standards / television / capitalism / communism / industrialization / insert your own is universal.

Quiz: Who wrote, "The youths today no longer listen to their elders, have no respect for religion or the law, and are totally corrupt, things were so much better in the past"?

Answer: we don't know, but that fragment of writing was found in Sumer, ca. 3500 BC, and is one of the earliest surviving written documents, at the very dawn of history.

[stilicho]

Actually, the look back at the "good old days" before the modern world was ruined by the internet / computers / feminism / nuclear power / the Jews / universal sufferage / decline in education standards / television / capitalism / communism / industrialization / insert your own is universal.

Quiz: Who wrote, "The youths today no longer listen to their elders, have no respect for religion or the law, and are totally corrupt, things were so much better in the past"?

Answer: we don't know, but that fragment of writing was found in Sumer, ca. 3500 BC, and is one of the earliest surviving written documents, at the very dawn of history.

I've heard that tale repeated often but have never seen it documented. Is there an image of the writing fragment that you know of? (In a different version of the same story, it was said to have been found inscribed in an Egyptian tomb of the Middle Kingdom).

[pchams]

The world is populated more now, than any time we know historically.Our medical knowledge, and proclivity to procreate has combined to make a population explosion. War has traditionally pared down population however, some people are less willing to go to war, it's apparent.
Seems we need to learn how to feed people as opposed to learning how to kill them.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, regardless of Sumer, we still have the quote attributed to Socrates by Plato: "Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers." "

Though Hesiod also deserves a good chuckle: "“I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint."

It's funny because it's, you know, freaking Hesiod, man. Circa 700 BC. Greece was barely out of its dark age following the end of the bronze age collapse and Dorian invasion, and still way before most of the things we count as its achievements. It's 200 years before Pericles was even born, about that much before Thermopylae too, and generally Greece was just picking itself up and heading for its real greatness when he was writing that. But he already was seeing no hope for the future, what with all the kids on his lawn ;)

[HansMustermann]

Actually, the look back at the "good old days" before the modern world was ruined by the internet / computers / feminism / nuclear power / the Jews / universal sufferage / decline in education standards / television / capitalism / communism / industrialization / insert your own is universal.

Quiz: Who wrote, "The youths today no longer listen to their elders, have no respect for religion or the law, and are totally corrupt, things were so much better in the past"?

Answer: we don't know, but that fragment of writing was found in Sumer, ca. 3500 BC, and is one of the earliest surviving written documents, at the very dawn of history.

That said, you do know that there wasn't actually a writing system yet in 3500 BC, much less one anyone can read, right? The earliest real writing, as opposed to just depictions, dates from circa 30'th century BC.

Any earlier proto-scripts than that, nobody is able to translate.

And in Sumer, circa 3500 BC, there was no actual writing yet. What they used symbols for was basically inventory tracking and accounting. Basically, if you wanted to write you have 3 sacks of grain, you wrote a depiction of a grain stalk and made 3 notches. It's by far not yet the kind of thing which could write the above text.

Mind you, I still wouldn't be surprised if such a text existed, but it has to be much later than 3500 BC. Simply by virtue of not being possible to write it in 3500 BC. They probably had to do with bitching to each other in person at that time :p

[Dave Rogers]

I used to have good and internationally recognised expertise in this kind of thing - especially tithe barn construction, but now I cant bring myself to care.
Peasants were not misnamed and the whole 'medieval idyll' is a myth promulgated by socialist historians in the fifties.
Let's bring back feudalism - we'll all be happier - not.

All that's perfectly reasonable, but that doesn't seem to address what the article is saying. Rather, it's saying that, however miserable the existence of the medieval English peasant, the existence of the world's poorest today is even more miserable.

Dave

[stilicho]

All that's perfectly reasonable, but that doesn't seem to address what the article is saying. Rather, it's saying that, however miserable the existence of the medieval English peasant, the existence of the world's poorest today is even more miserable.

Dave

One would expect to see the type of localised depopulation that happened two or three times a century in medieval Britain. Unless my eyes are deceiving me, populations in the poorest areas of the poorest countries are growing substantially.

Agricultural yields are likely higher everywhere now than in medieval England. Even the poorest of nations have cash crops, too, a phenomenon unheard of anywhere a millenium ago.

[HansMustermann]

One would expect to see the type of localised depopulation that happened two or three times a century in medieval Britain. Unless my eyes are deceiving me, populations in the poorest areas of the poorest countries are growing substantially.

Outbreaks of Black Death are hardly an economic indicator.

Agricultural yields are likely higher everywhere now than in medieval England.

Which again is rather irrelevant for the per-capita income.

Even the poorest of nations have cash crops, too, a phenomenon unheard of anywhere a millenium ago.

Which is inexact. Stuff being grown or produced for export is a phenomenon as old as we have written history. Egypt is probably the best example of a country which exported crops to get other stuff it needed. Silk in China is an even better example, and the earliest finds place its beginning around 3500 BCE. Spices like black pepper not only were specifically produced for export, but were so profitably traded that a lot of the wealth of the likes of Venice depended on their being literally the men in the middle that hauled such stuff over the Mediterranean. And a major reason for searching a route around Africa to cut out the middle men.

[McHrozni]

Just wondering, but might the wealth of the monarchy and other nobles perhaps skew the per capita figures higher than they really were for regular population?

Quite sigificantly, I suspect. The same problem exists for modern 3rd world nations and could even be more severe in some cases.

McHrozni

[timhau]

Quiz: Who wrote, "The youths today no longer listen to their elders, have no respect for religion or the law, and are totally corrupt, things were so much better in the past"?

Answer: we don't know, but that fragment of writing was found in Sumer, ca. 3500 BC, and is one of the earliest surviving written documents, at the very dawn of history.

... and what do you know, the ancient Sumerian culture has collapsed.

[stilicho]

Outbreaks of Black Death are hardly an economic indicator.

Which again is rather irrelevant for the per-capita income.

Which is inexact. Stuff being grown or produced for export is a phenomenon as old as we have written history. Egypt is probably the best example of a country which exported crops to get other stuff it needed. Silk in China is an even better example, and the earliest finds place its beginning around 3500 BCE. Spices like black pepper not only were specifically produced for export, but were so profitably traded that a lot of the wealth of the likes of Venice depended on their being literally the men in the middle that hauled such stuff over the Mediterranean. And a major reason for searching a route around Africa to cut out the middle men.

Population growth and agricultural yields are leading economic indicators. In fact, they're among the few you can use across time spans and among differing cultures. Certainly they're a lot more relevant than "per capita income" as there really was no such thing where income was not gauged in monetary terms.

Your comparisons with Chinese silk or Egyptian crops (or, indeed, tin from the British Isles in Roman times and before) is slightly deceptive. Prior to the rise of banking, these exports were not strictly cash crops. The proprietor did not receive an income in monetary terms and often that proprietor was simply the ruler of the country rather than anyone in a merchant class. Benefits rarely trickled down to the people who produced the economic surplus for export.

The author of the study quoted in the OP defines his time period beginning in 1270. That's an unusual date to start with and roughly matches a dramatic change in public policy in England regarding crop rotation, wetlands drainage, crop selection, workday regulation, and a mass of other economic incentives that were unheard of only a few generations beforehand. It also measures income in terms of GDP per capita and not individual income levels. This is just as deceptive for our purposes since very little of that "wealth" was monetary and there was no incentive to plough it into capital improvements.

Let's not even get into the transition from oxen to horses as draught animals with the general application of the horse collar. That might have been nearly complete in England right around 1270--certainly not that much earlier.

Maybe the lesson to be learned for today's most unproductive economies is to spend more time and effort creating the stable investment environment required for the proliferation of capital improvements.

[stilicho]

Quite sigificantly, I suspect. The same problem exists for modern 3rd world nations and could even be more severe in some cases.

McHrozni

I read the fellow's study and he isn't looking at income as we'd all thought. It's just GDP per capita.

[HansMustermann]

Population growth and agricultural yields are leading economic indicators. In fact, they're among the few you can use across time spans and among differing cultures. Certainly they're a lot more relevant than "per capita income" as there really was no such thing where income was not gauged in monetary terms.

When discussing quality of life, I would think that how much does one person get out of that crop, is more relevant that a comparison skewed by the simpler existence of better grains in the meantime. WTH does it do for a person's well being if an acre produces 20 times more grain but he shares it with 30 times more people?

Your comparisons with Chinese silk or Egyptian crops (or, indeed, tin from the British Isles in Roman times and before) is slightly deceptive. Prior to the rise of banking, these exports were not strictly cash crops. The proprietor did not receive an income in monetary terms and often that proprietor was simply the ruler of the country rather than anyone in a merchant class. Benefits rarely trickled down to the people who produced the economic surplus for export.

Except for the part that the above is, you know, ahistorical fiction.

There was no such thing in Egypt for example as the ruler of the country owning the whole crop and getting the whole profit. The Pharaoh did a tour up and down the Nile once a year to collect the taxes, and afterwards you were free to do whatever you wanted with what was left. Not only you didn't have to wait for anything to trickle down your way, you flat out owned the surplus. Trade was mostly done by independent merchants, so if you got enough money or whatever imported goods for your crops, was between you and whatever merchants you could find to trade with.

Just about the only class that didn't see anything trickling down its way were the slaves, though at least in Egypt even that is debatable.

The author of the study quoted in the OP defines his time period beginning in 1270. That's an unusual date to start with and roughly matches a dramatic change in public policy in England regarding crop rotation, wetlands drainage, crop selection, workday regulation, and a mass of other economic incentives that were unheard of only a few generations beforehand.

I'll grant you that. So 2010's poorest nations are only poorer than the English serfs of 1270, and not than those from the times of King Arthur.

Hmm... you know, that fails to sound much better, actually.

It also measures income in terms of GDP per capita and not individual income levels. This is just as deceptive for our purposes since very little of that "wealth" was monetary and there was no incentive to plough it into capital improvements.

It's not deceptive at all. How much you got to eat and what goods and services you could get on top of that, is what actually matters. Whether money and capital were involved or not, is fully irrelevant.

In fact, I never got the obsession with money and capital. Money is a means to exchange resources. Granted, a very useful one, but still just that. What matters is whether you can get the resources you want.

The world functioned just as well before coins. In fact, Egypt, Mesopotamia and China were economic powerhouses and had trade and economy for _millennia_ before anyone invented coins at all. There were investments, there was a form of banking (the pharaoh's granaries), and there were improvements done. E.g., the irrigation of the Fayum happened a full 2 millennia before the invention of coins.

And generally, at the point where someone can look at a peasant's having bread, clothes and the occasional beer, and go basically, "but it doesn't matter because _money_ weren't involved", I have to wonder what went wrong with their world model.

Let's not even get into the transition from oxen to horses as draught animals with the general application of the horse collar. That might have been nearly complete in England right around 1270--certainly not that much earlier.

So, again, some third world countries are, what, only about 740 years behind?

[stilicho]

So, again, some third world countries are, what, only about 740 years behind?

That's pretty much what the study suggests. It took about five centuries for Europe to catch up to the rest of the civilised world so likely poor countries especially in Africa have the same challenge. Those five centuries, for Europeans, lasted from around 1250 to 1750 and the growth rates were roughly what you'd expect from a modern emerging market.

Your account of Egyptian merchant rights and privileges establishes what we've suspected for some time. Merchants in early medieval Europe were perceived as a burden upon society and didn't have the any of the same freedoms you've pointed out existed in pharoahic Egypt.

To your first objection, of course, the trick is to improve economic yields through technological application to outpace population growth. The improvements I discussed had done just that even before the arbitrary 1270 starting point. The benefits were delayed, as detailed above, up to five centuries into the future.