Tag Archives: State capacity

Crowding in during the Seven Years’ War

Carolyn Sissoko (University of the West of England) and I have released a short paper with the title “Crowding in during the Seven Years’ War“. It is available as a CEPR discussion paper (gated), and it is also in the following link as a University of Manchester discussion paper (open access). The abstract is here:

We present a detailed study of the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) using a new dataset based on the Bank of England minutes. We argue that the war and associated Bank of England actions led to a transformation of the financial system. Additionally, while there was short-term crowding out of private investment when interest rates rose due to the issue of war-related government debt, in the long-run there was crowding in: higher government spending led to an increase in private sector investment.

Here’s a picture of the two of us, taken last year in front of the Arthur Lewis Building in Manchester:

Anatomy of a premodern state

Here’s a new working paper, joint with Leonor Freire Costa and António Henriques, and available as a open access here. This is a piece we have been working on for many years and it’s great to finally have it out. We show that historically, Portugal was not a weak state. [This is unlike what scholars such as Godinho, Hespanha or Justino argued, and in the case of Spain, Regina Grafe, who argued that early modern Spain was a weak state. Personally, I long suspected that these arguments could not be right, for several reasons including the historical fiscal capacity measures of Karaman and Pamuk; furthermore, more recently the implications or Grafe’s arguments for market integration have also not been confirmed in recent work by Carlos Santiago-Caballero and Sandra Cermeño.

Here’s the abstract for our new paper:

We provide a blueprint for the construction of historical state capacity measures for premodern states, which has several advantages over the state of the art. First, we argue that nominal GDP is the best deflator for state revenues. Second, expenditure patterns have to be considered in order to assess the changing state capacity. Third, we argue that local-level revenues matter when establishing state capacity, even if their overall contribution appears small. As an application, we tackle the controversial case of Portugal (1367–1844) and show that the country had a relatively high fiscal capacity and its state capacity increased over time as military expenses rose, whereas redistribution favoring the elites and the royal household decreased. This means that state capacity was not an issue in Portugal’s dismal economic performance.

Figure: Central expenditure breakdown, 1473–1812
Lisbon in the seventeenth century

Pictures of the “Economic Consequences of the Age of Liberal Revolutions, 1810-1848” conference

We had a great conference last week (despite a lamentable boycotting attempt). At least I enjoyed a lot learning from and discussing with colleagues, and I believe others did too.

Given Deirdre McCloskey’s visit to Lisbon for this conference, she and I also debated in the day prior to the conference at an event organized by “Instituto +Liberdade”. That too was a fun event, and it was interesting to see how much of a statist I am – at least by comparison with Deirdre! (who has been my friend for 15 years, and from whom I have learned so much). The discussion illustrated what I already knew: that Deirde is a good old-fashioned classical liberal while if I must quickly summarize my political views, I’d say I lie about half way between classical liberalism and social democracy (with the distance to each depending on the topics). There will be a video of the debate, which I’ll post here when made available by the organizers.

Here are the photos from both events, with a focus on the academic conference:

Conference dinner – most participants ate grilled sardines!
Leandro Prados de la Escosura and António Castro Henriques both could not attend in person last minute due to personal reasons, so presented via Zoom instead
Maria Stella Chiaruttini presenting “Fateful and forgotten: Liberal revolutions and financial development in nineteenth-century Italy”
Guillaume Daudin presenting “The effects of the revolution and warfare on the French economy, 1789-1815” (joint with Loic Charles and Silvia Marzagalli)
Nuno Palma presenting “Anatomy of a premodern state” (joint work with L. Costa and A. Henriques)
Roundtable with Luciano Amaral (Nova SBE), Maria Stella Chiaruttini (University of Vienna), Guillaume Daudin (Université Paris Dauphine), Deirdre McCloskey (University of Illinois at Chicago)
Renato Pistola presenting “From good intentions to institutional failure: Portugal, 1834-1891” (joint with N. Palma)
Arnaud Deseau presenting “The most important event? The long-run impact of the dissolution of the French monasteries”
Arnaud Deseau presenting “The most important event? The long-run impact of the dissolution of the French monasteries”
José Luís Barbosa presenting “The liberal reforms and the Portuguese municipality: the case of Coimbra (1790-1850)”
José Luís Barbosa presenting “The liberal reforms and the Portuguese municipality: the case of Coimbra (1790-1850)”
Guilherme Lambais presenting “Living standards in Imperial Brazil” (joint with N. Palma)
Deirdre McCloskey’s closing address, “Liberalism Caused the Great Enrichment”
Deirdre McCloskey’s closing address, “Liberalism Caused the Great Enrichment”
Another picture from the conference dinner
On the day prior to the conference, Deirdre McCloskey and Nuno Palma debated at “Instituto +Liberdade”
Debate of the day prior to the conference
Debate organized by “Instituto +Liberdade” the day prior to the conference, taking place at “42 Lisboa”. Thanks to Pedro Santa Clara for introducing Deirdre McCloskey and me to the audience!

The rise and fall of paper money in Yuan China, 1260–1368

Hanhui Guan (Peking University), Meng Wu (Manchester) and I have a new working paper with the above title (available in open access here). We have been working on this for some time, and we are happy that we finally have the first version of our paper ready. In my view, the case of historical China is not only interesting in its own right but provides a helpful mirror to understanding later Western European monetary and financial history better, too.

The abstract for our new paper is here:

Following the Mongol invasion of China, the Yuan (1260–1368) dynasty was the first political regime in history able to deploy paper money as the sole legal tender. Drawing on a new dataset on money issues, imperial grants, and prices, we show that a silver standard initially consolidated the Chinese currency market. However, persistent fiscal pressures eventually compelled rulers to ease the monetary standard, and a fiat standard was adopted, leading to high inflation levels. We show that military pressure generated fiscal demands which led to over-issuance, and we reject the role of excessive imperial grants in triggering the over-issue of money.

Annual nominal money issues, 1260–1355
Kublai Khan, founder of the Yuan dynasty
1 guan note Zhongtong Yuanbao Jiaochao (中统交钞) issued by the Yuan

Conference program: Economic Consequences of the Age of Liberal Revolutions, 1810-1848

Here’s the program for this conference, previously announced as a call for papers here. The program below is preliminary and subject to change. Check this website for the latest updates.

Date:

September 23, 2022

Conference title:

Economic Consequences of the Age of Liberal Revolutions: 1810-48

Location:

Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa

Room: Auditório Sedas Nunes

Notes: This conference will take place offline only.

Conference organizers:

Nuno Palma (U. Manchester, ICS-UL and CEPR) and Renato Pistola (ICS-UL).

Program

9.00-10.00. Keynote: Leandro Prados de la Escosura (Carlos III), The Legacy of the Napoleonic Wars: Some Reflections

10.00-10.30. Coffee break

10.30-11.00. Maria Stella Chiaruttini (University of Vienna), Fateful and forgotten: Liberal revolutions and financial development in nineteenth-century Italy

11.00-11.30. Guillaume Daudin (Université Paris Dauphine), The effects of the revolution and warfare on the French economy, 1789-1815 (joint with Loic Charles and Silvia Marzagalli)

11.30-12.00. Nuno Palma, Anatomy of a premodern state (joint with Leonor Costa and António C. Henriques)

12.00-13.00. Lunch

13.00-14.00. Roundtable: Luciano Amaral (Nova SBE), Maria Stella Chiaruttini (University of Vienna), Guillaume Daudin (Université Paris Dauphine), Deirdre McCloskey (University of Illinois at Chicago)

The roundtable of the Economic Consequences of the Age of Liberal Revolutions: 1810-48 conference will debate how the economic and institutional historiography has analysed the impact of revolution in the Iberian context in the last decades. The speakers will be challenged to reflect on the following questions: what legacies remained from the Ancient Regime?; what new liberal/constitutional elements were introduced in the first decades after the Revolution?; moreover, was the Revolution truly revolutionary or did it fail in its intentions? The debate will focus not only on how the literature has traditionally considered these matters but also on what new comparative approaches bring to the discussion. The intenational speakers who will participate will be particularly helpful towards this comparative goal. We aim for a comparative discussions in the spirit of R. Stites’s Four Horsemen: Riding to Liberty in Post-napoleonic Europe, but with a more quantitative aspect to them, as in e.g. Patrick O’Brien’s recent edited volume, The Crucible of Revolutionary and Napoleonic Warfare and European Transitions to Modern Economic Growth.

14.00-14.30. António Castro Henriques (Universidade do Porto), When did Portugal become a constitutional regime?

14.30-15.00. Renato Pistola (ICS-UL), From good intentions to institutional failure: Portugal, 1834-1891 (joint with N. Palma)

15.00-15.30 Coffee break

15.30-16.00. Arnaud Deseau (UC-Louvain), The most important event? The long-run impact of the dissolution of the French monasteries

16.00-16.30. José Luís Barbosa (Universidade de Coimbra), The liberal reforms and the Portuguese municipality: the case of Coimbra (1790-1850)

16.30-17.00. Guillherme Lambais (ICS-UL), Living standards in Imperial Brazil (joint with N. Palma)

17.00-18.00 Closing Address: Deirdre McCloskey (University of Illinois at Chicago), Liberalism Caused the Great Enrichment

18.00 conference ends

19.00 dinner in a restaurant nearby (“Entre Copos”).

Conference program: Early modern science, technology, and institutions

Here’s the program for this conference, previously announced as a call for papers here. The program below is preliminary and subject to change. Check this website for the latest updates.

University of Manchester

Date:

May 13, 2022

Conference title:

Early modern science, technology, and institutions

Location:

Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.16/17 (boardroom)

New room: Arthur Lewis building, G30 (ground floor)

Note: This conference is expected to take place offline only.

Keynote speakers:

Debin Ma (University of Oxford) and David de la Croix (U. Catholique de Louvain)

Roundtable discussion on the Origins of the Great Divergence:

Stephen Broadberry (Oxford), Markus Eberhardt (Nottingham), Debin Ma (Oxford), Alka Raman (EHS-IHR Fellow), and Meng Wu (Manchester).

Closing address:

Stephen Morgan (Nottingham)

Conference organizers:

Nuno Palma and Meng Wu, Unversity of Manchester.

Funding, travel, and accomodation:

There is no conference fee. The lunch, dinner, and coffee breaks, will be covered by us, thanks to a British Academy Grant. Please let us know if you are planning to come to the dinner at least one week before the day of the conference. We unfortunately do not have enough funds to cover travel and accommodation costs. We suggest Hyatt Regency as the accommodation in-campus. For those looking for budget accommodation, we suggest Luther King House.

Social visit

On the day after the conference, there will be an optional lunch at the Curry Mile.

Program:

9.00-10.00. Keynote 1: Debin Ma (Univ. of Oxford)

10.00-10.20. Coffee break

10.20-10.35. Time for interaction with poster presenters

10.35-10.50. Yuzuru Kumon (Toulouse), “How Equality Created Poverty: Japanese Wealth Distribution and Living Standards 1600-1870

10.50-11.05. Alka Raman (EHS-IHR Fellow), “From Artistry to Chemistry: The Impact of Indian Calico Printing Techniques on Calico Printing in Britain, 1720-1860”

11.05-11.20. Carolyn Sissoko (Univ. of Bristol). “Why Lancashire? Banking as the spark that set off industrialization”

11.20-11.35. Ralf R. Meisenzahl (Chicago Fed), “The Research University, Invention, and Industry: Evidence from German History”

11.40-12.00. Coffee break

12.00-13.00. Roundtable discussion on the Origins of the Great Divergence with Stephen Broadberry (Oxford), Markus Eberhardt (Nottingham), Debin Ma (Oxford), Stephen Morgan (Nottingham), Alka Raman (EHS-IHR Fellow), and Meng Wu (Manchester).

1300-14.00 Lunch

Lunch location: G.033, The Mill, Manchester Alliance Business School Building (2 mins. walk).

14.00-15.00. Keynote 2: David de la Croix (U.C. Louvain)

15.00-15.20 Coffee break

15.20-15.35. N. Palma (University of Manchester), “Comparative European Institutions and the Little Divergence, 1385-1800“.

15.35-15.50. Matias Cabello (Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg), “The Counter-Reformation, Science, and Long-Term Growth: A Propaganda-Driven Myth?”

15.50-16.05. Francisco Malta Romeiras (Univ. of Lisbon), “The Pombaline Expulsion and the Building of Anti-Jesuitism in Eighteenth-century Portugal

16.05-16.20 Coffee Break

16.20-16.35. Leandro De Magalhaes (Bristol), “War and the rise of Parliaments

16.35-16.50. Felicia Gottmann, Floris van Swet, Rémi Dewière (Northumbria University), “Migration and technological innovation: a global history project”

16.50-17.30. Closing address, Stephen Morgan (Nottingham)

17.30. END OF CONFERENCE, followed by dinner at 18.00.

The dinner will be at a restaurant nearby.

Note: Jack Goldstone and Patrick O’Brien have had to cancel their presence at this conference, but both hope to join us for the October conference instead.

Map of Palmanova in 1593

Poster sessions:

Suggested poster size: A1

Andreas Link (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg), “The Fall of Constantinople and the Rise of the West”

Nora (Yitong) Qiu (LSE), “The Politics of Confiscation in Qing China”

Nuno Morgado (Corvinus University), “The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance as an Institution: long-term dynamics justified by interests alone?”

José Moreno (Lisbon), “Reaching the unreachable. Iberian institutions and new tools for the control of long-distance oceanic voyages”

Tanguy Le Fur (NYU Abu Dhabi), “Public Health Investments and the Direction of Technological Progress: A Theory of Deskilling During the British Industrial Revolution

Song Yuan (Warwick), “The Cultural Origins of Family Firms”

Chiara Zanardello (Louvain), “Market forces in Italian Academia today (and yesterday)

Zhao Dong (Oxford), “The Great Divergence Revisited: Economic Transformations of China Under Mongol Rule, 1271-1368”

Chenyang Qi (Central University of Finance and Economics, China & University of Manchester), “The fate of Taiping rebellion: Rethinking fiscal transfers during the rebellion”

The University of Manchester

Call for papers: Economic Consequences of the Age of Liberal Revolutions, 1810-1848

Conference to be held at the Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa

Date:

September 23, 2022

Conference title:

Economic Consequences of the Age of Liberal Revolutions: 1810-48

Location:

Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa

Note: This conference is expected to take place offline only.

Keynote speaker:

Leandro Prados de la Escosura (Carlos III)

Roundtable about the impact in Iberia:

José Luís Cardoso (ICS), Guillaume Daudin (Université Paris Dauphine), Leandro Prados de la Escosura (Carlos III), Margarida Sobral Neto (Coimbra), José Vicente Serrão (ISCTE), Cristina Nogueira da Silva (U. Nova de Lisboa).

The roundtable of the Economic Consequences of the Age of Liberal Revolutions: 1810-48 conference will debate how the economic and institutional historiography has analysed the impact of revolution in the Iberian context in the last decades. The speakers will be challenged to reflect on the following questions: what legacies remained from the Ancient Regime?; what new liberal/constitutional elements were introduced in the first decades after the Revolution?; moreover, was the Revolution truly revolutionary or did it fail in its intentions? The debate will focus not only on how the literature has traditionally considered these matters but also on what new approaches could be brought into the discussion.

Conference organizers:

Nuno Palma (U. Manchester, ICS-UL and CEPR) and Renato Pistola (ICS-UL).

Conference theme:

We plan to accept papers that cover economic aspects of the impact of the liberal revolutions of the first half of the nineteenth century. We are particularly interested in the context of Iberia but in a comparative framework, both relative to different countries and across time. To which extent did the Liberal/Constitutional reforms change the nature of property rights and the law, in ways that affected economic incentives? Why did the reforms did not in fact lead to sustained economic growth and convergence for the Iberian economies?

Costs and funding:

There will be a small conference fee (around 20 euro) to cover lunch and coffee breaks only. Due to limited funding, we cannot cover travel and accommodation costs, unfortunately.

Deadlines:

September 2, 2022 – deadline to send us a paper proposal (1 page max.)

September 5, 2022 – we will communicate the accepted proposals (and possibly a waiting list)

September 16, 2022 –the program will be posted.

For applications, please email a paper proposal to both Nuno Palma and Renato Pistola.

Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa

What can we learn from two centuries of budget data? (Highlight IV)

This post continues the highlights series. The author is Per F. Andersson, who is a Lecturer at Lund University, and an expert in Comparative Politics, Institutions, and Taxation. He is responsible for the text below, and the amazing dataset he mentions was was put together both by him and by Thomas Brambor.

The data and codebook are available at: https://www.perfandersson.com/data.html

andersson-Cropped-297x341

What can we learn from two centuries of budget data? Introducing the “Financing the State: Government Tax Revenue from 1800 to 2012” dataset – Per F. Andersson

The history of the state is closely linked to the history of taxation. Austrian sociologist Rudolf Goldscheid held that “the budget is the skeleton of the state stripped of all misleading ideologies”, and  Joseph A. Schumpeter went even further, famously stating that “The spirit of a people, its cultural level, its social structure, the deeds its policy may prepare – all this and more is written in its fiscal history, stripped of all phrases. He who knows how to listen to its message here discerns the thunder of world history more clearly than anywhere else ([1918]1991 p. 101).“ If Schumpeter and Goldscheid were right, much can be gained from studying taxation during the last two centuries, an era that saw dramatic changes not only in the extent of taxation but also in economic and political organization.

Given the importance of taxation for understanding politics, state capacity, and economic growth, it is surprising that there is no historical cross-country dataset over government finances. In this post I present an attempt by me and Thomas Brambor to provide this information. The dataset provides information from 31 countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela from 1800 (or independence) to 2012. In other words, it includes all South American, North American, and Western European countries with a population of more than one million, plus Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Mexico.

We make three main contributions. First, we move beyond previous historical studies which focus on Western Europe by including North America, all major countries in South America, and Australia, Mexico, New Zealand and Japan. Second, in contrast to existing modern datasets, usually covering a large number of countries but only for a few decades, our dataset goes back to the early nineteenth century. Third, while previous efforts have concentrated on overall revenue or contrasting direct and indirect taxes, we provide more detailed information allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the rise of the modern tax state.

This post begins with a short description of how the dataset was put together, and how it differs from previous efforts (for longer discussion see the online codebook available at: https://www.perfandersson.com/data.html). In the second part of the post I demonstrate how the data can be used to explore changes in the size and composition of government revenue during the last two centuries.

Constructing the dataset

The dataset contains information on the public finances of central governments. We focus on tax revenues, defining taxes as compulsory and unrequited levies by the government. The information on tax revenue is presented as a share of the total budget and as a share of total domestic product. We have divided tax revenue from the central state into several categories. First, we are interested in the shares of total revenue coming from direct and indirect taxes. Further, we measure types of direct taxes, namely taxes on property and income. For indirect taxes, we separate excises (taxes on specific goods, such as salt or tobacco), broad-based consumption taxes (such as value-added tax), and taxes on international trade (a complete list of variables and their definitions is available in the codebook.)

Collecting data for a large number of countries over long time spans presents difficult issues regarding measurement and consistency. The overall goal of the data collection has been to create long time series that are internally consistent within a country over time and that connect to contemporary datasets which in turn allow easy continual updates in the future. When different sources of data are combined, there need to be decisions about how to decide which sources to use and how to judge their quality. In addition, using and combining different sources has the potential to introduce measurement error and potentially bias the constructed estimates. In the codebook we describe in detail the decisions about how we integrated disparate sources, and also address a few issues that are relevant for analysis based on these data.

Comparison with related efforts

Previous research using historical tax revenue data either relies on information with a long historical coverage (some even long before 1800, e.g., Dincecco 2009, Karaman and Pamuk 2013) but for a few number of countries — usually Western Europe (Aidt and Jensen 2013), sometimes adding English-speaking off-shoots and Japan (Tanzi and Schuknecht 2000) — or a wide geographic coverage but only for the most recent decades (e.g., Prichard et al. 2014). These efforts rarely provide yearly data (e.g., Tanzi and Schuknecht 2000), or present information only on the size of government (Mauro et al 2013, Karaman and Pamuk 2013).

Many recent papers still rely heavily on Mitchell (2007) (e.g., Beramendi et al. 2019; Lee and Paine 2020). For various reasons we have a different approach which we believe has much to contribute.

Instead of taking existing cross-country databases (such as Mitchell) at face value, we took great pains at comparing and evaluating different sources – often cross checking them with country-specific sources – in order to find as reliable data as possible. During our work we discovered that Mitchell in particular is often unreliable. When comparing the information provided in his volumes with contemporary, high-quality, country-specific data we found two main causes for concern. First, Mitchell is often inconsistent in the way budget items are coded or even which parts of government budgets are presented, which causes problems when interpreting changes over time and across countries. The second problem is that the subcategories of revenues in Mitchell (e.g., direct and indirect taxes) at times sum to more than a hundred percent, which suggest underlying issues in the aggregation process. For these reasons, among others, we have tried to minimize our use of Mitchell as a source, and when we use it, we try to find ways of validating the trustworthiness of his estimates (for example by using country-specific sources).

Overall, a substantial part of our dataset comes from country-specific sources, all listed in the codebook. For users who wish to explore the data in more depth, we also provide detailed information by country allowing analysts to scrutinize by variable which sources were used for every year.

Exploring the data

To begin with, Figures 1 and 2 below present total tax revenues and the share coming from direct and indirect taxes (averages for all countries in the dataset). The figures show how the overall size of the state grew from about six percent of GDP in the nineteenth century to almost twenty percent in the 2000s. During the same period states went from financing themselves mainly through indirect taxes to a more even mix of direct and indirect taxes.

 

1

   Figure 1. Central Tax Revenue/GDP

2

Figure 2. Share of Direct and Indirect Tax Revenue

However, this general development hides important changes within the categories of direct and indirect taxes. As Figure 3 shows, excises and taxes on international trade were the main sources of indirect tax revenue in the nineteenth century, while broad-based consumption taxes – such as value-added tax – became more important in the late twentieth century. Figure 4 shows the evolution of direct taxes in the same period, documenting how property taxes — an important part of budgets in the nineteenth century — were superseded by income taxes in the twentieth century.

3

    Figure 3. Indirect Taxes.

4

Figure 4. Direct Taxes.

It is also interesting to observe what happened to taxation around the world during and after major international conflicts. Figure 5 below show total revenues and the share of income taxes — which is considered to be a good indicator of fiscal capacity (e.g., Rogers and Weller 2014) — and three major conflicts: the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and the Second World War. While the number of countries for which we have data (and some did not exist at the time) is lower during the Napoleonic wars, it is still interesting to note that the conflict is neither associated with a permanent increase in income tax share nor in the overall size of the state. The two world wars are different. After World War I, the average size of government remained higher than before the war, and this tendency is even stronger after World War II. Looking at the share of revenue coming from income tax, this tendency is much weaker after World War I: while the share increased dramatically during the war, it decreased after the conflict ended (but not all the way down to pre-war levels). In contrast, income tax revenues not only became hugely important during World War II, they also remained so afterwards.

5

Figure 5. Size of Government, Income Tax, and War.

Finally, one of the great strengths of our wide geographic coverage is that it allows for comparisons between regions. Figure 6 below shows the evolution of total tax revenues and income tax share between Latin America and Europe.

6

Figure 6: The Size of Government and Income Tax in Europe and Latin America

There are several interesting things to note. First, although Latin America does not experience an increase in the income tax share during World War I as Europe does, both regions experience an increase in income tax revenues around the time of World War II. Second, between the end of World War II and the mid-1970s, Europe and Latin America relied to a similar extent on income taxes. But after around 1975, the two regions diverge, both in terms of the income tax share and in terms of total tax revenues.

These are just a couple of examples of what can be explored using our dataset. In my own work I have looked into how democracy and urbanization affect the tax mix (Andersson 2018),  how electoral systems condition the impact of ideology on taxation (Andersson 2019a), and how the adoption of taxes affects fiscal capacity and what types of states make these investments (Andersson 2019b). Thomas Brambor has investigated the legacy effect of non-democratic introductions of the income tax (Brambor 2016).

The data and the codebook are available at: https://www.perfandersson.com/data.html.

References

Andersson, Per F. 2018. “Democracy, Urbanization, and Tax Revenue.” Studies in Comparative International Development 53(1):111–150.

Andersson, Per F. 2019. “Power-sharing and Income Taxation in non-Democratic States.” STANCE Working Paper. Lund University.

Andersson, Per F. 2019. “Left-wing Tax Strategy Depends on the Electoral System.” Working Paper. Lund University.

Aidt, Toke ., & Peter S. Jensen. 2013. “Democratization and the size of government: Evidence from the long 19th century”. Public Choice, 157(3/4), 511-542.

Beramendi, Pablo, Mark Dincecco and Melissa Rogers. 2019. “Intra-Elite Competition and Long-Run Fiscal Development.” The Journal of Politics 81(1):49–65.

Brambor, Thomas. 2016. “Fiscal Capacity and the Enduring Legacy of the First Income Tax Law”. Unpublished manuscript: Lund University.

Dincecco, Mark. 2009. “Fiscal Centralization, Limited Government, and Public Revenues in Europe, 1650–1913.” The Journal of Economic History 69(1):48–103.

Flora, Peter, Franz Kraus, and Winfried Pfenning. 1983. State, Economy, and Society in Western Europe 1815-1975: The growth of industrial societies and capitalist economies, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2012. “Government finance statistics (GFS).”

Karaman, K. Kivanc and Sevket Pamuk. 2013. “Different Paths to the Modern State in Europe: The Interaction Between Warfare, Economic Structure, and Political Regime.” American Political Science Review 107(3):603–626.

Lee, Alexander and Jack Paine. 2020. “The Great Revenue Divergence”. Working paper.

Mauro, Paolo, Rafael Romeu, Ariel Binder, and Asad Zaman. 2013. “A Modern History of Fiscal Prudence and Profligacy,” IMF working paper WP/13/5

Mitchell, Brian R. 2007. International historical statistics: Africa, Asia & Oceania, 1750- 2005, 5. ed., New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

, International historical statistics: Europe, 1750-2005, 6. ed., New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

, International historical statistics: the Americas, 1750-2005, 6. ed., New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Prichard Wilson, Alex Cobham and Andrew Goodall. 2014. “The ICTD Government Revenue Dataset” ICTD Working Paper 19. https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/ICTD_WP19.pdf

Rogers, Melissa Ziegler and Nicholas Weller. 2014. “Income taxation and the validity of state capacity indicators.” Journal of Public Policy 34(2):183–206.

Schumpeter, Joseph. 1991. “The Crisis of the Tax State”. In Joseph A. Schumpeter: The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism, ed. Richard Swedberg. Princeton: Princeton University Press. First published in 1918.

Tanzi, Vito & Ludger Schuknecht. 2000. Public spending in the 20th Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

 

“Understanding state capacity” conference program now avaliable!

There was an incredible response to the call for papers for the state capacity conference that we will have at the University of Manchester.

Updated (23/11/2019). Here is the latest program, after a few last-minute changes.

Manchester

Understanding State Capacity Conference – University of Manchester, 28 and 29 Nov., 2019

Organized by Nuno Palma and Xiaobing Wang

THURSDAY – 28 November

Venue: Mansfield Cooper G.19 

8.50. Welcome & opening remarks

9.00 – 10.00 Debin Ma keynote – The Paradox of Power: Chinese State Capacity in long-term perspective

10.00 – 11.20 Session 1 (4 presentations – 20 mins each)

11.20 – 11.40 Coffee Break

11.40 – 13.00 Session 2 (4 presentations – 20 mins each)

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch

14.00 – 15.00 Peer Vries keynote – The capacity and will to develop: State and economy in Japan, 1868-1937

15.00 – 15.40 Session 3 (2 presentations – 20 mins each)

15.40 – 16.00 Coffee Break

16.00- 17.00 POLICY SESSION – Vitor Gaspar, Tim Besley

17.00 – 18.00 Sevket Pamuk keynote – Annual Revenues of the States: Europe and the Rest since 1500

19.00 DINNER. Restaurant: Mr Cooper’s House and Garden

FRIDAY – 29 November

Venue: Mansfield Cooper G.19

9.00-.100 Tim Besley keynote – Norms, Institutions and State Capacity

10.00 – 11.20 Session 4 (4 presentations – 20 mins each)

11.20 – 11.40 Coffee Break

11.40 – 13.00 Session 5 (4 presentations – 20 mins each)

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch

14.00 – 15.00 Patrick O’Brien keynote – The Wars with Revolutionary and Napoleonic France and the Consolidation of the Industrial Revolution

15.00– 16.40 Session 6 (5 presentations – 20 mins each)

16.40 – 17.00 Coffee Break

17.00 – 18.00 Noel Johnson keynote – State Capacity and the Rise Religious Freedom

18.00 End of conference

Detailed information about the sessions

THURSDAY – 28 November

10.00 – 11.20 Session 1 (4 people – 20 mins each) – Africa & Caribbean

Yannick Dupraz (Warwick), “Fiscal capacity and dualism in colonial states: The French Empire 1830-1962″ (Co-authors: Denis Cogneau and Sandrine Mespe-Somps)

Marvin Suesse (Dublin), “Taxation, Fiscal Capacity and Economic Development in Africa, c1890 – c2015: Lessons from a new dataset” (co-authors:  Thilo Albers. Morten Jerven)

Leigh Gardner (LSE), “African institutions under colonial rule” (co-author: Jutta Bolt)

Aaron Graham (UCL), “The rise and fall of colonial state capacity in Jamaica, 1655 to 1865, and its legacies”

 11.40 – 13.00 Session 2 (4 people – 20 mins each) – Europe & China

Yannay Spitzer (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), “Entrepreneurship and Communal Tax Liability: The Political Economy of the Early Modern Jewish-Polish Symbiosis”

Guido Alfani (Bocconi), “The distributive consequences of the rise of the fiscal state in Europe (ca. 1500-1800)”

Leonor F. Costa (Lisbon), “Portugal’s early modern state capacity: a comparative approach” (co-authors: António C. Henriques and Nuno Palma)

Tuan-Hwee Sng (National University of Singapore), “Did the Communists Contribute to China’s Rural Growth?” (co-authors: Yi Lu, Mengna Luan)

15.00 – 15.40 Session 3 (2 presentations – 20 mins each) – England

Tony Moore (Reading), “state (over)capacity in medieval England”.

Nuno Pama (Manchester). Not an ordinary bank but a great engine of state: the bank of England and the British economy, 1694-1821 (co-author: Patrick K. O’Brien)

16.00- 17.00 POLICY SESSION – What are the challenges for poor and rich countries to raising taxes?

Vítor Gaspar (Director of Financial Affairs, IMF), and Tim Belsey (LSE)

Note (23/11/2019): Paul Johnson (Director IFS) was scheduled to participate in the policy session but will not be able to come. Paul recently wrote to us, explaining that the IFS will lauch their manifesto analysis Thursday, the first day of the conference. He wrote that this is the most important thing they’ll do all year and this was the only possible day for them.

FRIDAY – 29 November

10.00 – 11.20 Session 4 (4 presentations – 20 mins each) – Legacy of historical institutions

Leandro de Magalhães (Bristol), “War and the Rise of Parliaments” (co-author: Francesco Giovannoni)

António Henriques (Universidade do Porto), “Comparative European Institutions and the Little Divergence, 1385-1800” (co-author: Nuno Palma)

Daniel Oto (Universidad Pablo de Olavide), “Delegation of Governmental Authority in Historical Perspective: Lordships, State Capacity and Development”

David le Bris (Toulouse), “Constraints on the Executive: a Reappraisal of the French and English Old Regimes through Parliament Activities”

11.40 – 13.00 Session 5 (4 presentations – 20 mins each) – War, Trade, and Status

Massimiliano Gaetano Onorato (University of Bologna), “War, Trade, and the Origins of Representative Institutions” (co-authors: Gary W. Cox and Mark Dincecco)

Mattia Fochesato (Bocconi), “Exogenous shocks, political change and fiscal capacity: the case of Late Medieval Siena”

Yu Sasaki, “Ethnic Autonomy” (Waseda University, Japan)

Mark Koyama (GMU), “The Political Economy of Status Competition: Evidence from Pre-Modern Europe” (with Desiree Desierto)

15.00 – 16.40 Session 6 (5 presentations – 20 mins each) – Money and Finance

Kivanç Karaman (Boğaziçi University), “State and Money in Early Modern Europe” (co-authors: Sevket Pamuk, Secil Yildirim-Karaman)

Nuno Palma (University of Manchester), “Monetary capacity”, co-authors: Adam Brzezinski, Roberto Bonfatti, K. Kivanç Karaman

Carolyn Sissoko (University of the West of England), “The Monetary Foundations of Britain’s Early 19th Century Ascendancy.”

Queralt, Didac (Yale) “State Building in the Era of International Finance”

Qian Lu (Central University of Finance and Economics), “From Partisan Banking to Open Access: the emergence of free banking in early 19th century Massachusetts”.

POSTER SESSIONS (always on)

In addition to all the sessions above, there will be (in both days) posters by the following early-career scholars:

Andersson, Per Fredrik (Lund), “Fiscal Capacity in Non-Democratic States”

Hanzhi Deng (LSE), The Merit of Misfortune: Taiping Rebellion and the Rise of Indirect Taxation in Modern China, 1850s-1900s

Meng Wu (LSE), “Adjustments and Vicissitudes: Indirect Notes Issuance System in the Republican of China, 1921-1936”, (co-author: Xin Dong)

Mikolaj Malinowski (Lund), “Republic of Clients. Patronage and power concentration in Poland-Lithuania”

Thilo Huning (York), You Reap What You Know: Origins and Dynamics of State Capacity (co-authors: Fabian Wahl of University of Hohenheim)

Oriol Sabaté Domingo, “Linking war, natural resources and public revenues: the case of the War of the Pacific (1879-1883)” (co-autor: José Peres-Cajías)

Ziang Liu (LSE), “Centralisation and Fiscal Patterns: Reassess State Capacity Paradigms in China between the 16th and 18th Century”

Call for Papers: Understanding State Capacity

Manchester.jpg

The University of Manchester

Thursday 28th and Friday 29th November 2019

With support by Hallsworth Conference Fund

The importance of state capacity to economic development is increasingly recognized in the economics literature. However, despite recent theoretical work analysing the origins of state capacity, few studies have empirically examined the processes through which that capacity has developed. Further, the work that does exist focuses predominantly on one dimension of state capacity, “fiscal capacity”—the ability of a state to raise tax. The state’s ability to enforce property rights—its “legal capacity”—has received relatively little attention, despite being critical to the functioning of markets and hence growth. The same is true of monetary capacity: the ability of states to provide liquid means of exchange which lead to low transaction costs. The interrelationships between these different dimensions of capacity and growth thus remain poorly understood at yet it is critical for development.

To address many of the important issues concerning the state capacity, this conference will bring together some of the most prominent scholars in the world who have written on state capacity, as well as participants across academia and the policy world. The main task will be to study how poor countries can develop, and how failing nations can succeed.

Confirmed speakers include Tim Besley (LSE), Leigh Gardner (LSE), Noel Johnson (GMU), Debin Ma (Hitotsubashi), Mark Koyama (GMU), Patrick O’Brien (LSE), Şevket Pamuk (Bogaziçi), Peer Vries (International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam) and Yi Wen (St Louis Fed). There will be also a policy session with Vítor Gaspar (Director, Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF).

Scholars are invited to submit papers on state capacity.

Submissions should be made via email: nuno.palma@manchester.ac.uk

Deadline for submissions: 15th September 2019.

Notification of acceptance: over the second half of September.

We have limited funding for paper presenters, with priority to PhD students. We do not charge any conference fees and we will provide lunch and drinks during the conference. We may have some student poster presentations but there will be no parallel sessions.

All accepted presenters and conference attendees must confirm their attendance for the Conference before 7th of October, 2019.

Conference Chairs:

Nuno Palma and Xiaobing Wang

Department of Economics, The University of Manchester