GDP per capita of Medieval England (and other nations)

[Cynovolans]

link to story: here

link to paper: here (GDP per capita of nations are on page 61)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2010) — 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 including the following (again average annual income as expressed in 1990 dollars).

Zaire $249
Burundi $479
Niger $514
Central African Republic $536
Comoro Islands $549
Togo $606
Guinea Bissau $617
Guinea $628
Sierra Leone $686
Haiti at $686
Chad $706
Zimbabwe $779
Afghanistan $869

University of Warwick economist Professor Stephen Broadberry, who led the research said:

"Our work sheds new light on England's economic past, revealing that per capita incomes in medieval England were substantially higher than the "bare bones subsistence" levels experienced by people living in poor countries in our modern world. The majority of the British population in medieval times could afford to consume what we call a "respectability basket" of consumer goods that allowed for occasional luxuries. By the late Middle Ages, the English people were in a position to afford a varied diet including meat, dairy produce and ale, as well as the less highly processed grain products that comprised the bulk of the "bare bones subsistence" diet."

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"

"The research provides the first annual estimates of GDP for England between 1270 and 1700 and for Great Britain between 1700 and 1870. Far more data are available for the pre-1870 period than is widely realised. Britain after the Norman conquest was a literate and numerate society that generated substantial written records, many of which have survived. As a result, the research was aided by a wide variety of records -- among them manorial records, tithes, farming records, and probate records."

Professor Broadberry further said that: "Our research shows that the path to the Industrial Revolution began far earlier than commonly has been understood. A widely held view of economic history suggests that the Industrial Revolution of 1800 suddenly took off, in the wake of centuries without sustained economic growth or appreciable improvements in living standards in England from the days of the hunter-gatherer. By contrast, we find that the Industrial Revolution did not come out of the blue. Rather, it was the culmination of a long period of economic development stretching back as far as the late medieval period."

So do you agree? Was medieval England more prosperous than certain countries of today, and did the Industrial Revolution actually have its beginnings several centuries earlier than thought?

 

[say1988]

I think most of this type of research is pretty sketchy. There are so many estmates that you could likely shift these figures pretty far in another direction without be "unreasonable". Not only do you have the problems with measuring GDP in modern times (while a very useful figure, estimates are heavily used and can result in issues, such as ignoring non-monetary transactions and the underground economy, which were likely far more prominent back then) and the estimates with bringing the older figures to modern times, but to calculate the numbers from back then requires a whole new set of estimates, likely with incomplete information.

That is even ignoring cultural and other differences. Yes these numbers can be useful, likely best in comparison with other figures for similar time periods, but I would question most direct comparisons.

Of course, some wealthier parts of the medieval world were likely better off than the poorest parts of the world today. That doesn't have any meaning that I can see, though.

 

[Quackers]

all i read was "bare-bones subsistance".

 

[cubsfan6506]

Who still says zaire?

 

[The Yankee]

I don't know what to make of these figures. When you're that far down on the GDP scale, does it really matter whether you're up or down by $100? Life is still pretty awful for 99% of the populace. That said, there are/were many parts of sub-Saharan Africa where it is essentially impossible to do anything but survive on aid, so I could see the argument here.

I do wonder, though, how much the society of England throughout this period, may have raised these per capita estimates. Think the influence of the Church(es) and all that entails for employment. This study looks worth a read.

Who still says zaire?

Persons existing in 1990.

 

[Masada]

I think most of this type of research is pretty sketchy. There are so many estmates that you could likely shift these figures pretty far in another direction without be "unreasonable".

Not really. There isn't much being estimated in these.

such as ignoring non-monetary transactions and the underground economy, which were likely far more prominent back then

GDP doesn't ignore those.

So do you agree?

This isn't news... well it might have been in the 70s.

Was medieval England more prosperous than certain countries of today

Possibly. I'm not sure what that actually means though. Afghanistan isn't 'prosperous'.

did the Industrial Revolution actually have its beginnings several centuries earlier than thought?

... Yes, but not this early. The earliest scholars are prepared to advance is the 1400s and that requires a redefinition of what exactly the Industrial Revolution meant - and no, you wouldn't recognise the outcome.

 

[say1988]

GDP doesn't ignore those.

In general official figures (which I assume are being compared to in the OP) don't include the underground economy or large a proportion of non-monetary transactions, I recognize things such as imputed rent are included). And even when they do, those are just estimates.

While the figures are generally accurate enough for our uses, taking this back over 7 centuries presents a problem for me. In addition, countries with the least income are most likely the ones that are the least reliably measured (things like non-onetary and underground transactions will represent a larger proportion of the GDP and be less reliably measured).
Now to do this in time periods where we have far fewer records and bring it forward 700 years?
It isn't unreasonable to expect a considerable margin of error

 

[Masada]

In general official figures (which I assume are being compared to in the OP) don't include the underground economy or large a proportion of non-monetary transactions, I recognize things such as imputed rent are included). And even when they do, those are just estimates.

It's included. Just sit down and think for a while how you might go about calculating GDP figures for subsistence economies. Everything else follows from there.

 

[Lord Baal]

It's included. Just sit down and think for a while how you might go about calculating GDP figures for subsistence economies. Everything else follows from there.

For those of us who know pretty much jack about economics, care to let us in on how that's done Masada? I know it'll be something insanely obvious I'll kick myself for not knowing, but I can't figure it out.

 

[vogtmurr]

It looks like an interesting comparison, even with lower yields there was a smaller population and a fair bit of arable land per capita. But it is still mostly a subsistence society with some growth in 1270. You really start to see a difference in 1400 after the Black Death - thats where Italy peaked for quite awhile. I think it deals with the underground economy because its based on assumptions of actual primary production, not transactions or official ledgers. Though I do wonder if the crafts and cottage industries are adequately represented. A lot of things they needed they made for themselves - I think they had a pretty long work day. And with handicrafts comes art - would there be an appreciable value attached to embellishments for churches, castles, manors ? I suppose thats no different than now.

Isn't the problem with basing wealth or standard of living on GDP nowadays that so much is service driven, and a lot of those services don't even generate primary wealth, they just redistribute it ? I never read the whole thing but I wonder how they make the translation to 1990 dollars. Because if a greater proportion of income today is on luxury articles and services, then shouldn't subsistence products back then have greater relative weighting in $GDP terms than they do now ? In other words does that $GDP figure adequately represent the same buying power they had back then ? Compared to the figures for subsistence in sub-Saharan Africa I guess you can ask yourself are their needs being met or not.

Another way of looking at it is: GDP is a measure of economic activity not wealth. The relationship between GDP and wealth would certainly not be the same in 1270, 1400, and 1990. I wonder if they adequately dealt with that.

 

[schlaufuchs]

For those of us who know pretty much jack about economics, care to let us in on how that's done Masada? I know it'll be something insanely obvious I'll kick myself for not knowing, but I can't figure it out.

It's his sled, HIS SLED! :3

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Who still says zaire?

Honestly, me until I read this post. I never really looked into it up until just now.

 

[ParkCungHee]

... Yes, but not this early. The earliest scholars are prepared to advance is the 1400s and that requires a redefinition of what exactly the Industrial Revolution meant - and no, you wouldn't recognise the outcome.

I don't think the claim is that the Industrial Revolution dates back that far, but that the England was already pulling ahead economically in the middle ages which allowed it to be in a position later for the Industrial Revolution.

 

[kiwitt]

It's amazing what a little bit of "Civilization" can do. Remember it is Feudal England and many poor countries are still Tribal largely. So it's not hard to make the connection.

Just like our favored game, "feudalism" is two steps above "tribalism", i.e. "tribalism" -> "monarchy" -> "feudalism". Simple really ... you learn a lot about how the world developed by playing our little game

 

[Dachs]

Surely you can't be serious.

 

[kiwitt]

Feudalism has it's strengths as a "civilising" influence and this allowed for the specialisation of skills as outlined in "Wealth of Nations". When you move above simply "Barter", you can have a little more "wealth" and production than simply "subsistence" from day-to-day.

So what we are comparing is "average" GDP and not simply what the farmers contributed, who quite possibly may be only one step above tribal. But with heaps of specialists, "blacksmiths, weaponsmiths, stonemasons, carpenters, metalsmiths, actors, musicians, bureaucrats, merchants, etc.", there is more people contributing to the GDP, the results of the study is not unlikely.

 

[Dachs]

You are serious. Whig history and oversimplification (usually those go hand in hand anyway). I'm sorry.

 

[kiwitt]

I was intending to study History, but there is too much detail (so I have chosen to focus on WWII - see my mod) and prefer the "Big Picture" view (for areas outside of that), which probably means there will be some oversimplification.

Whig History !?!?! - Found it, interesting viewpoint, I never knew I had.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I was intending to study History, but there is too much detail (so I have chosen to focus on WWII - see my mod) and prefer the "Big Picture" view (for areas outside of that), which probably means there will be some oversimplification.

Whig History !?!?! - Found it, interesting viewpoint, I never knew I had.

So to avoid detail, you're studying the largest conflict in human history?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I was intending to study History, but there is too much detail (so I have chosen to focus on WWII - see my mod)

ALLIES; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II
England, USA, Poland, France, Lowlands, Scandanavia (Norway/Denmark), Greece, Canada, Russia (optional)

Oh, I see.