Was weber right? the role of urban autonomy in Europe's rise

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Do strong property rights institutions always help, or might they sometimes actually hinder development? Since Max Weber and before, scholars have claimed that the presence of politically autonomous cities, controlled by merchant oligarchies guaranteeing property rights, helped lead to Europe's rise. Yet others suggest that autonomous cities were a hindrance to growth because rule by merchant guilds resulted in restrictions that stifled innovation and trade. I present new evidence and a new interpretation that reconcile the two views of city autonomy. I show that politically autonomous cities initially had higher population growth rates than nonautonomous cities, but over time this situation reversed itself. My evidence also suggests why autonomous cities eventually disappeared as a form of political organization. Instead of military weakness, it may have been their political institutions that condemned them to become obsolete.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)337-354
Number of pages18
JournalAmerican Political Science Review
Volume108
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

right of ownership
autonomy
oligarchy
guild
political institution
population growth
evidence
Military
innovation
organization
interpretation
time

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Was weber right? the role of urban autonomy in Europe's rise. / Stasavage, David.

In: American Political Science Review, Vol. 108, No. 2, 2014, p. 337-354.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1b14e454d1184b569c6257ded04b52b9,
title = "Was weber right? the role of urban autonomy in Europe's rise",
abstract = "Do strong property rights institutions always help, or might they sometimes actually hinder development? Since Max Weber and before, scholars have claimed that the presence of politically autonomous cities, controlled by merchant oligarchies guaranteeing property rights, helped lead to Europe's rise. Yet others suggest that autonomous cities were a hindrance to growth because rule by merchant guilds resulted in restrictions that stifled innovation and trade. I present new evidence and a new interpretation that reconcile the two views of city autonomy. I show that politically autonomous cities initially had higher population growth rates than nonautonomous cities, but over time this situation reversed itself. My evidence also suggests why autonomous cities eventually disappeared as a form of political organization. Instead of military weakness, it may have been their political institutions that condemned them to become obsolete.",
author = "David Stasavage",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1017/S0003055414000173",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "108",
pages = "337--354",
journal = "American Political Science Review",
issn = "0003-0554",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Was weber right? the role of urban autonomy in Europe's rise

AU - Stasavage, David

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Do strong property rights institutions always help, or might they sometimes actually hinder development? Since Max Weber and before, scholars have claimed that the presence of politically autonomous cities, controlled by merchant oligarchies guaranteeing property rights, helped lead to Europe's rise. Yet others suggest that autonomous cities were a hindrance to growth because rule by merchant guilds resulted in restrictions that stifled innovation and trade. I present new evidence and a new interpretation that reconcile the two views of city autonomy. I show that politically autonomous cities initially had higher population growth rates than nonautonomous cities, but over time this situation reversed itself. My evidence also suggests why autonomous cities eventually disappeared as a form of political organization. Instead of military weakness, it may have been their political institutions that condemned them to become obsolete.

AB - Do strong property rights institutions always help, or might they sometimes actually hinder development? Since Max Weber and before, scholars have claimed that the presence of politically autonomous cities, controlled by merchant oligarchies guaranteeing property rights, helped lead to Europe's rise. Yet others suggest that autonomous cities were a hindrance to growth because rule by merchant guilds resulted in restrictions that stifled innovation and trade. I present new evidence and a new interpretation that reconcile the two views of city autonomy. I show that politically autonomous cities initially had higher population growth rates than nonautonomous cities, but over time this situation reversed itself. My evidence also suggests why autonomous cities eventually disappeared as a form of political organization. Instead of military weakness, it may have been their political institutions that condemned them to become obsolete.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902360715&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902360715&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0003055414000173

DO - 10.1017/S0003055414000173

M3 - Article

VL - 108

SP - 337

EP - 354

JO - American Political Science Review

JF - American Political Science Review

SN - 0003-0554

IS - 2

ER -