Medieval Britons were richer than modern poor people, study finds

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

Economists find that per capita income in the middle ages was about £634 a year compared with 1990 currency values, more than Ghana, Cambodia and Tanzania

Jill Insley and agencies
Monday December 06 2010 15.32 GMT -

People living in medieval England were more prosperous than modern day residents of the world's poorest nations, a study into Britain's economic history has found. The research by economists at the University of Warwick found that per capita income in England during the middle ages was more than double that required for the "bare bones subsistence" of people living in many of today's poorest countries.

The paper, British Economic Growth 1270-1870, is published by the university's Centre on Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy, and estimates that per capita income in England in the late middle ages was about $1,000 or £634 a year when compared with currency values in 1990.

According to the World Bank, countries which had a per capita income of less than $1,000 last year included Ghana ($700), Cambodia ($650), Tanzania ($500), Ethiopia ($300) and Burundi ($150), while in India – one of the BRIC emerging economies – the gross income per capita stands only just above medieval levels at $1,180.

Professor Stephen Broadberry, who led the research, said England's income per head of population was even running at more than $800 or £507 on the eve of the Black Death, which first struck in the late 1340s.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/dec/06/medieval-britons-richer-than-modern-poor

[ananda]

1. That is such a weird feeling to realize that.

nt

[SnowCritter]

2. The problem with "per-capita" figures

is that in an economy where you have a few incredibly wealthy "haves" and a vast majority of "have-nots", the per-capita data is skewed toward the high end. Removing the data that directly relates to the "haves" gives a clearer picture of what was really going on. Put someone who makes $100 million a year in a room with 99 beggars and the per-capita income of everyone in the room is $1 million a year. Remove the same person and you get a clearer picture of the per-capita income in the room - $0.

[FBaggins]

4. True... but which side of the example above do you think this applies to?

[mr_smith007]

9. Exactly.

When I hear people talk about national prosperity in terms of per-captia and average income, I want to pull my hair out. Did these authors not take macro 101. You deal with median income to cut thru the static and get the real picture of the average person. Of course they probably don't have that data from back then so don't do the damn study. All this means is that the country had lots of money...to come to the conclusion that they had a vast middle class is purely speculative and not really well informed speculation at that. They have no data to support such a view. For all we know, and likely is the case, they had a super rich feudal elite and aristocracy and the other 99% were living in squalor.

[burnsei sensei]

3. I'm not surprised in the least.

The society was genuinely altruistic, even though it was hierarchical.
I can't say the same for human society generally today.
Altruism is strictly conditional, and the conditions placed on it are so varied that it may as well not exist at all.

[David__77]

5. Feudalism is a real force in 2010.

Most of the world's people are peasants or declassed poor persons. Sitting in the West, even as a "poor person," it is easy to forget.

[marshall]

6. Plague survivors benefited from the mass culling of the population

A huge percentage of the population died from the plague, and the surviving generation prospered because there was more resources for less people.

[Xithras]

8. Lower populations also impart a higher value to labor.

When there are 50 identically skilled laborers lined up outside the door to do your job, your cash value is very low. When you're the only person who can do your job, your labors cash value is very high. The plague dramatically increased the cash value of manual labor throughout Europe for centuries (when the plague of 1350 devastated Europe, it took 200 years for the population levels to return to their 1350 levels).

Lower populations also tend to drive technical innovation, as inventors attempt to mechanize low-value jobs for which sufficient labor doesn't exist. This has been widely cited as one of the factors driving the industrial revolution in North America...the needs were large, but he population and labor pool were very small). Technical innovation itself can be a wealth generator.


The high population densities in many parts of the world severely devalue the labor of the people who work there, leading to poverty.

[DavidDvorkin]

7. When I posted this a couple of days ago in General Discussion

It devolved into a strange DU argument, with attacks and counterattacks and a couple of deleted messages.

We'll see what happens here.

[DavidDvorkin]

12. And here's the link to that earlier post and thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4645000

[sofa king]

10. ...Which should surprise nobody who actually studied Medieval Britain.

Forgetting for the moment that this article seems to conflate the Medieval era, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment, most historians know several things about Medieval Britain.

We know that for hundreds of years dating back to the 1400s at least, county residents were responsible for maintaining their own roads (badly, of course), and that every resident was supposed to devote at least two weeks a year to road maintenance, free of pay. That simply cannot be done without having disposable income left over to cover the loss of working time. Those two weeks would be enough to kill anyone living below subsistence.

We know that for all of that time, British overseas commerce was lucrative enough to support the shipbuilding and sailing industries, while introducing enough food to cover the loss of those workers from the farming industry.

We know that Britain was able to effectively sustain five centuries of virtually continuous warfare at the highest level of technology (and therefore expense), suggesting that Britons were wealthy enough to afford it.

[rayofreason]

11. And they used coconuts shells...

...for horses.