One would think that the situation of Mr. Bennet, Mr. Darcy, & Lizzie Bennet in "Pride & Prejudice" would end with them like their French counterparts half a generation before—them fleeing the...
A few points occur to me. To start with, the populace may have been reluctant to repeat the experience of the English Revolution and the Protectorate (or the various Jacobite rebellions and invasions, to whatever extent events in France were viewed as Catholic.) Then too, the Settlement, which was an outcome of the not just of the Glorious Revolution but also the English, left England politically more stable than France; in particular, more stable *financially*, with a far greater legitimization of taxation. England had no Necker because it needed none; it had no fiscal crisis to resolve.
And that is my final question: what kind of *economist* can bear to discuss the French Revolution without mentioning its origins in a fiscal crisis?! This is your wheelhouse! :-)
Yep. I was also going to say "regressive and visible taxes." Colbert's goose was hissing! The mild king was also a problem. Several generations of resentment had built up under more repressive kings, not to mention war bills. The nice boss often pays for the sins of their predecessors.
As Adam Smith said, the British tax system raised three times the revenue per capita and the French tax system was felt to be three times as burdensome and onerous...
Could it have to do with the fallen fertility rate in the mid-18th century? GDP per capita had risen in France to a level not to be seen in England until the mid-19th century. If French farmers had experienced an effective increase in well-being due to having smaller families and there being fewer competing, they would have found in the revolution an opportunity. Political instability is a major risk of economic growth which explains a lot of why living standards tend to rise a lot more slowly than productivity. This would explain the middle income nation problem, modern events in China, the push back against the return-to-office and the like. GDP per capita has been rising much more quickly than median living standards, so one would expect political instability and grudging improvements.
The account of LeFebvre puts me in mind of a tour around Termonfechin, County Louth, Ireland, conducted by a relative, and the effects of "delayed Jacquerie" on that country. One stop was Beaulieu (pron. "Bewley") House, a manor house he said had been designed by Christopher Wren. My brother's f-i-l said in his inimitable Monaghan Ulster accent, "One thing I can tell you for certain is that the people who lived in this house were quite beloved in the neighborhood, because if they were not, there would not today be a single stone still standing of this house." Almost all the manor houses of Ireland went up in flames approx. 130 years after those chateaux in the Dauphine. One of the saddest losses was Moore Hall in County Mayo, in my dad's family's neighborhood. One of its previous proprietors, John Moore, had actually collaborated with the French military in 1798 against the British, and was named President of the Connacht Republic by them. Anti-Treaty IRA forces burned the house to the ground because his successor (Maurice Moore, brother of George Moore, of "The Golden Bough" fame) was deemed pro-Treaty. Maybe that misheard Chou En Lai statement about the French Revolution was right after all.
You make it sound like after the famous "renuciation", the nobility no longer owned any land. Wikipedia has the following, referencing a 2002 article by Dr. Sutherland: "D. M. G. Sutherland has examined the results for peasants and landlords. The peasants no longer had to pay the tithe to the Church. The landowners, however, were now allowed to raise rents by the same amount as the former tithe. The national government then taxed away the new income to owners by raising land taxes. Sutherland concludes that the peasants effectively paid twice, in terms of higher rents and heavier taxes. Many tried to evade the burden. In the long run, however, the new burdens on the tenants and landlords were largely offset by major gains in productivity, which made everyone richer."
In fact, the Bourbons fell for the most bourgeois of reasons: bad credit; no one would lend them money. For almost a century, the Bourbons had been limping along by working out "deals" with big banks: "We'll issue bonds. No one will buy them because they don't trust us, but you will, and you will resell them, and people will buy them, because they trust you. And we'll repay you via side deals and under the table payoffs." But that stopped working, because the banks felt Louis XVI was so weak and disorganized that he wouldn't keep any of his promises, even when he wanted to. British bonds, on the other hand, were as good as gold, if not better.
What's interesting though is that a lot of large estates and chateaus survived the revolution. If you watch television travel shows featuring the French countryside, they almost always feature some fancy chateau that's "been in the same family for X hundred years."
The only reason that Burke's book is worth reading is that it was written in 1790, and predicted the events of 1792 with uncanny accuracy, as well as the causes of the events. Seldom has a politician's grasp on events been this good. Otherwise, I agree: perfervid rodomontade.
Reading Dickens' Tale of Two Cities looking at similar issues, it seems as though the English believed they looked after their poor, while the French abused theirs. However, the English were sufficiently concerned in 1795 to expand their welfare system (in place since 1603) through the Speenhamland system. Which by eighteenth century standards might be considered generous. The adoption followed the collapse of the Old Dutch Republic (the most similar polity to England) on the appearance of the Patriots backed by the troops of the French Directory. The English welfare system being administered by parishes and magistrates and (since the restoration of the monarchy) only in the parish of origin, the gentry and aristocracy were embedded in its management (usually as magistrates).
A few points occur to me. To start with, the populace may have been reluctant to repeat the experience of the English Revolution and the Protectorate (or the various Jacobite rebellions and invasions, to whatever extent events in France were viewed as Catholic.) Then too, the Settlement, which was an outcome of the not just of the Glorious Revolution but also the English, left England politically more stable than France; in particular, more stable *financially*, with a far greater legitimization of taxation. England had no Necker because it needed none; it had no fiscal crisis to resolve.
And that is my final question: what kind of *economist* can bear to discuss the French Revolution without mentioning its origins in a fiscal crisis?! This is your wheelhouse! :-)
Yep. I was also going to say "regressive and visible taxes." Colbert's goose was hissing! The mild king was also a problem. Several generations of resentment had built up under more repressive kings, not to mention war bills. The nice boss often pays for the sins of their predecessors.
As Adam Smith said, the British tax system raised three times the revenue per capita and the French tax system was felt to be three times as burdensome and onerous...
“the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists; and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.”
We have only the sophisters when we need the economists and calculators.
:-)
What's wrong with calculators and economists? That is what I would like to know...
Could it have to do with the fallen fertility rate in the mid-18th century? GDP per capita had risen in France to a level not to be seen in England until the mid-19th century. If French farmers had experienced an effective increase in well-being due to having smaller families and there being fewer competing, they would have found in the revolution an opportunity. Political instability is a major risk of economic growth which explains a lot of why living standards tend to rise a lot more slowly than productivity. This would explain the middle income nation problem, modern events in China, the push back against the return-to-office and the like. GDP per capita has been rising much more quickly than median living standards, so one would expect political instability and grudging improvements.
The account of LeFebvre puts me in mind of a tour around Termonfechin, County Louth, Ireland, conducted by a relative, and the effects of "delayed Jacquerie" on that country. One stop was Beaulieu (pron. "Bewley") House, a manor house he said had been designed by Christopher Wren. My brother's f-i-l said in his inimitable Monaghan Ulster accent, "One thing I can tell you for certain is that the people who lived in this house were quite beloved in the neighborhood, because if they were not, there would not today be a single stone still standing of this house." Almost all the manor houses of Ireland went up in flames approx. 130 years after those chateaux in the Dauphine. One of the saddest losses was Moore Hall in County Mayo, in my dad's family's neighborhood. One of its previous proprietors, John Moore, had actually collaborated with the French military in 1798 against the British, and was named President of the Connacht Republic by them. Anti-Treaty IRA forces burned the house to the ground because his successor (Maurice Moore, brother of George Moore, of "The Golden Bough" fame) was deemed pro-Treaty. Maybe that misheard Chou En Lai statement about the French Revolution was right after all.
You make it sound like after the famous "renuciation", the nobility no longer owned any land. Wikipedia has the following, referencing a 2002 article by Dr. Sutherland: "D. M. G. Sutherland has examined the results for peasants and landlords. The peasants no longer had to pay the tithe to the Church. The landowners, however, were now allowed to raise rents by the same amount as the former tithe. The national government then taxed away the new income to owners by raising land taxes. Sutherland concludes that the peasants effectively paid twice, in terms of higher rents and heavier taxes. Many tried to evade the burden. In the long run, however, the new burdens on the tenants and landlords were largely offset by major gains in productivity, which made everyone richer."
In fact, the Bourbons fell for the most bourgeois of reasons: bad credit; no one would lend them money. For almost a century, the Bourbons had been limping along by working out "deals" with big banks: "We'll issue bonds. No one will buy them because they don't trust us, but you will, and you will resell them, and people will buy them, because they trust you. And we'll repay you via side deals and under the table payoffs." But that stopped working, because the banks felt Louis XVI was so weak and disorganized that he wouldn't keep any of his promises, even when he wanted to. British bonds, on the other hand, were as good as gold, if not better.
What's interesting though is that a lot of large estates and chateaus survived the revolution. If you watch television travel shows featuring the French countryside, they almost always feature some fancy chateau that's "been in the same family for X hundred years."
Burke's description of France in 1789 shows quite the vivid imagination.
The only reason that Burke's book is worth reading is that it was written in 1790, and predicted the events of 1792 with uncanny accuracy, as well as the causes of the events. Seldom has a politician's grasp on events been this good. Otherwise, I agree: perfervid rodomontade.
Reading Dickens' Tale of Two Cities looking at similar issues, it seems as though the English believed they looked after their poor, while the French abused theirs. However, the English were sufficiently concerned in 1795 to expand their welfare system (in place since 1603) through the Speenhamland system. Which by eighteenth century standards might be considered generous. The adoption followed the collapse of the Old Dutch Republic (the most similar polity to England) on the appearance of the Patriots backed by the troops of the French Directory. The English welfare system being administered by parishes and magistrates and (since the restoration of the monarchy) only in the parish of origin, the gentry and aristocracy were embedded in its management (usually as magistrates).
Lizzy!
That situation in France comes through loud and clear in the French movie Delicious.