Elite violence and elite numeracy in Europe from 500 to 1900 CE: A co-evolution

> after the trauma of nomadic invasions, Eastern societies created institutions primarily aimed at defence rather than economic development, even over the following centuries when the threat had long disappeared.

This is not even wrong and assumes that old institutions were built on some deep strategic policy considerations. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did have "nomadic invasions" even in the 17th century, but its main institutions were built on republican ideology, and more authoritarian/centralist arguments at the time were based mainly on internal affairs, not external threats. On the other hand, which Early Modern countries had institutions aimed primarily at "economic development"? It's probably debatable in the cases of the Netherlands and England.

Also they neglect to mention that many of these countries were not even independent for a long time. Modern populist Poland and Hungary, incidentally, both have had continuously own elites and statehood traditions since around 900-1000 AD (in contrast to some other Eastern European countries). But in Hungary in 16th-middle 19th century, Poland in the 19th century their own elites had to take the back seat or struggle with the foreign empires. So they weren't the ones creating dominant institutions.

And these, I would say, were the real formative years. If we are to play "find historical roots", the current Polish government (and probably the Hungarian one) is the direct descendant of romantic nationalist tendencies of the 19th century. It's basically LARP'ing a fight for independence which appeals to the intellectual core of these political camps. But admittedly it's hard to build nice charts out of it.

Baffling, the liberties taken by this article trying to link ‘current’ discrepancies using correlated variables from well over 500 years ago. Without mentioning trivialities such as evolution of religious beliefs, history or totalitarian regimes, industrial changes of 17th century or Industrial Revolution. Not to mention the generalisations and lack of definitions (unless I missed an appendix). It really shows that in order to perform interdisciplinary research you not only need competency in both but also understanding how those toolkits interconnect.

The question posed here, about why Eastern Europe fell behind the West, is an interesting one, but the approach taken here (pick two random-ass variables we can measure and try to explain everything with them) seems pretty damn weak, as does the attempt to tie these explanations to modern EU politics.

Its about the appearance of serfdom in the early modern era, just as western Europe was freed from it, which in turn is partly driven by population-density.

This is far from a new idea BTW, and largely drove the abolition of these institutions in the 19th century (it largely came from the top, not as a result of great rebellions).

Here is a nice and short explanation from Paul Krugman:

"my old teacher Evsey Domar wrote a classic paper arguing that serfdom and slavery often were the response of ruling classes to labor shortage. Thus Russia imposed strict restrictions on the mobility of peasants from the late 16th century onward, precisely because the availability of rich new farmland on the expanding frontier would otherwise have increased their bargaining power against landlords. (The frontier expansion itself was probably the result of the growing effectiveness of firearms, which turned the military balance against the steppe nomads; so gunpowder, which contributed to the rise of the bourgeoisie in the West, created serfdom in the East). And, of course, slavery - which, along with serfdom, had died out in the West during the labor-abundant high Middle Ages - was reintroduced in the land-abundant conditions of the New World." http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/Serfdom.htm

Darren Asemoglu's and Robinson's "Why nations fail" in turn go on in length about effects of repressive economic and political institutions to economic growth.

Forms of serfdom and slavery were (re)introduced around the same time in the Muscovite state, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Hungary, Wallachia, Moldavia, the Ottoman Empire and even the Cossack Hetmanate which had roots in anti-serfdom rebellion had a form of serfdom.

This article seems weak - it is extremely disappointing that it was written by a research assistant and a 'professor'. This line here 'Eastern societies created institutions primarily aimed at defence rather than economic development, even over the following centuries when the threat had long disappeared' - someone who know history of Eastern countries will be aware that those countries where constantly attacked by Western ones - Germany-Poland wars lasted between 1000-1400. Poland was under relative peace in the 16th century when it gained wealth ( according to some statistics, Polish Kingdom was the biggest importer of luxurious cloths at that time, and as we know today if basic needs are satisfied people turn into consumption). Then in the 17th century Poland was attacked by Swedes, Germans, Russians which started the dawn of the country which ended in the end of the 18th century by splitting Poland between Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary. Then when Poland re-gained independency in the 20th century it stared building an army, economy was raising, then WWII happened during which Poland was completely destroyed and until today it did not receive any compensation from Germany, obviously after WWII Communist Russia ruled in Poland which didn't help the economy. Since 1989 Poland is developing again, nobody is attacking the country and it is developing again. I'd like to know taking into account the above citation when did the threat had long disappeare? Obviously taking into consideration the dates which the article mentions, not know, as there are no wars ATM.

From my own experience Polish people are not EU sceptic, and the ruling party is not sceptic at all. The problem has far more deeper roots and is related to transformation process in which post-communist stayed in power even though the Communism collapsed. But this requires another article by people who know more than me.

This is a bit weird; it seems to be taking a 10,000 foot view on history that isn't really warranted and not a great explanation for Eastern Europe being "behind" the West.

It notices the various "golden horde" invasions, but skims entirely over the huge impact of the 20th century - wars, occupation, pogroms, Communism.