Content uploaded by Per Frankelius
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Per Frankelius on Mar 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
The rise of the European continent: Old theories
and new hypotheses related to innovation
Per Frankelius*
* Örebro University, S-701 82 Örebro, Sweden
per@frankelius.com, +46-708-21 29 49
Abstract
Europe faces challenges today, not least global competition. It should be a
wake-up call for reflection. Can Europe learn something from its history?
What was it that made the European continent develop so fast in the first
place? Marx pointed at work and capital that formed the industrial revolu-
tion. Schumpeter pointed at a few brilliant entrepreneurs generating innova-
tions. In this paper some selected such “big theories” are discussed. Addi-
tionally the stirrup theory is presented. But the author also put forward
something else that characterized Europe: The combination of on the one
hand great diversity in terms of knowledge, ideas, languages, religions, gov-
ernments, industrial specialization, etc. and on the other hand, good com-
munication routes (notably rivers and lakes) that made creative meetings
possible. If that theory holds, there can be implications for modern policy-
making and in fact the management of universities. Should we work harder
for safeguarding respect between academics and practitioners, between dif-
ferent kinds of academics and between different people in general? Should
we promote variety and sophisticated meeting mechanisms?
Paper presented at the 13th Annual SNEE European Integration Conference,
Grand Hotel, Mölle, May 17-20, 2011, organized by
the Swedish Network for European Studies in Economics and Business.
This is a draft. All comments are wellcome!
2
Introduction
After analysing hundreds of years of economic history, Nathan Rosenberg and L. E.
Birdzell (1986) concluded:
“When applying a long-term perspective on the history of mankind, and examining
the economic lives of our forefathers in modern terms, a history of almost incessant des-
titution and misery emerges. Typically, human society has only been able to allow a
small number of people to experience a world fit for human beings. The broad mass has
had to endure living conditions of almost unbelievable poverty” (p. 19).
In 2001 Angus Maddison presented GDP statistics on the world's economic devel-
opment in history, sorted by continents. I have supplemented these data with data for
the last years. This analysis reveals a pattern. See diagram 1.
Diagram 1. World GDP share by continents over time. Data based primary on Maddison (2001).
Asia was by far the dominant economy at the time of Christ's birth, and became so till
the 1800s. But then Asia sank quickly in comparison to other regions. As a contrast Eu-
rope was for a long time far behind Asia but made a dramatic advance after the 1400s.
During the 1900s, Europe made much further advance. In addition, the extreme devel-
opment of "European children" is obvious, i.e. U.S., Canada, New Zeeland and Austral-
ia.
During recent years other regions, not least Asia, have undergone a violent growth
increase relative to Europe, and the speed of this increase is larger than what the world
has ever seen. This raises questions. Why are some regions performing so well? What
are the reasons for previously successful regions, localities or habitats suddenly loosing
3
momentum or collapse? The research question in this paper is more specific: Why did
Western Europe expand as dramatically as it did after 1400's?
The paper includes a try to figure out some of the core of a few selected theories. It is
not an overview of the grand economic theories. Rather the selection is based on the cri-
teria if the theory is related to the question above. Lot’s of other theories are tries to un-
derstand economic processes in general, but are not focusing on the historic question of
how Europe got rich. I must underline that this paper is speculative, and just a beginning
of a holistic discussion regarding the main question. The aim or ambition is not to pre-
sent any final answer.
Some existing theories including main-stream hypotheses
Several researchers have attempted to answer the question of the secret of Europe’s his-
toric growth. I will present some of the theories found in research literature. I have tak-
en the liberty to describe the different theories in somewhat different detail. One of
them, the stirrup theory, has got most space in this paper. After presenting these existing
theories I will continue with my own hypothesis (the variety-water-meeting-
hypothesis).
Capital, work and industrial revolution: Karl Marx
Karl Marx is one of the most written-about philosophers. This is not the place to give
any out-exhaustive picture of all his philosophical thoughts and ideas. But some things
should be mentioned.
Marx's theory was most of all of historical character, which distinguished him from
many other great thinkers in the science of economics. To understand modern society
one must, according to Marx, understand the historical context. In other words: For
Marx peoples’ life is the result of the forces of history - an idea he probably got from
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. And the key issue for people was, according to Marx,
to survive despite harsh context. People are in forced to arrange so that they have the
core values food, clothing and shelter. It is clear that Marx was a materialist, and proba-
bly influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach.
The production of values requires inputs. Because a natural process of society is spe-
cialization, it leads to the fact that production resources will not be evenly distributed in
the population. The core of Marx’ thinking is trying to understand how the means of
production are developed to create the values needed to satisfy basic human needs.
Marx called survival fundament – the economy – for the base. Everything else (such as
politics, entertainment or social care) he called the superstructure.
Karl Marx’ view on the development of Europe was primary related to economic de-
velopment and economic distribution of resources among citizens in the society. Re-
4
garding capitalism, Marx was critical to its end but had interesting theories regarding its
means. Marx pointed to the industrial revolution as the main factor behind the develop-
ment of the then modern capitalistic society (Marx, 1887). To understand Marx, we
have to recapitulate the core meaning of capitalism, because capitalism was the main
character of the end of societal development according to Marx.
Capitalism is an economic system where capital and factors of production are owned
and planned by private actors. However, there is a type of capital (or factor of produc-
tion) that is not owned by anyone, namely labour. Unlike many other societies are capi-
talist economies generally "free societies", where no one owns any other individual.
Factors of production, such as natural resources (raw materials) or labour and capital are
traded by free will in the form of goods and services in markets. The same applies to the
result of what is produced.
Capitalism is a concept closely related to the term market economy. The latter tend,
according to mainstream literature, to relate primary to the pricing and resource alloca-
tion. On the contrary the term capitalism is usually associated mainly to the social rela-
tions associated with the ownership of resources.
Marx believed that the essence of capitalism was capital accumulation. This would in
his theory lead to the division of labour and investments. The specialization of the
workforce was a result of the division of labour and that phenomenon led to more pro-
ductive workforce. This productive labour could in turn create more value added in pro-
duction that ultimately created the growth in the economy but also imbalances in own-
ership.
A critical view on Marx can be approproate, not least because Marx's theories tend to
be well discussed in the research literature while a critical eye is not always obvious.
Marx’ view, as mentioned, was that the most important means of production (besides
land), where labour and capital. He seems to have taken initiatives and ideas for grant-
ed. But value is not created, as Marx believed, only through labour and capital. It also
requires initiatives, ideas and entrepreneurial energy.
My assessment is that Marx view (including it’s shortcomings) has had significant
impact on our modern society. In Norrköping, for example, a "Museum of Work" was
installed 1991 but the foundation for the development of the famous textile industry in
the city was as much about entrepreneurs, strategic information, ideas and initiatives,
i.e. factors that tend to fall outside both Marx's theory and Norrkoping’s discussion on
what central museums in the ”central city industrial landscape” shall have as label and
focus.
Interestingly, with Marx, however, is his conviction that economic factors are more
important than most other things to humans. He put forward the idea that the foundation
of life is economic survival because most other things are something people only create
and switch to if we have the economic base secured.
To summarize, Marx's theory points at labour and capital as underlying factors that
laid the foundation for the most important factor behind the development of modern Eu-
rope, namely the industrial revolution. That factor was in turn behind virtually all social
change. Now I will turn at another research giant, which also focused on industrial de-
5
velopment, but had a complete different theory on what drove the same: Joseph Schum-
peter.
Entrepreneurs and innovations: Joseph Schumpeter
Joseph Schumpeter also has an answer the question of the development of Europe.
Schumpeter pointed not at some general industrial revolution put forward by labour and
capital. Rather he argued that development was due to a few brilliant entrepreneurs who
generated innovations (Schumpeter, 1912).
In 1908 Joseph Schumpeter finished his 626 pages book Das Wesen und der
Hauptinhalt der Theoretische Nationalökonomie (Schumpeter, 1908). It contained his
interpretation of the then existing economic theory and was largely influenced by Leon
Walras's theory of equilibrium between supply and demand. Conventional theory was,
according to Schumpeter, about the everyday routine and trot on the markets.
In the last chapter, he then approaches one important point: That no economist in a
good way yet had addressed the issue of economic development. Karl Marx had made
attempts, but Schumpeter had a very different approach because he, unlike Marx, did
not take such things as entrepreneurs, new business ideas and inventions for granted.
Marx's focus was labour and capital, but Schumpeter focused rather on innovative en-
trepreneurship and capital. We can here also recall that neoclassical economists focused
on land, labour and capital, but completely overlooked the innovative power of individ-
uals.
The end of that book was a springboard for his nest and most important book pub-
lished in 1911. In that book he set the entrepreneur and innovation in focus. The title
was Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung and the year of publication according to
the publisher is 1912 (Schumpeter, 1912). The mysterious intricacies of the year 1911
vs. 1912 has it’s explanation. The book was reaching the market already in autumn
1911, but formally launched 1912.
While thinkers such as Francis Bacon, Adam Smith and Gabriel Tarde had touched
the issue innovation, Schumpeter was the first with a thought-out theory of the subject.
His focus was the entrepreneur, which was the operator that drove innovation forward.
In German, he spoke of dynamic entrepreneurs (dynamischen Unternehmers) who knew
how to recognise new combinations (neuen Kombinationen).
A key idea was that the economy could be divided into routine (daily trot or circular
flow) and development. The routine can be described as follows: Companies produce
and sell goods and services that customers purchase and consume. Only small im-
provements to products, services and processes occur.
Occasionally, however, dramatic developments in the market occur and what causes
this development is innovation. It could be about radically new approaches to produce
well-known products or completely new products. The factor that created innovation
and led to the dramatic developments were entrepreneurs (but note that Schumpeter has
6
its own strict definition of a entrepreneurs). Only a few people had the capacity to pro-
mote innovation:
"Most people stick to their daily activities and are busy with this. Almost always, the
ground is unstable and they have to devote all energy to stand up straight. This pushes
aside all development initiatives. [...] The daily work keeps them in check, both the or-
ganization as their employees are shackled. This is the world of the masses." (Ibid., p.
162–3, freely interpreted).
But then he continues: "A minority of all people, with sharper intellect and wilder
imagination, recognise new combinations. [...] Of these, an even smaller minority also
turn ideas into action. [...] They do not care about the consequences of failure, or that
those who are affected by the new thing would lose their grip on the old. The key is en-
ergy as much as insight."(Ibid., p. 163–4, freely interpreted).
Schumpeter was clear in his opinion that innovation is not the same as improvements. He wrote: You can
make as many improvements you want of horse and wagon, but you will still never get steam locomotives,
carriages and rail (Schumpeter, 1934, freely interpreted). Despite his clarity, many people still confuse
innovation with improvements (compare the concept "incremental innovation"). The picture on the left is
from Taxinge castle and shows a cab with two North Swedish horses. The image at right shows a recon-
struction of the steam locomotive "The Rocket" built by Robert Stephenson and Company in 1829. The
locomotive won against "Novelty" at the event in Rainhill in October 1829. Novelty was more innovative
and developed by a Swedish, John Ericsson, but failed to function well. This photo was taken when the
reconstructed locomotive made a visit to Sweden a few years ago. Photo: P. Frankelius.
Like the reasoning in Friedrich Nietzsches book Morgenröthe (1881), Schumpeter di-
vided society into on the one hand, the masses and on the other hand, a few unique, cre-
ative and more motivated people with greater skills and more willingness. He called
them entrepreneurs, but that is not to be confused with how people today usually use the
term entrepreneur. These Schumpeterian entrepreneurs needed resources and their pro-
ject was always risky. Therefore creditors played a major role in the model. In the third
7
chapter of his book the reader can observe two main section headings that illustrate his
focus: "Das Wesen und die Rolle des Kredits " and "Das Kapital". Once the entrepre-
neur has fought for his idea and received support by the creditor, the ideas could be im-
plemented. This, but only if it succeeded, lead to what he called economic development.
As soon as a pioneering entrepreneur had succeeded a number of other busuness ac-
tors followed in the tracks. The result becomes a swarm of projects that are all related to
the same new direction. As a consequence arises now a violent struggle between those
who favour the new and the majority that still want to hold on to the old. In short: if the
entrepreneur (and the new swarm) succeeds others go bankrupt. The consequence of the
innovation swarms was that economies tended to proceed in cycles of stagnation alter-
nately development. Compare Lennart Schön’s paper “Long term innovation waves –
the potential dissonance between Europe and Asia” at the Mölle Conference 2010.
Already before Schumpeter was in economic sciences a discussion on that economies
could be hit by shocks of various kinds. However, economists had considered the causes
to these as exogenous. This means that the causes were beyond the theoretical model.
Schumpeter diverged from that pattern, because he defined innovation as one of these
radical change factors, and innovation, according to Shumpeter, occurred inside the
economic system. It was not an exogenous factor, but endogenous.
After he had moved to the United States he modified and translated his second edi-
tion of Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (Schumpeter, 1926) into English, pub-
lished in 1934.
It was not before the 1934-the book Schumpeter used the concept of innovation ex-
plicitly. In his earlier German books, he rather used the term "Neuerung" and "Neuer-
er". He also spoke in terms of "Kraft der Entwicklung" (development force). It may be
that he got the grain of the term of innovation by Abbott Payson Usher, a fellow at Har-
vard. This Usher had, in a book from 1929, used the word innovation, and it is known
that he and Schumpeter exchanged ideas on various book manuscripts in 1933.
So wrote Usher (1929, p. 4: “Changes in technique involve series of individual inno-
vations that are finally embodied in practical accomplishments. These series or se-
quences of relatively independent inventions are among the most intense manifestations
of the dynamic process of history.”
He also wrote the large Business Cycles, which saw the light in 1939 in two volumes.
There, he developed his views on the concept of innovation. The next important book
was Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Schumpeter, 1942). There he developed the
analysis further, using a term that came to be much quoted, namely creative destruction
(in German "Schöpferische Zerstörung"). Innovation, according to Schumpeter, is about
to destroy old structures in a creative way.
Schumpeter distinguished between product innovations and process innovations. A
product innovation is a new product or a new quality of a product. With “new” he meant
that consumers were not previously familiar with that good. By process innovation he,
interestingly, both mentioned new production methods and new ways to market prod-
ucts. After a screening of his writing it is clear, however, that he mainly saw the new
8
production methods in front of him (compare Salter, 1960). Even if he says otherwise in
some quarters, Schumpeter had a strong attraction to technological development.
Schumpeter's theory revolved largely around the motivations for entrepreneurs to
undertake and entry innovative adventures. According to Schumpeter the contractor's
incentive was not money. Rather, it was the dream of setting up "one's own private
kingdom", as he put it metaphorically.
He also pointed out that innovation is seldom just about a question of a single actor
or a single groundbreaking news. Rather it was formed, as mentioned above, by "clus-
ters of innovation" (swarms) in the wake of a breakthrough.
I know Schunpeter is very popular in today’s literature. But some (including myself)
argue that he did not present any theory of the inner core of innovation processes (Rut-
tan, 1959).
The Protestant ethics: Max Weber
The sociologist Max Weber also made an analysis regarding why capitalism was just
developed so fast in Europe. For Weber, capitalism was the most advanced economic
system ever created, but his explanation of how it unfolded was different from Marx
and Schumpeter.
In many earlier societies rulers had focused on building monuments to themselves or
their near and tar (cf. Tai Mahal) – or monument to the religious factors in glory (cf. the
Egyptian pyramids). Most of these investments may be valuable in some perspective,
but are unproductive in economic terms. What distinguishes capitalism from earlier
economic systems, said Weber, is that the surplus in the community rather is allocated
towards boosting new productivity than being placed on useless monuments.
Max Weber believed that the Protestant ethics was the main reason behind the devel-
opment (Weber 1934).
The core of the Protestant ethics was the principle or guiding star that "one should
work" and that one should not live in luxury, but reinvesting the surplus value in order
to develop business that in turn was good for community and society. The concept of
innovation is not central in Weber’s theory but there are certainly connections between
his thinking and innovation.
Weber puts forward the thesis that Protestant industrialists stood for higher growth
than, say, Catholic. According to Weber "workaholism" is part of the Protestant ethics
(compare wide-spread interpretation of Luther’s mission). Weber's analysis of what
people make of their increased wealth due to rationalization of production, was that they
would prefer to spend and propel the economy rather than, say, work less or creating
monuments.
There is much more to say about Weber, but I go further to still another theoretical
giant: Douglass North.
9
Institutions: Douglass North
Douglass North and Robert Thomas argued in a book 1973, that new institutions, not
least property rights (and their protection), best explain the progress. They developed
the thesis that the West's growth largely was related to the institutions and especially the
protection of property rights.
The path-breaking book portrays the period between 900 and 1700 and focused insti-
tutional changes and their effects. The basis of western institutions, especially property
right protection, as North and Thomas thought, was due to the formation of nation
states, which gradually brought about a uniform law. Institutions included a series of
support structures – largely developed in England and Holland – that contributed to the
favourable climate. These include limited liability company laws that reduced the per-
sonal risk and enabled the financing of future investments. Also business combinations
(mergers) and regulations relating to this favoured climate because it helped businesss
actors to take advantage of economies of scale. Patent and trademark laws increased the
incentives for efforts aimed at creating innovations.
North says that the institutions are not only about laws and public authorities and the
like. Equally important are habits, norms, and values. In his own words: "Institutions are
the same as the rules of the game in a society or, more formally expressed, the re-
strictions people put up to indicate the forms of human interaction." (North, 1990, p.
16).
What, then, is the difference between institutions and organizations? Both phenome-
na can be seen as structures that affect the interaction between people. North might have
replied that organizations are the players, while institutions are the rules of the game. It
is complicated by the fact that some organizations may affect the rules of the game
North and Thomas' book describes the institutions that were created and that they
brought with them economic development. But it did not show clearly why they were
created and why it happened in the West. In 1981, North launched the book Structure
and Change in Economic History. There was an attempt to explain the emergence of in-
stitutions. One progress key for a country is to give power to a ruler who, in turn, can
monitor the ownership and secure it with power. At the same time the ruler must not
grab too much himself (or herself) of power and property. England and Spain was an
example of opposites in which England managed to beat that thanks to industrialization
while Spain failed to beat stagnation. The reader might notice similarities with Hobbes
(I come back to him later).
North further developed these ideas in several articles and also in the book Institu-
tions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance published 1990. In the book he
tries to describe institutional change mechanisms. Why this interest in the analysis of
the institutional change? Johan Myhrman explains it like this: One of the key factors for
favourable institutions is that they are stable over time. This makes predictability and
lowering risks. At the same time, institutions must change if society is changing in other
areas: "If circumstances, for which an institution is intended, permanently changed the
10
institution must also be adjusted otherwise the end result is very bad." (p. 10, my trans-
lation).
North's theoretical analysis revolves largely around the transaction costs, i.e. the
costs that are associated with conducting transactions in the market. In recent years he
expanded the analysis to uncertainty in general to make decisions on the market. I will
come back to North.
Biology and warfare: Jared Diamond
Jared Diamond has also tried to understand the development of whole continents, in-
cluding Europe. He pointed to the war making, management of natural resources, the
spread of viruses and not least colonization.
In the book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997) he presented a meaning that the devel-
opment of civilizations, like the one in Europe, first and foremost was about biological
reasons (notable viruses and the grade of restistancy of viruses) in combination with
natural conditions. These in turn affected the amount of food that could be produced. A
second factor, according to his theory, was the production of steel and the use of this
technology for weapons. The Europeans then subjugated other peoples by means of
those weapons. While colonizing other territories by means of weapons, they also
spread viruses to other parts of the world, and the people there were not resistant to the-
se European viruses. Therefore Europe won its wars.
In his later book, Collapse (2005), he focused the mirror question of why great civi-
lizations collapsed (relevant for Europe today?). His assumption was that it was about
how people could manage natural resources and environmental degradation. This has
undoubtedly played a role in some cultures for centuries. For example, a non-
sustainable irrigation ruined fertile land and thus early high culture, and a long-term so-
lution to such energy issue is one of humanity's greatest challenges. But I doubt that the
environmental issue has been a dominant cause of great civilizations decay during the
time period treated in this paper.
The stirrup hypotheses: Lynn White
In 1962 Lynn White in a book claimed that the stirrup was the innovation that laid the
foundations of modern Europe. Can such a little thing have had such importance? Even
if his hypothesis (and attempt to verify it) received much criticism, nobody has been
able to falsify it completely (For details, se Frankelius and Hedenstierna-Jonson, 2010).
I have choosen to describe this theory a little moore deeply than the others. To under-
stand the theory some background is needed.
11
The modern society based on safety
All people, wrote the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in a book 1651, are governed by the
power of self-preservation. In order not that society should be in constant war and chaos
citizens choose to give up some of their personal freedom and hand over power to a few
that are set to secure social order. In exchange they get security, which is crucial for in-
vestments to occur, and for business and civilization building in general.
The economist Douglas North moved, as I have already mentioned, that reasoning
further and argued that the protection of ownership was the main factor behind that the
European civilization emerged and became dominant for several hundred years.
In the 700's was the threat of attacks from various band of robbers a part of everyday
life. It was therefore important to mobilise a defence against rebellion and invaders.
Here is where the stirrup theory comes into play.
The stirrups big advantage
By means of the stirrup riders with their swords and spears could attack and defend
themselves much more effectively than they would without it. Especially, the combina-
tion stirrup, rigid seat and a long lance was very effective.
Some lances were a kind of spear that the rider threw against the enemy. Others were
meant to poke the enemy. But there was also to be developed a third type intended to,
by a sharp blow, collapse the enemy. These heavy lances the rider holds with hanging
arm rather than with exalted arm. The actual push the rider did not had to deliver by his
own muscle power. Thanks to the stirrup was the horse full force transferred to the
lance via the rider's legs, body and arms. The rider could instead concentrate on riding
and sight. The concept is called "shock warfare" or "heavy cavalry". The stirrup was in
fact a prerequisite for effectively fighting with lances. Without the stirrup would the
rider fall off his horse at the first stroke.
The stirrup was not only important for fighting with lances but also for combat with
swords or axes. Further advantages of the stirrup was that the rider could rise up and
parry horse's movement with the legs. This made it easier to target and fire bows and
crossbows, which was another major technological innovation.
In addition the rider with the aid of the stirrup could turn faster without falling off.
Fast turns were a key factor in the heat of a battle. Moreover, the stirrup allowed faster
riding, and rapid troop movements were also extremely important in war and duties.
When and how did the stirrup change Europe?
The modern European society is usually associated with the origin of the Frankish king-
dom. Here Charles Martel played a big role as well as his son Pippin the Short – and al-
so his grandson Charlemagne. It was against the background of emergence of this king-
dom White brought up the idea of the stirrup’s advent and importance in Europe;
In 732 there was a battle near the town of Poitiers in France as a result of the inva-
sion of the Moors through North Africa and Spain (see map in Diagram 2.). Martel won
the battle thanks to his larger army. But he was impressed by the Moorian warriors who
were carried by horses equipped with stirrups. They offered unexpected resistance. This
12
inspired the Frankish to take up the stirrup and change to cavalry-based army. In 755
Pippin is said to have request horses instead of cows as tax payment and it suggests that
the shift to the horse-borne army was at that time.
Diagram 2. The Stirrup map. (Map base: Satellitdata, Lantmäteriet, Division Metria).
Until the mid-700's, every free man (mostly farmers) in the Frankish kingdom, if neces-
sary, were obliged to make themselves available as foot soldiers in war service. But a
fully equipped war rider, that was what the king wanted now, was expensive to create
and maintain in operation. Few farmers could finance this – it was needed 12 agriculture
units to fund one such rider machine. Society was therefore re-organized because of the
need of many farmers to collectively fund a professional crusader. In this process major
estates (gods in Swedish) emerged as administering intermediaries between the farmers
and the king. In some cases, the knights themselves were landlords.
The estates got both obligations and privileges in a model called ”County-zation” or
in Latin feudum (in Sweden we still have the word ”län” from this ”förläning”). For ex-
ample, the estates offered their farmers protection from external attacks (and they were
frequent), while the estates also got protection from the king if needed. In this transfor-
mation of society a sophisticated legal system developed that had major impact on soci-
ety. Perhaps most importantly, the large estates could allocate capital, and thus make
investments. And they got edicts from the king regarding how to develop their goods
including making use of new methods and concepts. Note that capital allocation was not
a mean for development (like in Marx theory) but the result of the underlying factor stir-
rup.
Anyway, this led to the creation of technologically advanced mills, baking houses,
breweries, advanced agricultural implements and smithies. This technology develop-
ment and social change became the gateway to the industrial revolution.
13
Algrena mill, driven by water power, is an example of technology in Sweden. The picture reminds us of
the agricultural society. Note the horse that pulls the wooden plow and the cart next to the mill. In Algre-
na was built in 1692 also a lanchaster smithy. Watercolor by Elias Martin from the late 1700s. Repro-
duced by Jens Östman at the National Library.
The origin and gradual development of the Stirrup
Depictions of something like stirrups have been found in caves in the temple district of
Madhya Pradesh in central India, as Sir John Marshall had documented. It has been in-
terpreted as belt loops, which can support the foot of a rider. The finds are dated to 200-
100 BC. Other tracks from the same area have been interpreted as "toe-stirrups" because
the loops are big enough only to accommodate a big toe.
On the stone reliefs of the Sanchi Temple in Madhya Pradesh, where riders are de-
picted, it is difficult to distinguish details such as the presence of stirrups. However, the
rider’s knees are bent and their feet are prominence in relation to the upper body. In a
test at Hollstad Farm 2010 we concluded that such a leg-position simply needs a stirrup
because gravity would be exhausting if not the rider had some sort of footrest.
Pictures are interesting, but what about actual subject finds? In 1867 J.H. Rivett-
Carnac opened a tomb near the village Junapani, 9 km west of Nagpur. Among the
things, which are dated to "the last centuries before Christ, " was a bridle to the horses,
and two 17 cm long iron pieces with loops at each end. Rivett-Carnac guessed that it
was parts of stirrups. His interpretation has been questioned, but there is a reasonable
guess, given that in the sealed tomb were other horse things in combination with that it
is difficult to see what else the iron pieces could have had the operation.
Together with a research colleague at Swedish History Museum I have made a re-
construction of these perhaps world's first stirrups (Frankelius and Hedenstierna-Jonson,
2010). See diagram 3. Black areas represent real discoveries, one is injured. By the met-
al separates leather straps formed no strenuous side pressure on the foot (which loops
would do). Furthermore, the risk of getting stuck in these is much smaller compared
with loops of rope or leather. Unlike loops they are always open, and this also facilitates
rapid ascent. Note that our reconstruction is only a hypothesis.
14
Diagram 3. Our hypothetical reconstruction of the finds from Junapani grave. Also shown is the bridle
that was found in the same grave. The reconstruction is based on objects saved at the British Museum,
photographed by Lewrence S. Leshnik.
A seal depicting a horse with a "hook" to support the foot has been found north of India
and is dated to the year 100 or 127. It derives from the Kushan kingdom, which had its
peak 60–375. The seal is said to be at Peshawar Museum in Pakistan. Unfortunately I
have not been able to cinfirm this information.
One of the first more obvious physical evidence on a pair of stirrups entirely of iron
is from Nanjing in China. They are dated to the years 322. China is therefore usually as-
sumed to be the site of the origin of modern stirrups.
Additionally the Russian scientist L.R. Kyzlasov found similar metal stirrups in
graves at southern Siberia, which may be earlier than the Chinese. The art of making
bronze and taming horses were known in the area, and only later spread to China. Myth-
ical people such as the Scythians or the Sarmatians, are said to have invented the leather
saddle in the 200's and it seems likely that they also developed stirrups. Proof of stirrups
is also from the Altai Mountains in the same part of Asia (see map). The finds are dated
to 500 AD.
As the reader have noticed, the stirrup emergence is partly a mysterious story.
The stirrup’s advent in Europe
One should distinguish between different ethnic groups awareness of the stirrup, occa-
sional use of it and full use of it. Bear this in mind as we go through some facts:
Perhaps the first evidence of stirrups in Europe is found in the Achen cathedral (see
the map). It is about images in ivory by Emperor Constantine on a horse wearing stir-
rups. They date back to the late 500s.
Stirrups of iron are mentioned in the Byzantine war guide Strategicon by some dated
to 582–602 (and others to 630). Probably spread the stirrup to Byzantine (Eastern Ro-
man Empire) from the Avars (who maybe came from Juan-juan people of the Mongoli-
an Empire). They came to Europe mainly from the area northeast of Black Sea and ar-
15
rived in Pannonia (now Hungary) in 561. There they met the Lombards and it is said
that these two peoples began to work together to keep other teams at bay. Presumably
the stirrup was transferred from Avars to the Lombards?
We know that the Lombards in 568 began to move from Pannonia to Italy and that
they had stirrups. But when exactly they started using them is unclear. A pair of bronze
was found in a tomb at the Palace Trosino in Italy. The first half of the 600's may be a
reasonable dating of this find.
According to Al-Mubarrad, the Arab general al-Muhallab in 694, had ordered stir-
rups of iron to its army during the war against the Azrakits. From where the Arabs
learned of the stirrup is unclear. Any connection with the Lombards have not revealed
in the sources. Probably it came from any equestrian people in central Asia, perhaps the
Huns, Avars, Mongols, Sarmatians or Kushans. It is known that al-Muhallab had made
raids as far away as India, which is probably where the stirrup got birth.
According to the Swedish archaeological material stirrups was to became commonly
used in the times of the Vikings. In the boat grave III in Vendel, Uppland, a stirrup of
iron was found. That may be the oldest in Sweden. Birgit Arrhenius dated it to 720–750
and Holger Arbman to around 800. However, there is a note made by Hjalmar Stolpe
and Ture Arne, who examined the boat graves at Vendel in the late 1800s, on a stirrup
of wood in the boat grave XIV. The tomb dates back to the 600s. The wood is not pre-
served, but the iron fittings, which are said to have been part of the design remains.
So where do we land regarding the question? Probably the stirrup was first used only
to get up on the horse (compare the name stirrup) but it was when people started to use
double stirrups in combination with rigid saddle that the whole concept was perfected.
Using stirrups without rigid saddle would lead to high pressure on the horse.
We know one thing: The stirrup was not dispersed on a broad front during the 600's,
but once it got spread, probably in the 700s’ latter half, it got a significant impact in so-
ciety. It is highly probable that the stirrup was spread by the mounted peoples from the
Eurasian steppe, and that it reached Europe on a broad front.
The point in this theory is not the stirrup per se, but that the stirrup affected society in
a way that paved the way to the industrial revolution and modern society.
Alternative hypothesis: Variety, water and meetings
All those presented answers to the question are certainly carriers of some truth. Of
course, it was combinations of different factors that made Europe. But if I must select
the most important factor, I disagree with all of the answers that have been discussed
above. I would rather highlight a new hypothesis: It were meetings between people with
a certain and different desire, cultural background and particularly complementary skills
that more than anything else generated major development steps. Additionally, these
meetings were made possible through rivers and streams. If we look carefully at other
continents many rivers have waterfalls and other obstacles that hinder transport. In con-
16
trast, Europe was like a blood system of rivers and water areas, and these were naviga-
ble.
In my perspective, such phenomena as technology development or innovation were
not the causes of success, but rather the consequences of successful meetings in which
ideas from people with different perspectives come together to form new intellectual
formations. Let me elaborate:
The creation of a prosperous civilization like Europe can be viewed with the old "Ri-
cardoan perspective", i.e. that some regions have comparative advantages in terms of
specific natural resources (see Ricardo 1917, Svedberg, 1994). But the creation of a civ-
ilization can also be seen as a matter of constructed advantages (see Forays & Freeman
1993, de la Mothe & Mallory 2003, Leydesdorff, Cooke & Olazaran 2002, Eriksson
2005, 2006). In contrast to the benefits given by nature the new competitiveness is
about the ability to create own benefits through developing of skills.
My thesis is that specific types of meetings play a significant role in the design of
”constructed advantages”, i.e. for great achievements. But my view is at the same time
that the vast majority of meetings do not lead further, but many times is a waste of re-
sources. So it is only some meetings and meeting venues, which we assume to be carrier
of the positive energy.
This theory is related to the question what got Europe to rice. But I think the discus-
sion is also interesting in a modern and more concrete perspective. I see a connection to
the research about knowledge transfer and knowledge flows (compare Carlsson, 2010).
Not least the theory is about interactive knowledge and idea sharing, and the melting to-
gether of different knowledge and idea components. That is not the same as disseminat-
ing or transfer.
To sum up: The most important factor, I presume, is a factor that is part of the speci-
ficity of Europe if we compare the continent (in history) with other parts of the world:
The combination of on the one hand diversity of knowledge, languages, religions, cul-
tures, states, industrial specialization, etc. and on the other hand, good communication
routes (notably rivers and sea water and later roads and railways). There was also a will-
ingness to share experiences and impulses. According to this hypothesis, it was inspir-
ing meetings between varieties of cultural sub-worlds that gave rise to the European de-
velopment. By cultural I here not least mean knowledge cultures.
I have traced the origin of this idea, to Tägil et al (1977) and Jonsson et al (2007).
However, these references primarily have a conflict perspective. In an earlier research
project we have tried to transform their approach to a more pronounced focus on the
positive dynamics (Frankelius & Vogel, 2009). The logic of this is that both knowledge
transfer and innovation are fuelled by cross-fertilizing meetings between different
knowledge and idea cultures. In the mentioned Frankelius-Vogel-book we developed a
theoretical model on the described process.
17
Synthesis
Besides discussion about different theories and factors a synthesis is probably the best
answer to the research question in this paper. Besides that I have only touched upon
some of the hypothesis discussed in the research literature. Other lines of thinking re-
garding factors behind the development of Europe are:
! Agriculture (three shift agriculture system, development of the iron plough, village
community organization)
! Free trade (liberal politics)
! Gutenberg (that stimulated knowledge diffusion and flow of market information
(Simon's cave)
! The Scientific Method (Bacon)
! Limited company form and joint-stock companies (paved the way for risk reduction)
! The banking system
! High-Level practical business knowledge development and diffusion (Bologna)
! Higher education systems, Humboldt, etc.
Besides the fact that I have only discussed some of the many theories addressing an-
swers to the Europe-question, I must underline that there of course are many connec-
tions between theories. Let me just point at one such connection: The one between
North and Schumpeter.
People need incentives to engage in value adding activities, especial in innovation
context because of the most often high level of achievement as well as level of risk.
Some value creation activities, such as certain innovations, are more demanding than
others and require probably more incentives. A society with legal institutions, not least
protection of ownership to the results from these achievements, has more incentives
than societies without such institutions.
Incentives are important for innovators, but also for funders of innovative processes.
A historical example is the DNA technology. In the technology's early years were ven-
ture capitalists reluctant. Few of the small science-based firms got high amounts of ven-
ture capital for developing visions based on the new molecular biology. Private ven-cap
firms such as Kleiner & Perkins reasoned that it was associated with too high risk to
commit multi-million dollar resources for projects whose results were uncertain as to
whether they would succeed, and were unsure when it comes to maintaining the right of
them. In other words, it was not known if they had a legislative basis for claiming own-
ership of the modified genes and the products these genes would provide.
With hindsight, we know that billions of dollars later channelled to biotechnology ar-
eas. When was the turning point? Some obervers mention the court decision regarding a
patent application filed in 1972 by Ananda Chakrabarty, a microbiologist then at Gen-
eral Electric. Chakrabarty had developed a new bacterium that could break down oil.
The opportunity in this was unambiguous but the question was whether the investment
could be protected by patents. After many trips to different courts came as an outcome
18
of the court that it was OK with patent protection. It was only then venture capital is
flowing into this and other projects in the then young and emerging field of DNA.
The key issue is how institutions related to property rights (especially patents and
copyright) affects or could affect the behaviour of people running in (or not running in)
to innovative processes, and the ones are considering investing time and resources in
their visions. See table 1. While North focused on 1 and 2, this analysis had a focus on
3, especially with patents and copyrights.
Table 1. Borderland of institutions and innovation.
Institutions
Property rights
Other institutions
Normal business
1
2
Innovative processes
3
4
It’s good to have in mind that all performances are not as great. It costs maybe not as
much energy to write a mediocre blog text about the latest restaurant visit as to create a
song like Björn and Bennys "The Winner Takes It All" or Verdi's opera piece "The
Prisoner’s Choir". The key policy question is how many of the talented people are will-
ing and able to invest time and money in the original and elaborate creations in a future
world if property rights are relegated to history books. There are indications that proper-
ty rights are loosening it's position in society. The so-called Pirate Party in Sweden is
but one indication of this shift in attitudes regarding property rights.
I think we have touched an interesting area for future research. Let me explain: In the
preface of Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance writes North,
"The specification of exactly what institutions are, how they differ from organizations
and how they influence transaction and production costs is the key to much of the anal-
ysis" (p. 12). He continues: "The main focus of this study is the problem of human in-
teraction – in particular the synergy that makes it possible for economies to reap the
commercial gains that were the key to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations”. Given that it
is in the preface it reflects his focus.
In his other book – as the first item of importance of the institutions – he writes: "In-
stitutions reduce uncertainties by providing structure to everyday life" (North, 1990, p.
17, free interpretation). My interpretation is that the "everyday life" that is the focus, i.e.
production and business in the "circular flow" (if I may borrow a term from Schumpet-
er). He focuses not innovative, creative investments and extraordinary entrepreneurial
activity. Therefore we have an interesting research topic to explore deeper.
19
I am now ready to summarize the map of theories discussed in this paper. Consider
Diagram 4. There I have put in also theories that were not treated in this paper. I well-
come feedback from the reader regarding how this map should be outlined.
Diagram 4. Preliminary overview of theories regarding the most important factor that was behind “the
European phenomenon”.
Conclusion
Asia was long the dominant part of the world. Europe however was a small, primitive,
uninteresting and undeveloped corner of the world. But this corner did a remarkable ad-
vance and was to become the most significant part of the world politically, economical-
ly and culturally. How did that happen? What was it that the made the European conti-
nent develop so fast towards prosperity?
20
The issue has been discussed and various theories have been presented. Karl Marx
and many economic historians have pointed to the industrial revolution as a general
process driven by labour and capital. Joseph Schumpeter pointed at a few brilliant en-
trepreneurs that generated innovations. Max Weber believed that the Protestant ethic
was the main reason for development. Douglass North argued instead that the institu-
tions, and not least the property rights (and protection), best explains the progress. Jared
Diamond wrote that the development of society depended on war-making, natural re-
sources and colonised ecosystems. The bold Lynn White put forward the thesis that the
advent of the stirrup into Europe laid the foundation for the development of societal
structures, which im turn shaped modern Europe.
But there is something else that characterized Europe: The combination of at the one
hand great diversity in terms of research, languages, religions, governments, industrial
specialization, etc. and on the other hand, good communication routes (rivers and seas,
and later roads and railways) that made creative meetings possible. Have in mind that
almost all major cities are located by the side of rivers, often at the crossroad of differ-
ent (water) communication routes. As far as I can see this “variety-water-meeting” theo-
ry is not common in present literature.
The contribution of this research is twofold. First, an overview on theories regarding
the overall development of Europe has been presented. Second, two quite new or odd
hypotheses have been discussed. They can probably stimulate a new creative discussion
regarding useful formula for future development of the European continent in the light
of expanded global competition.
The research presented most of all is of historical and theoretical interest. However I
think some of the discussed themes also are mirrored in modern life, and can have mod-
ern implications for today’s world. Unlike whole civilizations we can for example dis-
cuss cross-fertilising of cultures by means of meetings of more local character. Let us
take an example from a bit later in history. What was it in the Vienna culture before the
turn of the last century that made so many advances? What was the role of meetings and
café life (compare Janik & Toulmin 1973, Ambjörnsson Others 1986). When one today
visit places like Café Museum in Vienna, one almost can hear the walls telling about all
fruitful exchanges and dialogues that occurred in this environment.
Arenas for meetings are not just about continents, countries and cities. They may also
consist of specific activities. As we approach such analysis we become more specific.
Fashion chain Benetton is an example of a long-term successful organization
(Frankelius 2003). There seems to be something special in Benetton's own university
Fabrica that makes such great performance possible. Their multicultural workshops
seems to explain the positive performance, because the meeting among different perspe-
cives boost creativity. I have made more case studies on high-performance environ-
ments, and I think that cultural variety combined with systematic meeting processes is
part of the success secrets.
If the theory holds, there can be implications for modern policy-making and for such
things as the management of universities. Should we work harder for safeguarding re-
spect between academics and practitioners, between different kinds of academics and
21
between different people in general? Should we work more on variety instead of "pro-
files"? Should we focus more on professional meeting arenas and meeting processes?
References
Ambjörnsson, R., K. Thörn, E. Sellberg, M. Nyman, L. Andersson, L. Olausson & N.
Runeby (1986). Från Aten till Los Angeles: Idéhistoriska miljöer. Malmö and
Stockholm: Liber-Hermods, Bra Böcker and Utbildningsradion.
Carlsson, Bo (2010). The Creation and Dissemination of Knowledge in High-Tech-
Industry Clusters. Paper presented at the 2010 annual SNEE conference, May 18–
21. Grand Hotel in Mölle.
de la Mothe, J. & G. Mallory (2003). Industry-government relations in a knowledge-
based economy: The role of constructed advantage. PRIME Discussion Paper 02–
03. University of Ottawa: Program of Research in Innovation Management &
Economy.
Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, germs, and steel. New York: Norton.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.
Foray, D. & C. Freeman (1993), Technology and the wealth of nations: The dynamics of
constructed advantage. London: Pinter.
Frankelius, P. & Vogel, O. (Eds.) (2009). Värdeskapande möten (Value-creating meet-
ings). Malmö and Stockholm: Liber and The Knowledge Foundation (KK-
stiftelsen)
Frankelius, P. (2003). Så bygger man ett företag. Fallet Benetton – nytänkande på flera
fronter. Entreprenör, No. 3, pp. 44–45.
Frankelius, Per and Charlotte, Hedenstierna Jonson (2010). Stigbygeln: Uppfinningen
som erövrade världen (The stirrup: The invention that conquered the world). Vet-
enskap & Historia, No. 4, pp. 66–71.
Janik, A. & S. Toulmin (1973). Wittgenstein’s Vienna. Chicago/New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Jonsson, Christer; Sven Tägil, and Gunnar Törnqvist (2007). Europa Quo Vadis? Inte-
gration och splittring i tid och rum. Stockholm: SNS.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den
Konjunkturzyklus (andra upplagan). 2. München och Leipzig: Duncker & Hum-
blot. Observera den nytillkomna undertiteln.
Schumpeter, Joseph (1926). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung: Eine Unter-
suchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den
Konjunkturzyklus (andra upplagan). 2. München och Leipzig: Duncker & Hum-
blot.
Leydesdorff, L., P. Cooke & M. Olazaran (2002). Technology transer in European re-
gions: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 27,
No. 1, p. 5–13.
White, Jr., Lynn Townsend (1962). Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Maddison, A. (2001). The world economy: A millennial perspective. Paris: OECD.
22
Marx, Karl (1887). Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie. Hamburg: Verlag
von Otto Meissner (Eng. edition. 1887, Moscow: Progress Publishers.)
Myhrman, Johan (1993). Foreword. In Douglass North: Institutionerna, tillväxten och
välståndet, Stockholm: SNS, p. 10.
Nietzsche, Friedrich.(1881). Morgenröthe. Gedanken über die moralischen Vorurtheile.
Chemnitz: Verlag von Ernst Schmeitzner.
North, Douglass C. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History. New York:
Norton.
North, Douglass C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Perfor-
mance. ew York: Norton.
North, Douglass C. and Robert P. Thomas (1973). The rise of the Western world: A new
economic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ricardo, David (1817). On the principles of political economy and taxation. Kitchener,
Ont.: Batoche.
Rosenberg, N & L. E. Birdzell(1986). How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Trans-
formation of the Industrial World. Basic Books, New York.
Ruttan, Vernon W. (1959). Uscher and Schumpeter on invention, innovations, and tech-
nological change. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 73, nr 4, 1959, s. 596–606.
Salter, W.E.G. (1960). Productivity and Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1908). Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Na-
tionalokonomie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1912). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Leipzig: Ver-
lag von Duncker & Humblot. Engelsk upplaga 1934: The Theory of Economic
Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1939). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statisti-
cal Analysis of the Capitalist Process (Vol. 1 and 2). NewYork: McGraw Hill.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. NewYork:
George Allen and Unwin.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1912). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (Eng. edition:
The Theory of Economic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934.)
Svedberg, J. (1994). Praktisk politik och teorin om komparativa fördelar.
Licentiatavhandling. Stockholms universitet, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen.
Tägil, Sven; Kristian Gerner, Göran Henrikson, Rune Johansson, Ingemar Oldberg and
Kim Solomon (1977). Studying Boundary Conflicts. Stockholm: Esselte Studium.
Usher, Abbot Payson (1929). A History of Mechanical Inventions. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Weber, Max (1934). Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. Tübing-
en: Mohr.
