Published by EH.NET (February 2002)
Geoffrey Poitras, The Early History of Financial Economics, 1478-1776: From
Commercial Arithmetic to Life Annuities and Joint Stocks. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, 2000. x + 522 pp. $120 (cloth), ISBN: 1-84064-455-9.
Reviewed for EH.NET by Salim Rashid, Department of Economics, University of
Illinois.
This book aims at providing an introduction to the history of finance, more
properly financial mechanisms, from the fifteenth through the eighteenth
centuries. Poitras makes no claim to be presenting original research; rather he
is concerned with a synthesis of the historical literature on finance and
economics. Beginning with the nature of Scholastic and ‘Mercantilistic’
economic thought, the text takes us through the institutional changes and the
conceptual developments they fostered over the next four centuries. The
expository plan is easy to follow, since it follows the historical timeline and
stops to describe various institutional changes brought on by the growth of the
European economies.
This book should have a ready market. Many who begin with economics, gravitate
silently to finance and many others have no need of the transition. The easy
exposition and the portrayal of the historical developments make this useful
supplementary reading; with a text of original writings, it could serve as a
good introductory text in the history of finance. The reproductions of several
pages of original text provide the text with an authentic flavor. In most
places, the book has much ‘fun’ stuff to read.
Unfortunately, the author has not written with one audience consistently in
mind. Some aspects of the presentation will lose many potential readers. On
many occasions, the concepts are not introduced clearly. For example, while
there is much discussion of bills of exchange, there is no benchmark
definition. There are two major difficulties with the expository method chosen;
the reader will silently assume that bills of exchange were the same across
Europe at any point in time, and that they remained the same over time. (If
indeed there were no such locational differences or changes over the centuries,
this is a remarkable fact and needs prominence.) In keeping with the purpose of
the book, there should have been actual photographic reproductions of bills of
exchange through the ages. A short numerical example should precede the
definition. Thus: ‘Here is a problem faced by Merchant X in Bruges… In order
to solve this problem, the following piece of paper is drafted as a legally
enforceable document…. This is how the above document solves the problem….
The analytical concepts needed to understand this solution are….’ Students,
and readers like myself, would be much benefited by such pages. To make room
for them, items such as debates about the self-seeking behavior of the Church
could be made into footnotes or appendices. As it stands, the text gives the
impression of someone who began by wanting to write a text on finance, but
found the topic so closely related to the history of economics that he felt
compelled to give equal time to both subjects. This is not fair because finance
has a narrower scope and clearer analytical structure than economics. One does
not have to sacrifice historical detail to achieve analytical clarity. Take the
case of “fixed Income Valuation” on p 146. The first paragraph will not be
necessary for those who know what this involves, while the novice will find it
abrupt and unhelpful. In the middle of the next paragraph there is a clear
definition of the analytical essentials: “Valuation requires knowledge of: the
price, the size of the payment, the time period (term to maturity); and the
interest (discount).” If this sentence were followed by the points made in the
first paragraph on the need to use present values, we would have all the
essentials described. Next, the historical treatment could show us which of
these concepts were known and how they were utilized; finally, we could
appreciate which problems were fully solved and which needed to await further
theoretical development. Such a method would be helpful in many places
throughout the book as, say, the description of “dry exchange” (p. 245).
Models for the general reader do exist. Consider Poitras’ treatment of the
Triple or German contract (pp. 38-40) with that in The Abuse of
Casuistry (Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin, Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1988) — a book whose intended audience is the general
reader. The first move toward a new paradigm was the introduction of a theory
of interest popularly referred to as the “triple contract,” the “German
contract,” or the “5% contract.” It marked a notable departure from the
medieval thesis and opened the way for a modern theory of profit from loans.
The name “triple contract” expressed the essence of the arrangement that Eck
popularized. Partners entered into three distinct contracts with each other.
First there was a contract of partnership, which was considered legitimate by
all commentators. Second, a contract of insurance was signed; under this the
investor was insured against a loss of his capital and, instead of paying a
premium, agreed to accept a lesser percentage of the total profits than would
otherwise come to him. Third, a contract was signed that guaranteed the
investor was a “sort of debenture holder without industry or danger of losing
capital.” This was an attractive form of investment, which provided the active
partner with considerable working capital. Commentators conceded that, if made
with different parties, each of these three contracts would be legitimate, but
most of them doubted the morality of the triple contract between two parties.
(pp. 188-89)
If the author plans a second edition, I hope he will look more at the financial
instruments devised by Islamic finance in the period 800-1400 AD. The growth of
world trade in this period is well covered in books such as those of Janet
Abu-Lughod. The fact that the Italians devised the earliest financial
instruments for Europe may not be unconnected with their close trading
relations with the world of Islam. In looking at financial history, Adam Smith
is less instructive than individuals like Lewes Roberts in the 1640’s and
Malachy Postlethwayt in the 1760’s.
The current “Conclusion” has interesting speculations on what leads to fame in
this area and why the contributions of “Anonymous” should figure largely in a
history of finance. The book should perhaps end with a list of potential topics
for future research. We know that the best mathematicians of this period were
limited to using polynomials, and low order polynomials at that. How accurate
were speculations with low order polynomials? If the speculations were more
successful than we can expect on the basis of the explicit mathematical
knowledge, does this then suggest that humans have much implicit or tacit
knowledge, which they can use but cannot necessarily articulate?
Salim Rashid is author of Economic Policy for Growth: Economic Development
Is Human Development (Kluwer 2000). His recent research asks “Can there be
theory of money?”