“The Great Divide Revisited: Ottoman and Habsburg Legacies on Transition“, by Valentina P. Dimitrova-Grajzl (thanks to Mark Thornton for the link):
“I show that the Habsburg successor states have institutions that are more efficient in a market economy than the Ottoman successor states.”
No surprise to Hoppeans. Sad day for Palmer (see Raico’s Mises and Monarchy; also Cato v. Kaiser and Raico Cleans Tom Palmer’s Clock).Update: Sudha R Shenoy adds:
So the historical research was correct after all:
- D F Good, The Economic Rise of the Hapsburg Monarchy 1750-1914 (Berkeley 1975)
- John Komlos, ed, Economic Development in the Hapsburg Monarchy in the Nineteenth Century (1983)
- John Komlos, The Hapsburg Monarchy as a Customs Union, Economic Development in Austria-Hungary in the Nineteenth Century (Guildford 1983)
- Max-Stephan Schulze, ‘Economic development in the nineteenth-century Hapsburg Empire’, Austrian History Yearbook, vol 38 (1997)
- Halil Inalcik & Donald Quataert, eds, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1914, 2 vols (CUP 1997)
Donald Quataert, Ottoman Manufacturing in the Age of the Industrial Revolution (CUP 1993) - —— , The Ottoman Empire 1700-1922, 2nd ed (CUP 2005)
Michael Palairet, The Balkan Economies c. 1800-1914: Evolution without Development (CUP 1997)
