The features of choosing an institutional development trajectory in Eastern Europe in the 16th—17th centuries: Moscovy and the Polish — Lithuanian Commonwealth
Recent decades have witnessed an increase in the number of works dedicated to the analysis of effects of historical events on the choice of institutions and further economic and social development of regions. This article employs the new institutional economic theory approach to consider the choices regarding title to land and serfdom in Moscovy and the Polish — Lithuanian Commonwealth (earlier the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) in the 16th—17th centuries. The author emphasizes the factors, which affected the choice of institutional development trajectory, and considers the influence exerted by these institutes on the political and military development of these states. This article shows how the contingent property rights in Moscovy turned out to be competitive in the conditions of a considerable contribution of decentralization factors to defence capacity and, opposite to the situation in the Polish — Lithuanian Commonwealth, ensured the formation of large and efficient troops. This work contributes to the research on the property rights and Russian economic history.
1. Nunn, N. 2009, The Importance of History for Economic Development, Annual Review of Economics, no. 1, p. 65—92.
2. Greif, A. 1996, Micro Theory and Recent Developments in the Study of Economic Institutions Through Economic History, Stanford Economics Working Paper, no. 96—001, available at: http://www.ecsocman.edu.ru/data/070/766/1216/9611132.pdf (accessed 20 December 2010).
3. Vdovin, М. S. Modelirovanie zakrepowenija krest'jan v Moskovskom carstve [Modeling the enslavement of the peasants in Muscovy], available at: http://issuu.com/mikevdovin/docs/ (accessed 20 December 2010).
4. Diakonov, М. А. 1908, Ocherki obwestvennogo i gosudarstvennogo stroja
Drevnej Rusi [Essays on social and political system of ancient Russia], Saint Petersburg.
5. Vernadsky, G. 1945, On Some Parallel Trends in Russian and Turkish History, Transactions of Connecticut Academy of Arts an Sciences, Vol. 36, p. 24—36.
6. Whipper, R. G. 1944, Ivan Groznyj [Ivan the Terrible], Moscow.
7. Krizhanich, Yu. 1997, Politika [Policy], Moscow.
8. Nefedov, S. А. 2002, Reformy Ivana III i Ivana IV: osmanskoe vlijanie [Reforms of Ivan III and Ivan IV: Ottoman influence], Voprosy istorii, no. 11, p. 30—53.
9. Foscarini, М. 1991, Rassuzhdenija o Moskovii [Speculations about Muscovy].
In: Inostrancy o drevnej Moskve [Foreigners of ancient Moscow], Moscow.
10. Fletcher, D. 1906, O gosudarstve Russkom [On the Russian State], Saint Petersburg.
11. Domar, E. 1970, The causes of slavery or serfdom: a hypothesis, Journal of Economic History, p. 18—32.
12. Latov, Yu. V. 2004, Vlast'-sobstvennost' v srednevekovoj Rossii [Powerproperty in medieval Russia], Ekonomicheskij vestnik Rostovskogo gosudarstven nogo universiteta=TERRA ECONOMICUS, Vol. 2, no. 4, p. 111—133, available at:http://sfedu.ru/evjur/data/2004/journal2.4.pdf (accessed 20 December 2010).
13. Doroshenko, V. 1974, Trade and agrarian development in the Baltic provinvs 15th—19th centuries, Tallin.
14. Skazkin, S. D. 1958, Osnovnye problemy tak nazyvaemogo «vtorogo izdanija krepostnichestva» v Srednej i Vostochnoj Evrope [The main problem of the so-called "second edition of serfdom" in Central and Eastern Europe], Voprosy istorii, no. 2, p. 96—119.
15. Doroshenko, V. V. 1960, Ocherki agrarnoj istorii Latvii v XVI veke [Essays on the agrarian history of Latvia in the XVI century], Riga.
16. Penskoi, V. V. 2010, Velikaja ognestrel'naja revoljucija [Great bullet revolution], Moscow.