Rural Vulnerability and the Ambiguous Legacy of Capitalism

Reassessing the Impact on Countryside Development in the Transition Period to Capitalism

Author(s)

  • Maïka De Keyzer KU Leuven

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52024/1fsvfw39

Abstract

According to Prak and Van Zanden, land, labor and capital were by the later Middle Ages already primarily allocated through the market. While most scholars have pointed to a century of catastrophes and decline in the eighteenth century, they have focused on the continued growth and market development that took place in this period. While both authors are predominantly urban historians, the countryside plays an important or even defining role in the Dutch evolution toward capitalism. Even though Pioneers of Capitalism provides a wealth of information and points of discussion, I will focus on this aspect in this article. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Maïka De Keyzer, KU Leuven

    Maïka De Keyzer is a senior lecturer in socio-economic and ecological history at KU Leuven. She received her PhD from the University of Antwerp in 2014, with a dissertation on late medieval commons, sustainability, and inclusivity. Since then, her research has focused on the borderlands of economic, social, and ecological history of the pre-modern period. Through an interdisciplinary and comparative approach, De Keyzer investigates the causes and consequences of prosperity, inequality, social resilience, and collective action. Her research currently focuses on two lines of research: firstly, the impact of different social models on the general level of prosperity in the pre-modern period and, secondly, the historical roots of our current drought problem in the Campine region.

Downloads

Published

2024-09-06

Issue

Section

Debate Article

How to Cite

De Keyzer, M. (2024). Rural Vulnerability and the Ambiguous Legacy of Capitalism: Reassessing the Impact on Countryside Development in the Transition Period to Capitalism. TSEG - The Low Countries Journal of Social and Economic History, 21(2), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.52024/1fsvfw39