David S. Landes (1924–2013)
Author of The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some are So Rich and Some So Poor
About the Author
David S. Landes was born in Brooklyn, New York on April 29, 1924. He graduated from the City College of New York in 1942. He received a master's degree in history in 1943 and a Ph.D. in history in 1953 from Harvard University. During World War II, he was drafted into the Army and was assigned to show more the Signal Corps because he had been taking mail-order courses in cryptanalysis. He worked on deciphering Japanese messages about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. He later worked on a history of German preparations for the invasion of Normandy. His dissertation, Bankers and Pashas: International Finance and Economic Imperialism in Egypt, became his first book. His other works included Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor, and Dynasties: Fortunes and Misfortunes of the World's Great Family Businesses. He taught at numerous universities during his lifetime including Columbia University, the University of California at Berkeley, and Harvard University, where he retired in 1996. He died on August 17, 2013 at the age of 89. (Bowker Author Biography) show less
Image credit: L'historien américain David Landes à Paris en décembre 1987
Works by David S. Landes
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some are So Rich and Some So Poor (1998) 1,879 copies, 20 reviews
Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World (1983) — Author — 559 copies, 3 reviews
The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (1969) 337 copies
The Invention of Enterprise: Entrepreneurship from Ancient Mesopotamia to Modern Times (2010) — Editor — 73 copies
Dinasztiák 1 copy
Associated Works
Le capitalisme familial, logiques et trajectoires [Actes de la journée d'études de Besançon du 17 janvier 2002] (2004) — Afterword — 1 copy
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Canonical name
- Landes, David S.
- Legal name
- Landes, David Saul
- Birthdate
- 1924-04-29
- Date of death
- 2013-08-17
- Gender
- male
- Education
- City College of New York (AB | 1942)
Harvard University (MA | 1943 | PhD | 1953) - Occupations
- professor
economic historian - Organizations
- Harvard University
University of California, Berkeley
Columbia University
Economic History Association
Society for French Historical Studies
Economic History Society (President, 1976-77) (show all 13)
Societe d'Histoire Moderne
Association for the Study of Middle East and Africa
American Historical Association
Koninklijke Academie van Belgie
Accadémia dei Lincei
Gesellschaft für Sozial-und Wirtschaftgeschichte
United States Army (1943-1946) - Awards and honors
- British Academy (Corresponding Fellow, 1977)
Royal Historical Society (Fellow)
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Fellow, 1967)
American Philosophical Society (Fellow, 1982)
National Academy of Sciences (1983)
Academia Europaea (1997) (show all 8)
Leonardo da Vinci Prize (2004)
Prix Européen du Livre d'Economie (First Laureate, 2000) - Agent
- Sandra Dijkstra Literary Agency
- Relationships
- Landes, Richard Allen (son)
Postan, M. M. (teacher)
McKay, Donald C. (teacher)
Cole, Arthur H. (teacher)
Usher, A. P. (teacher)
Landes, Sonia (wife) - Short biography
- David Landes received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1953. He taught economics at Columbia University (1952-58) and economics and history at the University of California, Berkeley (1958-64) before returning to Harvard as a professor of history in 1964. He has taught at Harvard ever since as professor of history (1964-72), Roy B. Williams Professor of History and Politics (1972-75), Robert Walton Gallet Professor of French History (1975-81) and Coolidge Professor of History (1981-1997), Emeritus (1997-). Early on, Dr. Landes established his reputation through studies on nineteenth century French and German banking, the best known of which was a study of French investment in Egypt. He is the author of numerous books, including The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe, 1750 to the Present (1969), The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (1998), Revolution in Time (2000), and Fortunes and Misfortunes of the World's Great Family Businesses (2006). In addition to his distinguished career at Harvard, Dr. Landes also presided over the Economic History Association and chaired the Council on Research in Economic History. He was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society in 1982. David Landes died August 17, 2013, at the age of 89 in Haverford, Pennsylvania.
- Nationality
- USA
- Birthplace
- New York, New York, USA
- Places of residence
- Haverford, Pennsylvania, USA
- Place of death
- Haverford, Pennsylvania, USA
- Map Location
- USA
Members
Reviews
Despite the title, this isn't a book about why, say Botswana is doing so much better than Zimbabwe these days due to such and such a policy or Germany versus Greece or practical advice on how the poor countries can turn things around and the rich countries help them. It's more descriptive than prescriptive. Rather it's a world economic history that deals with forces centuries, even millennium old. I appreciated that Landes wasn't afraid to be controversial; he takes dead aim at all forms of show more political correctness, multiculturalist cant, and such theories as those found in Said's Orientalism. Looking at other reviews, some complain Landes is too Eurocentric. Given the theme of the book, the wealth and poverty of nations, I can't blame him much. It's like that old joke about robbing banks--you go where the money is. Mind you, he seems to me to be not just Eurocentric but Anglocentric--although again, it does tie into his theory given Britain was arguably ground zero for the Industrial Revolution. And that is definitely at the center of his answer to the question posed in his subtitle concerning nations: why some are so rich and some so poor.
The book did leave me with questions. Landes begins with an analysis of geography. On the North/South axis, Landes believes the difference between tropical and temperate regions are crucial. But if that's so, why didn't North America develop a technologically sophisticated culture before contact with the West? Why then would the most impressive indigenous civilizations in the Americas rise out of jungles, such as the Mayans and the Incas? It's not a question asked in the book, which doesn't deal with the Americas until the era of exploration and colonization. Though to give Landes his due, Eurocentric doesn't mean triumphalist or apologist. If for whatever reason, you're ignorant of the atrocities committed by Europeans in the Americas or of the savagery of the Atlantic Slave Trade, Landes will certainly provide an education. (Especially when it comes to the Spanish Conquistadors. Landes is not kind to Catholicism or Islam, which he sees as stultifying upholders of dogma.) When Landes comes to examine the East/West axis, he sees as crucial the differences in property rights and development of markets. I'd be the last person to dismiss such factors out of hand, yet Landes' thesis as to the definitive factor that gave rise to the differences did raise both eyebrows:
Europe's great good fortune lay in the fall of Rome and the weakness and division that ensued. (So much for the lamentations of generations of classicists and Latin teachers.) The Roman dream of unity, authority, and order (the pax Romana) remained, indeed has persisted to the present.... [yet] fragmentation was the strongest brake on wilful, oppressive behavior. Political rivalry and the right of exit made all the difference.
Really? Because I do find it hard to believe the fall of Rome wasn't a tragedy for the West. Ancient Rome at its height is estimated to have had a population of one million. After its fall, no city, in Europe at least, would hit that threshold until London in 1811. Trade, literacy, urbanization all collapsed in the former Western Empire and arguably wouldn't fully recover for nearly a millennium. I do get Landes' point that authoritarian empires could do much to cripple technological and economic progress, but that still seemed a rather breathtaking claim. It is key to his theory however. Because if for Landes the key to the wealth of nations is the Industrial Revolution, the key to the Industrial Revolution is a culture of scientific inquiry and invention spurred on by a rivalry between nations, allowed room to breathe by a fragmented authority and fostered by a strong work ethic. (He sees this fragmented authority and work ethic as crucial in the rise of an industrial Japan as well.) In the end, geography isn't destiny, for according to Landes it's "not resources" that made the difference between nations but what "lay inside--culture, values, initiative." (And a constant related thread--the importance to growth and development of the "status and role of women" and the rights of minorities--Jews in history often being the canary in the coal mine.)
This work is erudite, entertaining, thought-provoking and written with style. (The kind of book that stretches vocabularies so have a dictionary handy.) The author is apparently an American, but he has a dry, at times acid, often deadpan humor I associate with the British. It's also hard not to respect a book that garners praise, as seen in the blurbs, from such celebrated yet ideologically diverse economists as John Kenneth Galbraith and Robert Solow. Landes himself, for all that he stresses the importance of property rights, is far from free market--he made frequent stabs, if not arguments, at free traders. I saw one reviewer that claimed this book was taught as an example of flawed historiography. Maybe so, but it's not evident to me. I appreciated that Landes often related the various controversies in the field, and there are extensive notes and bibliography. It seemed sound and told a great story. So many of the connections Landes made are fascinating; the breath of the technological and social details he presented and global scope he took in was impressive. It's a book well worth reading and thinking about. show less
The book did leave me with questions. Landes begins with an analysis of geography. On the North/South axis, Landes believes the difference between tropical and temperate regions are crucial. But if that's so, why didn't North America develop a technologically sophisticated culture before contact with the West? Why then would the most impressive indigenous civilizations in the Americas rise out of jungles, such as the Mayans and the Incas? It's not a question asked in the book, which doesn't deal with the Americas until the era of exploration and colonization. Though to give Landes his due, Eurocentric doesn't mean triumphalist or apologist. If for whatever reason, you're ignorant of the atrocities committed by Europeans in the Americas or of the savagery of the Atlantic Slave Trade, Landes will certainly provide an education. (Especially when it comes to the Spanish Conquistadors. Landes is not kind to Catholicism or Islam, which he sees as stultifying upholders of dogma.) When Landes comes to examine the East/West axis, he sees as crucial the differences in property rights and development of markets. I'd be the last person to dismiss such factors out of hand, yet Landes' thesis as to the definitive factor that gave rise to the differences did raise both eyebrows:
Europe's great good fortune lay in the fall of Rome and the weakness and division that ensued. (So much for the lamentations of generations of classicists and Latin teachers.) The Roman dream of unity, authority, and order (the pax Romana) remained, indeed has persisted to the present.... [yet] fragmentation was the strongest brake on wilful, oppressive behavior. Political rivalry and the right of exit made all the difference.
Really? Because I do find it hard to believe the fall of Rome wasn't a tragedy for the West. Ancient Rome at its height is estimated to have had a population of one million. After its fall, no city, in Europe at least, would hit that threshold until London in 1811. Trade, literacy, urbanization all collapsed in the former Western Empire and arguably wouldn't fully recover for nearly a millennium. I do get Landes' point that authoritarian empires could do much to cripple technological and economic progress, but that still seemed a rather breathtaking claim. It is key to his theory however. Because if for Landes the key to the wealth of nations is the Industrial Revolution, the key to the Industrial Revolution is a culture of scientific inquiry and invention spurred on by a rivalry between nations, allowed room to breathe by a fragmented authority and fostered by a strong work ethic. (He sees this fragmented authority and work ethic as crucial in the rise of an industrial Japan as well.) In the end, geography isn't destiny, for according to Landes it's "not resources" that made the difference between nations but what "lay inside--culture, values, initiative." (And a constant related thread--the importance to growth and development of the "status and role of women" and the rights of minorities--Jews in history often being the canary in the coal mine.)
This work is erudite, entertaining, thought-provoking and written with style. (The kind of book that stretches vocabularies so have a dictionary handy.) The author is apparently an American, but he has a dry, at times acid, often deadpan humor I associate with the British. It's also hard not to respect a book that garners praise, as seen in the blurbs, from such celebrated yet ideologically diverse economists as John Kenneth Galbraith and Robert Solow. Landes himself, for all that he stresses the importance of property rights, is far from free market--he made frequent stabs, if not arguments, at free traders. I saw one reviewer that claimed this book was taught as an example of flawed historiography. Maybe so, but it's not evident to me. I appreciated that Landes often related the various controversies in the field, and there are extensive notes and bibliography. It seemed sound and told a great story. So many of the connections Landes made are fascinating; the breath of the technological and social details he presented and global scope he took in was impressive. It's a book well worth reading and thinking about. show less
What keeps one coming back to the same book for years or even decades?
I can think of two books I’ve read and re-read for years; Sunset Song by Lewis Grassic Gibbon and Revolution in Time by David S. Landes. It’s this second book I’ve been thinking about again after reading a blog post about early mechanical clocks
“Frère Jacques, frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous
Sonnez les matines! Sonnez les matines!
Ding, daing, dong. Ding, daing, dong.”
I first stumbled across show more Revolution in Time around 1985 while exploring the nether regions of the Dundee University library. I found the opening of the book fascinating as it explained the need to measure time more precisely in late medieval Europe. Unlike Islam or Judaism, the Roman branch of Christianity (particularly the Benedictine rule) held offices at fixed times of day rather than during bands of time around sunrise, noon and sunset that can be assessed without a timekeeper. The monastic day or (Horarium) revolved around the eight canonical hours that would begin at midnight with the service of Matins followed by the morning office of Lauds at 3:00am.
While most of Europe in the middle ages lived an agrarian lifestyle regulated by the natural day, the Religious were subject to fixed times in each day and during the long dark winter nights. Given those conditions one can understand the anxiety about Brother John sleeping-in and not ringing the matins bell. They needed a reliable way to divide up the day.
It’s an interesting diversion to reflect on the fact that methods of telling the time elsewhere in the world don’t work well in Northern Europe. Water (clocks) freezes and sundials work best when one can be more confident of clear skies.
Revolution in Time tells a number of separate, but related, stories:
• The magnificent dead-end that was timekeeping in ancient China.
• The birth of mechanical timekeeping in medieval Europe.
• The race to fing the longitude and the story of John Harrison’s clocks.
• The history of the clock and watchmaking industry — for me, the least interesting part of the book.
I have travelled nearly 30 years with this book and will keep coming back to it because there is so much material to take in and Landes is a good story teller. Since first reading the book I’ve been lucky enough to visit some of the earliest clocks in Europe; theastronomical clock in Exeter CathedraL and the turret clock at Cotehele. It was fascinating to see that these are not precisely-engineered creations butmachines that have run for 500 or 600 years.
This is not just the story of instruments to measure time and break up the day into regular chunks. It’s the story that led to the industrial revolution and the modern world. show less
I can think of two books I’ve read and re-read for years; Sunset Song by Lewis Grassic Gibbon and Revolution in Time by David S. Landes. It’s this second book I’ve been thinking about again after reading a blog post about early mechanical clocks
“Frère Jacques, frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous
Sonnez les matines! Sonnez les matines!
Ding, daing, dong. Ding, daing, dong.”
I first stumbled across show more Revolution in Time around 1985 while exploring the nether regions of the Dundee University library. I found the opening of the book fascinating as it explained the need to measure time more precisely in late medieval Europe. Unlike Islam or Judaism, the Roman branch of Christianity (particularly the Benedictine rule) held offices at fixed times of day rather than during bands of time around sunrise, noon and sunset that can be assessed without a timekeeper. The monastic day or (Horarium) revolved around the eight canonical hours that would begin at midnight with the service of Matins followed by the morning office of Lauds at 3:00am.
While most of Europe in the middle ages lived an agrarian lifestyle regulated by the natural day, the Religious were subject to fixed times in each day and during the long dark winter nights. Given those conditions one can understand the anxiety about Brother John sleeping-in and not ringing the matins bell. They needed a reliable way to divide up the day.
It’s an interesting diversion to reflect on the fact that methods of telling the time elsewhere in the world don’t work well in Northern Europe. Water (clocks) freezes and sundials work best when one can be more confident of clear skies.
Revolution in Time tells a number of separate, but related, stories:
• The magnificent dead-end that was timekeeping in ancient China.
• The birth of mechanical timekeeping in medieval Europe.
• The race to fing the longitude and the story of John Harrison’s clocks.
• The history of the clock and watchmaking industry — for me, the least interesting part of the book.
I have travelled nearly 30 years with this book and will keep coming back to it because there is so much material to take in and Landes is a good story teller. Since first reading the book I’ve been lucky enough to visit some of the earliest clocks in Europe; theastronomical clock in Exeter CathedraL and the turret clock at Cotehele. It was fascinating to see that these are not precisely-engineered creations butmachines that have run for 500 or 600 years.
This is not just the story of instruments to measure time and break up the day into regular chunks. It’s the story that led to the industrial revolution and the modern world. show less
A massive account of world political and economic history, from the title setting out to explain why some countries (mainly the West) became wealthy, while most of the tropical "third world" remained poor. The trouble with such attempts is that they often descend to post-facto rationalizing. Almost any factor can be seized to "explain" the differences, and counter-examples can be found for any single cause-and-effect hypothesis. So the book amounts to not much more than a chronicle of show more historical events, with some speculations on the role of religion, on national character, climate and natural resources, and so on. It is difficult even to account for differences between parts of the West: why did the "industrial revolution" develop most robustly in Britain, for example? The author, refreshingly, tend to eschew "political correctness", and calls out deficiencies in the ruling mores and values in society, and challenges attempts to always blame some other entity or force; the positive message being, presumably, that it will be possible for any country or region to pull itself up economically, if policy is oriented to long-term improvement rather than to immediate indulgence in conspicuous consumption. show less
This marvelous book weaves an informative narrative on the history of nations and how they achieved their current(1998) status in the world at large. Thus we hear a lot about the dominance of Japan with their Gemba Kaizen and just-in-time production methods. It also explores a great number of other countries and why they didn't lead the way, so to speak.
For instance, take China. China invented and developed so many things back in the olden days, but never made real use of them. So they show more developed paper and block printing, but where was the literacy back in 1100 AD or so? So they managed to find the uses of Gunpowder, but they didn't find a more efficient formula for cannons and guns. This was all explained by the government and how it stifled creativity and drive for anything. The emperor decided what was good and bad, and a number of toadies decided who got to see the emperor. Even back in the time of Europe's rise to dominance, they did nothing but languish in the past. The thing that broke this was clocks and watches. Everything else was considered foreign trash or old news.
Thus Europe led the way with improved ship building techniques and navigation and such. When they went places they desired knowledge and trade. They wanted dominance too, of course. This was fueled in many ways by how they did things in the mother country. Take Spain for another example. They founded the "New World" and conquered the greatest nations in the Americas. The Aztecs and the Incas had much in terms of gold and silver, but this was a huge detriment to Spain. Since they received all of that specie, they went and bankrupted themselves; several times. This might seem counter-intuitive, but it doesn't actually improve the state of the nation all that much. They rested on their laurels and didn't develop new ways of farming and manufacture. Thus, by the 1600s they were already woefully behind.
Anyway, this book was really good, but somewhat out of date. Still, since it discusses the history of economics, it can be learned from. show less
For instance, take China. China invented and developed so many things back in the olden days, but never made real use of them. So they show more developed paper and block printing, but where was the literacy back in 1100 AD or so? So they managed to find the uses of Gunpowder, but they didn't find a more efficient formula for cannons and guns. This was all explained by the government and how it stifled creativity and drive for anything. The emperor decided what was good and bad, and a number of toadies decided who got to see the emperor. Even back in the time of Europe's rise to dominance, they did nothing but languish in the past. The thing that broke this was clocks and watches. Everything else was considered foreign trash or old news.
Thus Europe led the way with improved ship building techniques and navigation and such. When they went places they desired knowledge and trade. They wanted dominance too, of course. This was fueled in many ways by how they did things in the mother country. Take Spain for another example. They founded the "New World" and conquered the greatest nations in the Americas. The Aztecs and the Incas had much in terms of gold and silver, but this was a huge detriment to Spain. Since they received all of that specie, they went and bankrupted themselves; several times. This might seem counter-intuitive, but it doesn't actually improve the state of the nation all that much. They rested on their laurels and didn't develop new ways of farming and manufacture. Thus, by the 1600s they were already woefully behind.
Anyway, this book was really good, but somewhat out of date. Still, since it discusses the history of economics, it can be learned from. show less
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 15
- Also by
- 2
- Members
- 3,115
- Popularity
- #8,206
- Rating
- 3.8
- Reviews
- 23
- ISBNs
- 108
- Languages
- 15
- Favorited
- 2
