> I think "pre-industrial" may be a bit of a misnomer here if it implies
> primarily endogenous economic developments. Italy's economic
> situation dropped off drastically in the early 1500s because it was
> completely colonized by France, Spain and Austria, and it stayed so
> for the next three centuries. It was a leading economic zone until
> then. The more ironic story of how Spanish industry was vitiated by
> the river of gold passing through from its colonies is an old one.
> The new world bounty that stimulated England's industry (not least,
> through provisioning) had the opposite effect on Spain. And in
> addition, of course, both Italy and Spain suffered from the new trade
> routes that downgraded the importance of the Mediterranean.
>
> So if I can judge on the basis of such short summaries, this
> difference that Williamson points to seem to support the importance of
> the negative effects of colonialization over differences in
> preindustrial traditions or productivity.
>
I don't see why it would support the "colonization" argument,
except in the sense that wars and invasion disrupted economic
activity. Either way, the debate on the decline of Italy is something
I know next to nothing, but my inclination is that Italy decline
mainly for internal reasons including the fact that the Portuguese
outperformed them in ship design and exploration, and replaced
them in the great entrepot of the spice trade, and Italy decline
relative to others.
