Monasteries as Medieval Land Banks

Monasteries as Medieval Land Banks: A Historical Economic Force

During the tumultuous Middle Ages, monasteries weren't just spiritual havens; they were vital economic engines, functioning in many ways like early land banks. Their stability, vast landholdings, and organized structure allowed them to provide crucial financial services and contribute significantly to agricultural development.

Timeline and Development:

• Early Middle Ages (5th-10th Centuries):
  • Following the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe experienced widespread instability. Monasteries, particularly those following the Benedictine Rule, became centers of stability and learning.
  • They received land grants from nobles and rulers, accumulating substantial estates.
  • Monasteries began to engage in agricultural production, utilizing their organized labor and resources to cultivate their lands efficiently.
• High Middle Ages (11th-13th Centuries):
  • This period saw a rise in monastic wealth and influence.
  • Monasteries became centers of innovation in agriculture, implementing techniques like crop rotation and improved irrigation.
  • They offered loans to farmers and landowners, using their accumulated wealth as capital.
  • They acted as depositories for valuables, providing a safe haven for wealth in a period of insecurity.
  • They managed land for nobles and institutions, handling rents and agricultural production.
• Late Middle Ages (14th-15th Centuries):
• The Black Death and other crises impacted monastic wealth.
• The rise of secular banking institutions gradually diminished the financial role of monasteries.
• The reformation also drastically changed the landscape of monastic power in many areas.

Methods of Land Acquisition:

• Donations:
  • A significant portion of monastic land came from donations by nobles and wealthy individuals seeking spiritual favor or to atone for sins.
  • These donations were often documented and legal.
• Land Management:
  • Monasteries' efficient management of land often led to increased productivity, making them attractive landholders.
  • They might acquire land through agreements or by taking over poorly managed estates.
• During Crises:
  • Periods of war or plague, like the Black Death, created opportunities for land acquisition.
  • Dying landowners might bequeath land to monasteries for spiritual reasons or because there were no heirs.
  • In times of chaos, there could have been instances of less scrupulous land acquisition, but this wasn't the norm.
• The Dissolution of the Monasteries:
  • A notable exception is the Dissolution of the Monasteries in England by Henry VIII in the 16th century. This was a clear case of the crown seizing monastic lands and wealth.
  • This was not, however, a typical monastic practice.

Regarding War and the Black Death:

• Black Death:
  • The Black Death caused massive social and economic upheaval.
  • Many landowners died, and monasteries, due to their relative stability, were often beneficiaries of wills and bequests.
  • The resulting labor shortages also impacted land management, and monasteries with organized labor could fare better.
• War:
• Warfare could lead to land abandonment or damage, creating opportunities for monasteries to acquire land.
• However, monasteries were also vulnerable to attack and plunder during wars.
• It is also important to remember that the church and the Monastic orders were often very powerful in the medieval world, and therefore were often recipients of land and wealth from those seeking to retain favor with the church.

the rise of secular banking:

• Evolution of Financial Practices:
  • Secular banks developed more sophisticated financial instruments and practices, such as bills of exchange and letters of credit, which facilitated long-distance trade and larger-scale transactions.
  • These innovations were often driven by the needs of merchants and traders, who required more flexible and efficient financial services than monasteries typically provided.
• Changing Attitudes Toward Usury:
  • The medieval Church's restrictions on usury (lending money at interest) created limitations for monastic financial activities.
  • As secular society became more commercially oriented, these restrictions gradually loosened, allowing secular banks to operate with greater freedom.
  • The rise of Protestantism also played a role in the changing attitudes towards usury. 
• Growth of Trade and Urbanization:
  • The expansion of trade and the growth of cities created a demand for more specialized financial services, which secular banks were better equipped to provide.
  • Merchants required access to capital, credit, and foreign exchange, which were increasingly offered by secular institutions.
• Political and Economic Shifts:
  • The rise of nation-states and centralized governments led to the development of national financial systems, which often favored secular banks.
  • The accumulation of wealth by merchant families and trading companies provided the capital necessary for the growth of secular banking.
• Increased Specialization:
• Secular banks where able to specialize in finance, where as Monasteries had many other duties to attend to. This specialisation allowed for greater efficiency.

Key Economic Functions:

• Land Management:
  • Monasteries efficiently managed vast estates, maximizing agricultural output.
  • They undertook land reclamation projects, converting swamps and forests into arable land.
  • They contributed to the development of agricultural techniques, promoting innovation.
• Financial Services:
  • They provided loans to farmers and landowners, facilitating agricultural development and economic activity.
  • They acted as depositories for valuables, offering a safe place for storage.
  • They managed rents and financial transactions for nobles and institutions.
• Agricultural Innovation:
  • Monasteries were centers of knowledge and experimentation in agriculture.
  • They introduced new crops and farming techniques, contributing to increased agricultural productivity.
  • Their record keeping aided in the spread of agricultural knowledge.

Sources and Further Reading:

• "The Medieval Economy and Society: An Economic History of Britain, 1100-1500" by M.M. Postan: This book provides a comprehensive overview of the medieval economy, including the role of monasteries.
• "The Benedictines" by David Knowles: This work gives deep insight into the Benedictine order, and their economic impact throughout the middle ages.
• "Life in a Medieval Monastery" by G. G. Coulton: This book gives a good look at the day to day operations of a monastery, and how they managed their economic affairs.
• "The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume 1: The Agrarian Life of the Middle Ages" edited by M.M. Postan: This collection of essays provides in depth analysis of the agricultural practices of the middle ages, and the role of the monasteries.

The economic influence of medieval monasteries was significant, bridging the gap between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of modern banking. They played a vital role in stabilizing the economy, promoting agricultural development, and preserving knowledge during a period of great upheaval.

腦、誘因與平等之幻

 

腦、誘因與平等之幻：警世之言

人腦之運作，趨於效率。恆權衡利弊，求酬報之極大，而力之極小。此根本之理，雖為生存所必需，然亦可致未料之果，如一經濟學教授所述之課堂實驗所見。

該教授自謂未嘗令試生落第，然嘗令全班覆敗。其設一實驗，以證社會主義之實際局限。其生堅信社會主義之固有公平，及求絕對平等，遂允以平均分之制度，保證人人同分。

初試之果，似為可觀。平均得八，貌似公平。然人腦之趨於效率，迅即顯現。勤學者覺其努力不彰，而怠惰者反得酬報。此不均致認知失調，即腦欲解之精神不適。

解此之法，乃行為之轉變。至二試，前之勤學者，見努力與酬報無關，遂減其讀書之時。而初得「饋贈」者，亦無增其力之由。其果：平均分驟降至六。

此況延至三試，平均分直降至四。終，全班覆敗。教授之解甚明：社會主義之純粹形式，損害努力與酬報之根本聯繫。人若覺其勞力將被重分配，則盡力之動機遂減。反之，人若覺不勞而獲，則亦無貢獻之意願。

此實驗雖簡，然顯現誘因對人行為之深遠影響。腦恆求資源分配之最佳化，故回應所感知之酬報結構。若覺努力與酬報分離，則腦自減其力。此非道德之缺失，乃人類認知之根本。

教授之教訓，遠超經濟學之範疇。其強調，設計制度時，無論社會、經濟、教育，皆須明瞭人腦之固有效率。忽視此人性之根本，可致未料之不良後果。以人為重分配求得之絕對平等之幻，終將致整體生產力之衰退，乃至失敗。此警世之言，提醒吾人，明瞭腦對誘因之反應，乃創設促進個人與集體成功之制度之關鍵。

The Brain, Incentives, and the Illusion of Equality

 

The Brain, Incentives, and the Illusion of Equality: A Cautionary Tale

The human brain is wired for efficiency.¹ We are constantly evaluating costs and benefits, seeking to maximize reward while minimizing effort.² This fundamental principle, while essential for survival, can lead to unintended consequences, as illustrated by a compelling classroom experiment recounted by an economics professor.

The professor, who claimed never to have failed an exam but once failed an entire class, designed an experiment to demonstrate the practical limitations of socialism. His students, convinced of socialism's inherent fairness and desire for absolute equality, agreed to a grading system where all scores would be averaged, ensuring everyone received the same grade.

The initial results seemed promising. The first test yielded an average of 8, a seemingly equitable outcome. However, the brain's inherent drive for efficiency quickly took hold. Students who had diligently studied felt their efforts were undervalued, while those who had put in minimal work were rewarded. This disparity created a cognitive dissonance, a mental discomfort that the brain naturally seeks to resolve.

The resolution, in this case, was a shift in behavior. For the second test, the previously diligent students, observing the lack of correlation between effort and reward, reduced their study time. Meanwhile, those who had initially benefited from the "handout" saw no reason to increase their effort. The result: a significant drop in the average grade to 6.

This pattern continued into the third test, with the average plummeting to 4. Ultimately, the entire class failed. The professor's explanation was stark: socialism, in its purest form, undermines the fundamental link between effort and reward. When individuals perceive that their labor will be redistributed, the motivation to exert maximum effort diminishes. Conversely, when individuals believe they can receive benefits without contributing, they have little incentive to do so.

This experiment, while simplified, highlights the profound impact of incentives on human behavior. The brain, constantly seeking to optimize resource allocation, responds to the perceived reward structure. When the perception is that effort is decoupled from reward, the brain naturally reduces effort. This is not a moral failing, but a fundamental aspect of human cognition.

The professor's lesson extends beyond economics. It underscores the importance of understanding the brain's inherent drive for efficiency when designing systems, whether social, economic, or educational. Ignoring this fundamental aspect of human nature can lead to unintended and detrimental consequences. The illusion of absolute equality, when achieved through artificial redistribution, can ultimately lead to a decline in overall productivity and, ultimately, failure. This cautionary tale serves as a reminder that understanding the brain's response to incentives is crucial for creating systems that foster both individual and collective success.

華夏複式簿記之演進

 

華夏複式簿記之演進：源起、轉承與影響

華夏複式簿記之興，非由西學東漸，乃先民獨創。遠在西法傳華數百年前，約於十五世紀末至十六世紀初，土生之法已漸成形。諸賢之研考咸證，華商創製「龍門賬」、「四腳賬」等獨特之複式記賬體系。其名目格式雖異於西法，然於財務呈報之效，則有異曲同工之妙。此前，華夏商賈多用單式收付記賬之法，徒重金流，難以深析經營之況。轉用本土複式簿記，乃漸進之變，非驟然之革，實為商業之需所驅，與西風無涉，足見會計史中並行發展之奇。

華夏複式簿記之源起

土生之法，自主而生。據林俊之考，約於十五世紀末至十六世紀初，華夏複式簿記已獨立萌芽。華商巨賈，自行研創此精妙之會計之術，未受西法之濡染。此時，正值意大利複式簿記風行歐陸之際，然中華之創，實為獨立之功。

考證有云：「華夏複式之架構既立，以龍門、四腳之法行之，遠在西元一八四〇年鴉片戰爭三世紀之前。」以此推之，此二法約始於西元一五四〇年代。此土生之創，實駁西人常持之論，謂複式簿記唯意大利所出。

昔日會計之要法

全行複式簿記之前，華夏會計多用諸種記賬之法，而「收付記賬法」尤為通行。此法以金錢之流動為本，凡金入則記「收」，金出則記「付」。

收付記賬之法，乃華夏會計之基石，官府商賈皆用之。此法雖異於西制之構，然其理則暗合華夏哲思之衡平，亦能達致追蹤財務、呈報經營之效。

複式簿記前之華夏傳統會計

收付記賬之法

複式之法未興之前，華夏商賈多用收付記賬之術。凡交易致企業之資財增長者，皆錄於「收」項；反之，若資財減少，則錄於「付」項。此概念之框架，普用於官府與私營之會計之中。

此法之奇特處，在於其與西法之關聯。雖其結構迥異，然收付之法實為西式借貸之鏡像。華夏之制，收錄於賬簿之上半，付錄於下半，形成縱向之分，而非西式之橫向左右之別。

傳統之法於商業之影響

傳統之收付之法，於商業經營影響甚巨。雖能追蹤金流，然其僅重貨幣收支之單維視角，限製了經營者分析之能。此法重在管賬，而非決策，著眼於資金之責，而非全面的經營分析。

此限或曾阻礙前近代華夏商業之擴張與資本之積累。無全面的盈利衡量之制，商賈難以評估各方經營之績效，亦難以憑藉可證之利潤吸引外資。

華夏複式簿記體系之演進

龍門、四腳之法

華夏會計之進階，乃藉由「龍門賬」與「四腳賬」兩種主要的複式簿記之法。此二法皆為華夏之獨創，雖未採西式之名目與格式，然於功能上則達致複式記賬之效。

研究確立，華夏會計師獨立發展出複式記賬之核心原則——每筆交易至少影響兩個賬戶——未受外來之影響。

龍門、四腳之法，實質上皆記錄資產、資本、負債及損益之增減，其概念與西式複式簿記無異，唯術語與呈現之式不同耳。

與西法之結構比較

華夏複式之法，其結構雖異於西制，然所達之會計目標則一。西式複式簿記之基本等式為：資產等於負債加權益，以橫式賬簿，借記居左，貸記居右。反觀中華之法，則採縱向之組織，收錄於賬簿之上部，付錄於下部。

「收付記賬法用於記錄並計算涉及企業資產、資本、負債及損益賬戶之每一項目的增減。此與借貸記賬法之程序相同。兩種體系皆為複式分類記賬，意謂資本總額始終等於資產總額。」

此並行之結構揭示，雖形式有別，然其維繫基本會計等式之複式記賬之本質，於兩者傳統中皆得以保存。

複式簿記之轉承

漸進而非驟變

華夏採用複式之法，似為漸進之程，而非突兀之變。學術研究表明，複式之法乃由商業之需自然而生，而非強行推行或官府之令。此內生之發展，或使其轉型較為平順。

此演進乃由實際商業之需所驅，商賈為更善理日趨複雜之經營，遂創製此法。「在此至十九世紀之期間，數種不同之華夏複式簿記並存並演進」，可見此乃持續完善之程，而非單一之劇變。

商業變革之會計動因

華夏複式簿記之發展，根本繫於商業之需，而非學術理論之創新。隨著商業規模與複雜性之增長，單式記賬之局限日益顯現。本土複式之法之創製，為商賈提供了同時追蹤多維度商業活動之工具。

會計之變革乃勢所必然：「若其更易會計體系，乃因其所需，而非僅為效仿某種令人欽佩之模式。」此務實之導向，或因其益處立見，而利於業者之採納。

於華夏商業實踐之影響

商情之增進

轉用複式之法，顯著增進了華夏商賈所得之資訊。單式收付之法雖能追蹤基本之金流，然複式之體系則能更全面地衡量經營績效，包括分離所有者權益與企業資產，追蹤債權債務，以及獨立於現金流之外衡量盈利能力。

此等增進或能提升企業之決策能力。憑藉更精細之會計資訊，商賈能更善評估各產品線、市場區隔及商業關係之盈利貢獻，而非僅憑現金之收付。

利於商業之擴張

複式之法之採用，正值華夏歷史上商業擴張之期。更精妙之會計體系，利於更複雜之商業結構與安排，或能促成在較簡陋之會計制度下難以管理之增長策略。

海產出口商之例可為證：「該商行由陳氏家族及其親戚與同鄉招募之人共同經營。員工總計約二十人。其經營批發海產出口至臺灣、中國及東南亞之通商口岸。」管理如此複雜之經營，若有能同時追蹤多維度業務之複式之法，必能事半功倍。

西學之影響與後期之發展

獨立於西法之外

「華夏複式之法雖與意大利式簿記相似，然中華之經驗獨立於西法之傳播之外。」此並行之發展，實為會計實踐中殊途同歸之奇例，相似之法為應對相似之商業需求而獨立發展。

此獨立性挑戰了常以意大利創新獨攬精妙會計之歐中心論。華夏之經驗表明，當商業複雜性達到一定程度時，複式記賬之原則可在不同之文化背景下自然產生。

後期與西制之融合

雖華夏複式之法獨立發展，然十九、二十世紀，隨著中華與全球貿易之日益頻繁，與西式會計體系之融合亦漸增。西元一八四〇年之鴉片戰爭及其後之條約，迫使中華港口開放，加速了西方商業慣例（包括會計之法）之引入。

會計之變革乃更廣泛之經濟轉型之一環：「資本主義式之會計體系在早期即已引入，事實上早於市場經濟所需之其他制度之引入。」此表明，在後期之經濟轉型中，會計之變革被置於優先地位，反映了其於商業活動之根本重要性。

The Story of How Chinese Businesses Started Using Double-Entry Bookkeeping

The Story of How Chinese Businesses Started Using Double-Entry Bookkeeping

Long before people in the West taught China about accounting, Chinese business owners came up with their own way of keeping track of money. This happened around the 1400s and 1500s. Experts like Z. Jun Lin, Guo Daoyang, and Eve Chiapello found that Chinese merchants created their own double-entry systems called "Longmen zhang" (Dragon Gate bookkeeping 龍門賬) and "Sijiao zhang" (Four-Foot bookkeeping 四腳賬). These were different from how Westerners did it, with different names and ways of writing things down, but they helped businesses understand their money in a similar way.

Before these smart systems, Chinese businesses just wrote down money coming in and money going out. This was okay for simple tracking, but it didn't help them really understand how their business was doing. Slowly, over time, they started using their own double-entry methods because they needed a better way to manage their growing businesses. This happened on its own, without copying Western ideas, which is a cool example of two different parts of the world figuring out similar solutions.

How Chinese Double-Entry Bookkeeping Started

Around the late 1400s and early 1500s, Chinese merchants and bankers started using double-entry bookkeeping on their own. Z. Jun Lin's research shows they didn't learn this from the West. This was happening around the same time that a similar system was spreading in Europe, but the Chinese came up with it themselves.

Research says that these Chinese double-entry systems, "Longmen" and "Four Feet" bookkeeping, were used for about 300 years before the First Opium War in 1840. This means they were around since about the 1540s. This shows that China didn't just learn accounting from the West; they had their own advanced system.

Old Ways of Chinese Accounting

Before they used double-entry, Chinese businesses mostly used a "receipt-payment method." This was all about tracking money coming in (receipts) and money going out (payments).

Everyone, from the government to small shops, used this method. It was a way of organizing their money that fit with Chinese ways of thinking about balance, even though it looked different from Western accounting.

How the Old System Worked

If a business got money, it was written down as a "receipt." If they spent money, it was a "payment." This simple idea was used everywhere.

Interestingly, the way they wrote it down was kind of like a mirror image of how Westerners do debits and credits. Chinese businesses wrote receipts on the top half of the page and payments on the bottom half. Westerners write debits on the left and credits on the right.

What the Old System Meant for Businesses

While the receipt-payment method helped track cash, it wasn't great for understanding the whole business. It mostly showed where the money went, not how well the business was actually doing.

This probably made it harder for businesses to grow and get investments because they couldn't easily show if they were making a profit.

How Chinese Double-Entry Systems Developed

China developed two main double-entry systems: "Longmen zhang" (Dragon Gate bookkeeping) and "Sijiao zhang" (Four-Foot bookkeeping). These were Chinese inventions that did the same job as Western double-entry, but with different words and layouts.

Guo Daoyang, a researcher, showed that these old Chinese bookkeeping methods were real double-entry systems. He proved that Chinese accountants figured out that every business deal affects at least two accounts, just like in Western double-entry, but they did it on their own.

The Longmen and Sijiao systems kept track of things like what the business owned, what it owed, the owner's money, and profits or losses. This is the same basic idea as Western double-entry, even though they used different terms and wrote things down differently.

How They Were Different from Western Methods

Western double-entry uses a basic equation: what you own = what you owe + the owner's money. They write this in a horizontal way, with "debits" on the left and "credits" on the right. Chinese systems used a vertical way of writing things, with receipts on top and payments on the bottom.

But as Hsu Tzu-fen pointed out, even though they looked different, they did the same thing. The Chinese system also made sure that the total money in the business always equaled everything the business owned. So, the basic idea of double-entry was there in both systems.

How China Started Using Double-Entry

It seems that Chinese businesses started using double-entry slowly, as they needed it, rather than it being a sudden change. Experts think that as businesses got bigger and more complicated, they needed a better way to keep track of things. Z. Jun Lin noted that there were different versions of Chinese double-entry that developed over time.

Eve Chiapello and Yuan Ding said that businesses changed their accounting because they needed to, not just because they wanted to copy someone else. This practical reason probably made it easier for businesses to start using these new methods.

How It Changed Chinese Businesses

Having double-entry bookkeeping gave Chinese businesses much better information. They could see more than just money coming in and going out. They could understand their profits, what they owned, and what they owed.

This likely helped them make better decisions. They could see which parts of their business were doing well and which weren't, and they could attract more investment because they could show how profitable they were.

The use of double-entry also happened at the same time that Chinese businesses were growing. These better accounting systems probably helped them manage more complex businesses and expand. For example, a company that exported seafood to different countries needed a good way to track everything, and double-entry helped with that.

Western Influence and What Happened Later

Z. Jun Lin's research shows that even though Chinese double-entry was similar to the Italian system, it developed separately. This is an interesting example of different cultures coming up with similar ideas on their own because they had similar needs.

This shows that the idea of double-entry isn't just a Western invention. It can arise in different places when businesses become complex enough.

Later on, in the 1800s and 1900s, as China started trading more with the rest of the world, Western accounting systems became more common. Treaties after the First Opium War opened up China to Western business practices, including their ways of accounting.

Eve Chiapello and Yuan Ding pointed out that Western-style accounting was introduced fairly early in China's move towards a market economy, showing how important it was for doing business internationally.

Important Researchers

Several experts have helped us understand the history of Chinese accounting:

• Z. Jun Lin showed that China developed its own double-entry bookkeeping before the West introduced it.
• Eve Chiapello and Yuan Ding studied how accounting changed as China's economy changed.
• Guo Daoyang discovered that old Chinese bookkeeping methods were real double-entry systems.
• Hsu Tzu-fen looked at real business records and showed how Chinese double-entry was used in practice.

These researchers have shown that Chinese double-entry was not just a theory but was actually used by businesses across China.

In Conclusion

The story of double-entry bookkeeping in China is a fascinating part of business history. The Chinese came up with their own sophisticated systems in the 1400s and 1500s, like the Longmen and Sijiao methods. These systems worked similarly to Western double-entry, even though they looked different.

The move from simpler accounting to double-entry happened gradually as businesses needed better ways to manage their money. This shows that when businesses become complex, they need good accounting, no matter where they are in the world.

The work of scholars like Z. Jun Lin and others has helped us understand that China had its own advanced accounting methods long before Western influence,