(The modern state did not emerge only in Britain. Let’s compare Britain’s path with that of France.
The source text is “In Search of Lost Modernity” by Akio KAWATO.
The English edition of this book (originally written in Japanese) is on
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hiRK7kjbX0Hxd2NOxPqtQlVWgjDHgKCr/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MB0Me9P5Lpa2HGceuJUdMqqQ2CRHQSxa/edit)
(The copyright belongs to the author, Akio Kawato)
.
The British State Was Formed by the Gentry, While the French State Was Built from Above:
The modern state did not emerge only in Britain. Let’s compare Britain’s path with that of France. The contrast is striking: in Britain, royal authority declined over the 17th century, and a modern state—led by Parliament and government—gradually took shape. This system was largely driven by the gentry, the landowning class. The resulting model, with relatively light top-down regulation, helped stimulate economic activity.
.
Even today, Parliament and elected politicians wield significant power in the UK. In France, by contrast, it was the bureaucracy that inherited the absolute power of the king, but in Britain Parliament remained dominant, and the gentry—who largely composed it—continued to guide the country forward. This dynamic is discussed by John Brewer in his book “The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783”.
He argues that the landowning gentry often obstructed the growth of bureaucratic authority. In this way, democracy in Britain evolved—not through a centralized civil service, but as a check on it. Bureaucrats never replaced the landowning elite as the ruling class.
The gentry maintained their influence until the late 19th century, and the middle class that rose during the Industrial Revolution adopted their values and behavior. This included a distinct accent and vocabulary that set them apart from the lower classes, contributing to a deeply entrenched class system.
.
By contrast, in France, the monarchy was far stronger, and the state seemed to grow primarily to serve the king. By the late 15th century, French lords were reeling from labor shortages and rising wages caused by the Black Death, and many sought to maintain their livelihoods by entering royal service. France had few independent economic actors equivalent to England’s gentry. The small number of entrepreneurs that did emerge tended to seek royal favors and monopolistic privileges.
One famous example is Jacques Cœur, who rose from modest origins in the early 15th century, during the Hundred Years’ War. He won the right to mint coins through a public tender and used the profits to invest in Florence’s silk, dye, and paper industries. He also secured a monopoly on salt production in the Loire Valley and became the royal family’s personal banker. But in 1452, he was arrested and forced to flee.
.
This pattern of centralized state power continued after the French Revolution of 1789 and reached its peak under Napoleon, who established key features of the modern state such as a legal code and universal conscription. Britain, in contrast, relied on legal precedents rather than codified laws and did not implement conscription until World War I.
.
In France, the monarchy, nobility, and Church absorbed large portions of the nation’s wealth, increasing the burden on ordinary citizens. While Britain’s nominal tax rate may have appeared high, it was uniform and transparent, unlike in France, where nobles and clergy collected separate, unofficial “taxes.” Some even argue that the tax burden in Britain did not actually account for a significant portion of the economy.
.
Britain also had a system in place to fund wars through the issuance of government bonds. Its alliance with the Netherlands, which had advanced financial tools like public debt markets, contributed to Britain’s economic edge over France and even shaped how the two states evolved.
.
A Nation-State Born Under Napoleon’s Dictatorship:
Although Napoleon promoted ideals like liberty, equality, and fraternity, in practice, he fulfilled Louis XIV’s dream of a pan-European empire. In parallel he built the prototype of a modern French nation-state dominated by the central government.
While Louis XIV had a powerful army and bureaucracy, his rule was filtered through intermediary structures—feudal lords, the Church, and guilds. The Revolution eliminated these intermediaries.
The Revolution aimed to create a republic where people governed themselves without exploitative middlemen. But in the political vacuum that followed, Napoleon seized power—backed by conservative factions—and restructured the state so that the emperor had, so to speak, a direct relationship with the people.
.
Napoleon reduced Parliament to a mere rubber stamp with the Senate and Legislative Assembly becoming obedient tools. As one historian put it, most talented individuals abandoned any ambition except winning the emperor’s favor. Clergy were mobilized to support conscription, court rituals emphasized hierarchy, and an imperial family was installed with special privileges. Napoleon even revived a nobility in name, while appointing governors and mayors directly.
.
Meanwhile, the government bureaucracy expanded rapidly. Ministries such as the Interior, Finance, War, and Religion employed about 25,000 civil servants. Each ministry had formalized job titles, ranks, and departments. Even junior officials earned two to three times the wage of laborers (for department directors twelve times), with job security and immunity from prosecution.
In this respect, Napoleonic France resembled a bureaucratic command state—more like Song Dynasty China or even contemporary China—than a liberal democratic nation.
Leave a Reply