Two factors which affected the Stuart economy of 1600-1660

The Stuart economy is invariably difficult to analyse. Unfortunately due to incomplete records we notwithstanding have a rough idea of the stinting growth that England underwent during this era. For example we do not have fully dead-on(prenominal) records that state the exact tribe surface at the time. We also in that respectfore do not have accurate records on the economy either but from parish records and events during this uttermost it is still contingent to make informed conclusions on what the economy was like, and the featureors that stimulated it.The first involvement that is heavy to study when discussing the economy is the universe of discourse surface. According to records found in parishes at the time cosmos was generally on the increase and up come up from 4 to 5 million between 1600 and 1660. tho although the population did gussy up considerably it was certainly not a steady increase and went with with(predicate) phases of decline as well as increase. Surprisingly, according to information nowadays avail open, slightly years burial rates were actually high than baptism rates, purposeing a population decline. in time due to the fact that these records are nightimes incomplete it is not possible to give completely accurate figures about the changes in population during this era. Some historians argue that these changes in population growth point to the fact that the Stuart economy was vastly agrarian. This theory is widely accepted as creation true, it successfully answers the reason for in truth drastic changes in the population size in some areas as agrarian economy can be easily dislocated by meritless winters and poor harvests.Also the records of bad harvests coincide with drops in population during this flow, suggesting that the economy of the Stuart era was finding it very difficult to restrain up with demand. In nine to combat this rise in demand, farmers would need to innovate and experiment with spick-and-span c rops in order to compete. Some historians argue that this menstruation due to the population increase take to a farming revolution as thither is evidence that many another(prenominal) villages adopted the concept of enclosure in order to become more productive.This commercialisation of farming is plan by many to be more favourite than the previously adopted method of subsistence farming. (Growing enough to feed you and your immediate family. ) This proficiency of enclosure meant farmers were able to be more productive and meet higher demands and is generally accepted as a more efficient musical arrangement than subsistence farming. This enclosure method of once community owned palm is purpose to be the start of early capitalism in England, the commercialisation of the fields is therefore thought to be brought about by the pressures of a population on the increase.But were farmers of this period willing to innovate, experiment and try refreshful techniques? Evidence found in the diary of an ordinary farmer of the period is a virile argument that farmers were willing to trial new crops. Robert Loder left(p) a diary concerning his farming and the changes he made to his techniques and crops. It is possible to make that this ordinary farmer was one of many who experimented in order to further their production. However it is still possible to argue that there was a strong amount of conservative farmers who did not adopt these new techniques but there is no evidence to suggest this.Some historians also use examples such as the adoption of tobacco crops in England as a headstone piece of evidence for how adventuress and innovative farmers could be once convinced of the probable of the new farming enterprise. Despite the evidence presented for invention and experimentation there is strong evidence that suggests that farmers struggled to keep up with demand. Sources found for some areas of England suggest that there were huge rises in prices during th is period due to inflation. This evidence is cognise as the Phelps Brown price index.Although this is one of the most commonly employ sources, due to lack of information it only covers certain areas of England, mainly the mho meaning that it is hard to generalise these price rises across England until now it is the scoop out information available. This rise in prices is evidence suggesting that the farmers of the Stuart economy had great fuss despite all their innovation and experimentation to keep up with demand. However some historians still disagree. So the key question still unreciprocated is whether the farmers were able to keep up with constantly growing demand.Obviously it is highlighted by bad harvests how susceptible the agrarian economy was to very cold keen-sighted winters and the obvious problems this could create. However equally it can be argued that through innovation and experimentation farmers managed to meet demand, thus far evidence of heavy inflation duri ng the Stuart period leads many historians to the conclusion that resources were scarce and that the economy due to reliance on uncontrollable variables such as weather was not able to keep up with demand.However on the other hand it is argued by some that the farmers willingness to implement new techniques and methods of farming lead to increased productivity and was able to keep up with increased demand. However due to lack of concrete evidence this issue is still in many historians opinions open to interpretation. other key factor in the development of the Stuart economy was industry. Although industry only made up for around 10% of the economy it is still an important area to analyse to have a full understanding of the economic changes to took place in the Seventeenth century.Firstly it is commonly thought that the incline industrial techniques were inferior to those of Europe. Most goods were thought to have been mystifyd at home base and sold locally. This technique of pro duction suggests an undeveloped industry in England, however these limitations in manufacturing were overcome via exportation to the advanced Europe. The main industry in England at this time was textiles, located in East Anglia.In this period unfinished woollen cloth would be produced and then exported to other countries in order to create a finished product, such as the Netherlands who were thought to be the leading industrial nation of the times. The reason for exporting was strictly because England lacked the techniques and resources to manufacture such products. As farming was the leading source of income in England it is thought that many industrial workers were involved in agriculture as well as the manufacturing of textiles.Although many combined farming with manufacturing and production some did hold backk industry as full-time employment usually through the putting-out system. Besides textiles England also produced scorch, mainly mined in the north-east of England. As L ondon grew in population the North East was able to produce more and more coal to meet demands, although limitations in technology prevented tap below the surface. However transposeing vast quantities of coal is thought by many historians to have been a problem.Roads in this period were thought to be in quite a bad state, and therefore much of the coal mined was transported by sea. This transportation via sea is important. In order to transport such great amounts of coal England you would need a merchant transcend and Royal Navy to provide protection. Despite these measures the fleets that travelled between the northeastern and London still suffered attacks during the wars England had with the Dutch. This is evident when we look at the prices of coal and see that prices doubled during this period suggesting heavy losses from attack.In conclusion it is in all probability right to suggest that industry looked for short-term solutions to meet the demands it faced, although no new techniques or technological advances are evident, this period did see the development of outside trade, a key feature of the Stuart economy with the development of overseas colonies. However it can be argued that changes in agriculture and innovation were more significant, however it is still somewhat important to understand that the Stuart economy did not notwithstanding rely on agriculture alone.