I'm reading on the origins of Swiss wealth: by the end of the XVIth century, the country was one of the major European producers of silk, cotton, and the like. By the end of the Napoleonic wars, it was first among textile machines. Why?
1555 the protestant Locarnesi were expelled from their home town. In about 1570, it was the time of the Protestant Lucchesi - Lucca was a center silk production. They fled to poor and narrow-minded Switzerland and, thanks to their *entrepreneurial* skills, transformed the country.
Like the Marwaris or Parsees, these proto-capitalists used their international networks. Unlike them, they had no place to go back to, so they transformed first trade, then production, wherever they managed to put down roots. No nostalgia, just desire to succeed and a fresh eye for unused resources and opportunities. The local elites saw it and got into the act - their price for allowing the newcomers in.
Protestantism helped - in unexpected ways. Reformer Zwingli forbade soldiering in foreign lands - a valid income for strapping lads in excess to poor agriculture. Now at home with nothing to eat, they willingly took up weaving and the ladies spinning for subsistence wages. The Lucchesi and Locarnesi provided the capital to fund the purchase of raw material, transformation, and export. Wealth spread across parts of the country.
Integration in the new country and mongrelisation is the key. On both sides.
Thanks Pallavi for this insightful column. It still leaves me wondering how many readers does The New York Times have in India... and whether you perhaps happen to know all of them. After all, I'm impressed by the quality of your friends and acquaintances. I can assure you that I could not write something like "My interlocuters you see, were all up to date with the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Gender Gap Report." The other side of this coin, of course, is that foreign papers have had remarkably little success in setting up shop in India. I still remember the FT's unsuccessful effort a decade ago.. (https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/britain-s-ft-plans-india-edition-soon-ceo/story-aCeX5bg9qxqMnPgy6pZHBN.html) So if elite Indians want to see the world through a Western prism, how come the FT and others have done so badly in the Indian market? Thanks again
Because the FT etc do not cover Bollywood, cricket and local electoral machinations in the kind of detail that the vast majority of the Indian audience want - as mentioned in my piece. These are people who both don't care, nor are given any opportunity to care about foreign news. The minority who do "care" tend to learn about it from foreign media..but this is a tiny, if influential, demographic sliver.
Dear Pallavi,
the "Marwari" or the "Lucchesi" model?
I'm reading on the origins of Swiss wealth: by the end of the XVIth century, the country was one of the major European producers of silk, cotton, and the like. By the end of the Napoleonic wars, it was first among textile machines. Why?
1555 the protestant Locarnesi were expelled from their home town. In about 1570, it was the time of the Protestant Lucchesi - Lucca was a center silk production. They fled to poor and narrow-minded Switzerland and, thanks to their *entrepreneurial* skills, transformed the country.
Like the Marwaris or Parsees, these proto-capitalists used their international networks. Unlike them, they had no place to go back to, so they transformed first trade, then production, wherever they managed to put down roots. No nostalgia, just desire to succeed and a fresh eye for unused resources and opportunities. The local elites saw it and got into the act - their price for allowing the newcomers in.
Protestantism helped - in unexpected ways. Reformer Zwingli forbade soldiering in foreign lands - a valid income for strapping lads in excess to poor agriculture. Now at home with nothing to eat, they willingly took up weaving and the ladies spinning for subsistence wages. The Lucchesi and Locarnesi provided the capital to fund the purchase of raw material, transformation, and export. Wealth spread across parts of the country.
Integration in the new country and mongrelisation is the key. On both sides.
Thanks Pallavi for this insightful column. It still leaves me wondering how many readers does The New York Times have in India... and whether you perhaps happen to know all of them. After all, I'm impressed by the quality of your friends and acquaintances. I can assure you that I could not write something like "My interlocuters you see, were all up to date with the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Gender Gap Report." The other side of this coin, of course, is that foreign papers have had remarkably little success in setting up shop in India. I still remember the FT's unsuccessful effort a decade ago.. (https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/britain-s-ft-plans-india-edition-soon-ceo/story-aCeX5bg9qxqMnPgy6pZHBN.html) So if elite Indians want to see the world through a Western prism, how come the FT and others have done so badly in the Indian market? Thanks again
Because the FT etc do not cover Bollywood, cricket and local electoral machinations in the kind of detail that the vast majority of the Indian audience want - as mentioned in my piece. These are people who both don't care, nor are given any opportunity to care about foreign news. The minority who do "care" tend to learn about it from foreign media..but this is a tiny, if influential, demographic sliver.