Of the Rise and Progress of Cities and Towns After the Fall of the Roman Empire

Core idea

While the countryside remained locked in feudal institutions, medieval European towns gradually escaped them — chartered by sovereigns who wanted reliable tax revenue and a counterweight to the great barons, the towns acquired the right to govern themselves, to incorporate trade guilds, to elect magistrates, and to hold lands collectively. Within their walls, serfdom did not apply; a runaway serf who lived a year and a day in a chartered town became a free man.

This created a striking pattern. Across the European map, commercial freedom existed in dense urban islands surrounded by a feudal sea. Town-dwellers could accumulate capital, own property securely, contract freely, and bequeath their wealth as they chose. Country-dwellers, just outside the walls, could do almost none of these things. The two systems coexisted for centuries.

Why it matters

The topic explains, historically, how the European inversion of the natural progress happened. It is not that Europe rejected agriculture in favour of commerce. It is that the only economic space where capital could be freely deployed was the town — and capital naturally flowed there, leaving the countryside locked in stagnation by Book III, Topic 2: Of the Discouragement of Agriculture in the Ancient State of Europe's institutions.

How chartered freedom emerged

Smith identifies a peculiar political alignment. Medieval kings, struggling against unruly barons, needed allies. The townsmen — bourgeois — were natural allies: rich enough to pay taxes, organised enough to deliver them, and politically opposed to the same barons who oppressed both the king and themselves.

So sovereigns granted charters of freedom to towns: rights of self-government, freedom from feudal jurisdiction, the right to coin their own money, fixed rents instead of arbitrary exactions. In exchange, the towns paid the crown a fixed annual sum and supplied military aid against rebellious nobles.

The result was a strange archipelago. Within the walls, modern legal arrangements prevailed; outside, feudal law continued. Each town was an island where the natural economic forces could operate.

Guild structures: liberty and restriction together

Smith's treatment of the medieval guilds is ambivalent. The guilds protected town-dwellers from outside competition (good for the guildsman, bad for the consumer); they trained apprentices in the trade (preserving skills); they regulated quality (often capriciously); they elected the town magistrates (giving political voice). But they also restricted entry to the trades, fixed prices artificially, and ran each industry as a small oligopoly.

Author's argument: The government of towns corporate was altogether in the hands of traders and artificers; and it was the manifest interest of every particular class of them to prevent the market from being overstocked, as they commonly express it, with their own particular species of industry; which is, in reality, to keep it always understocked.

The guilds, in other words, were Book I, Topic 7: Of the Natural and Market Price of Commodities's "obstructions to competition" in concrete medieval form. Smith approves of urban freedom and disapproves of guild monopoly — but recognises that historically they came together as a package.

Why town wealth could compound when country wealth could not

A townsman could:

• Buy and sell land (within and sometimes outside the town walls).
• Bequeath property to whomever he chose.
• Borrow capital against secure collateral.
• Form partnerships and corporations.
• Move freely to follow opportunity.

A countryman could do almost none of these things. The town therefore became the natural destination of any villager with the talent, capital, or opportunity to escape — and the natural sink of any merchant or craftsman seeking a place to deploy his trade. Wealth concentrated in the towns because the institutional environment let it compound there.

The role of foreign trade

A key further point: town wealth was not initially built on the surrounding countryside (which had little surplus to send anyway). It was built on long-distance foreign trade — the Italian merchants trading with the Levant, the Hanseatic League trading across the Baltic, the Flemish cloth-makers exporting across Europe. Town manufactures developed to service this foreign commerce; the countryside benefited only later, when town wealth began to reach back into the agricultural hinterland.

This explains why foreign commerce, in Smith's hierarchy of capital employments (Book II, Topic 5: Of the Different Employment of Capitals), ranks below domestic manufactures and agriculture — yet in actual European history it preceded both. It preceded them not because it was the most productive use of capital, but because it was the only available use of capital outside the few chartered urban spaces.

Key takeaways

Mental model

Copy sourceZoom

Practical application

The town-country contrast in medieval Europe is one of the great natural experiments in institutional economics. Modern equivalents abound: special economic zones (Shenzhen, Dubai, Hong Kong) often function as Smith's chartered towns did — islands of modern property rights and contractual freedom embedded in larger economies with weaker institutions. Capital and talent flow into these zones; the surrounding regions sometimes benefit through linkages, sometimes do not.

The general lesson: localised institutional improvements can produce extreme local growth even when the surrounding economy lacks them. The trick — and the political challenge — is to use the local example to motivate broader reform, rather than allowing the contrast to stabilise as a permanent two-track system.

Example

Shenzhen, designated a Special Economic Zone in 1980, was a fishing village of about 30,000 people on the border with Hong Kong. Forty years later it is a city of 17 million with GDP exceeding Hong Kong's. Within the zone, foreign investment was welcomed, property rights were enforced more reliably than elsewhere in China, regulations were lighter, and labour mobility was permitted. Capital and migrants flowed in. The surrounding rural counties saw much slower growth.

The pattern is exactly the one Smith describes for medieval Bruges or Genoa: an institutional carve-out produces local wealth on a scale the surrounding region cannot match, because the wall is an institutional fact more than a physical one. China's later strategy has been to gradually replicate the Shenzhen institutional package across more of the country — turning the special zone into the rule, much as English chartered freedoms eventually expanded into general English law.

Related lessons