Recent advances in historical national accounting have allowed for global comparisons of GDP per capita across space and time. Critics have argued that GDP per capita fails to capture adequately the multi-dimensional nature of welfare, and have developed alternative measures such as the human development index. Whilst recognising that these wider indicators provide an appropriate way of assessing levels of welfare, we argue that GDP per capita remains a more appropriate measure for assessing development potential, focussing on production possibilities and the sustainability of consumption. Twentieth-century Africa and pre-industrial Europe are used to show how such data can guide reciprocal comparisons to provide insights into the process of development on both continents.

This paper investigates the evolution of income inequality in Spain during its transition to democracy, suggesting a method for the correction of under-reporting of earnings and profits in the Household Budget Surveys’ data. The contribution is twofold: the methodological proposal, based on income-expenditure discrepancy and scaling-up to National Accounts, improves on previous work and can be useful for similar historical sources in other countries. Second, its application results in an alternative history of the distribution of income in this case, changing the levels and also the observed trend. Previous literature asserted a substantial equalisation, related to the democratisation process, while after the adjustment inequality in disposable income is shown to have been quite persistent.

The power of the elites became the dominant explanation of the extension of the franchise and expansion of the provision of public services. Peru from 1876 to 1940 presents a contrasting case. Although restricting political participation through literacy requirements, Peru saw an increase in literacy and schooling. Nevertheless, the relative power of the national and local elites articulated the national policies resulting in unequal provision of education. Constrained political access of the economic minority, the indigenous population, translated into a widening gap in terms of educational attainment.

The impact of the privatisation of the commons remains a contested topic throughout the social sciences. Focusing on the Spanish case, this article reviews the literature and provides an overall assessment of this historical process based on recent research. Common lands appear to have been reasonably well managed and their dismantling did not foster agricultural productivity. Instead, the privatisation process negatively affected the economic situation of a large proportion of rural households and local councils, as well as deteriorating the stock of social capital. Therefore, the long-standing belief in the existence of a trade-off between equity and efficiency actually turns out to be misleading.

Two scientists and sailors from the Spanish Navy, Jorge Juan and Antonio de Ulloa, the Italian sailor and explorer Alessandro Malaspina, and the German sage Alexander von Humboldt were the main actors in three great voyages to Spanish America between the second-third of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. This enabled them to provide three first hand «photographs» of the state of the Spanish empire in America at three different moments in time: approximately before, during and after the implementation of colonial reforms designed in the reigns of Ferdinand VI and Charles III. This work aims, in the first place, to compare the socio-economic views of Spanish America deriving from the three expeditions, highlighting similarities and differences. Second, this work aims to connect the analysis of the weaknesses of the politico-institutional organisation of Spanish colonies, which the four travellers did at first hand, with the present debate on the role of colonial institutions in long-term economic development.