It is an interesting paper (excerpts, related excerpts), but to temper expectations: like Peter Leeson’s many papers ‘explaining’ this or that weird temporary thing in history like trial-by-ordeal, this is more of a just-so story in which Allen comes up with a plausible-sounding model which he post hoc fits to some interesting historical details or anecdotes, and he doesn’t present anything we would consider ‘hard’ evidence. (You can almost think of it as alt-history fics written for economists’ recherché tastes: more world/model-building exercises than ‘real’ history.)
It is an interesting paper (excerpts, related excerpts), but to temper expectations: like Peter Leeson’s many papers ‘explaining’ this or that weird temporary thing in history like trial-by-ordeal, this is more of a just-so story in which Allen comes up with a plausible-sounding model which he post hoc fits to some interesting historical details or anecdotes, and he doesn’t present anything we would consider ‘hard’ evidence. (You can almost think of it as alt-history fics written for economists’ recherché tastes: more world/model-building exercises than ‘real’ history.)
I agree that this description fits the paper.