Technology and Social Change

Lecture 5: The Political Economy of the Printing Press

Bogdan G. Popescu
bgpopescu@tec.mx

Tecnológico de Monterrey

Introduction

Before We Begin

What if ideas could travel at the speed of commerce?

  • Before 1440, copying a book took a scribe months
  • A Bible cost roughly the equivalent of a house
  • Literacy was confined to clergy and a thin elite
  • Knowledge was scarce, expensive, and controlled

“The press is the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man.” — Thomas Jefferson

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lecture, you will be able to:

  1. Explain why the printing press was disruptive
  2. Describe the economic mechanisms of knowledge markets
  3. Analyze how information reshaped social structures
  1. Apply a political economy framework to technology
  2. Interpret empirical evidence on long-run effects

Roadmap

  1. The technology: what constraints did it relax?
  2. Economic changes: knowledge markets and literacy
  3. Social and political effects
  4. Winners, losers, and institutional resistance
  5. Evidence and modern parallels

I. The Technology

What Was the Printing Press?

Gutenberg’s movable-type press (~1440, Mainz)

  • Movable metal type: reusable letters cast in lead alloy
  • Oil-based ink: better adhesion to metal type
  • Wooden screw press: adapted from wine and olive presses
  • Standardized paper: far cheaper than parchment

None of these was entirely new — the combination was revolutionary.

Why Was It Disruptive?

Disruption = dramatic change in cost structure

Before the press

  • Marginal cost ≈ fixed cost (scribe labor)
  • ~1 book per scribe per year (for a Bible)
  • Natural monopoly: monasteries, scriptoria

After the press

  • High fixed cost but near-zero marginal cost
  • ~500 copies per press run
  • Competitive market: any entrepreneur could enter

The Economics of Disruption

Figure 1: Printing beats scribal copying after ~20 copies.

What Constraints Did It Relax?

Constraint Before Press After Press
Reproduction cost Months of scribe labor Hours of press work
Accuracy Copyist errors accumulate Identical copies
Scale One copy at a time Hundreds per run
Access Monasteries, courts Urban workshops, markets
Language Latin (elite) Vernacular editions emerge

The press democratized reproduction — but not everywhere equally.

So What?

The press changed the cost structure of knowledge

  • Fixed costs replaced variable costs → economies of scale
  • Any literate entrepreneur could become a publisher
  • This restructured the entire market for ideas

Next: What happened when ideas became cheap?

II. Economic Changes

The Knowledge Market Before Print

A market with extreme barriers to entry

  • Supply: scriptoria — few, slow producers
  • Demand: Church, universities, patrons — few buyers
  • Prices: extremely high → books as luxury goods
  • Result: thin market, no incentive to expand literacy

This was a stable equilibrium — and the press broke it.

How the Press Changed Market Structure

From monopoly to competition

  1. Entry barriers fell: a press cost ~20 guilders
  2. Output exploded: ~20 million volumes printed by 1500
  1. Prices collapsed: fell ~80% within 50 years
  2. Variety expanded: printers published what sold

The press created the first mass market for ideas.

The Spread of Printing Across Europe

Figure 2: Adoption followed a classic S-curve pattern.

The Literacy Feedback Loop

Lower prices → more readers → more demand → more books

%%{init: {"flowchart": {"useMaxWidth": true, "nodeSpacing": 50, "rankSpacing": 70, "width": 1150, "height": 650}, "themeVariables": {"fontSize": "22px", "primaryColor": "#4a7c6f", "primaryTextColor": "#1e293b", "lineColor": "#334155"}}}%%
flowchart LR
    A["Press Lowers<br/>Book Cost"] --> B["More People<br/>Find Reading<br/>Worthwhile"]
    B --> C["Larger<br/>Reading Public"]
    C --> D["Demand for<br/>More Titles"]
    D --> E["Printers Produce<br/>More → Costs Fall"]
    E --> A

This positive feedback loop drove exponential growth in book production and literacy.

Book Production Over Time

Figure 3: Output grew exponentially after introduction of movable type.

Class Exercise 1

The Feedback Loop in Action

Prompt: Consider a modern technology that exhibits the same positive feedback loop as the printing press (lower costs → more users → more content → even lower costs).

  1. Name the technology
  2. Identify the “printers” and “readers” equivalents
  3. Has the loop reached saturation? Why or why not?

Time: 5 minutes — discuss with your neighbor, then share.

So What?

The press created an explosion in knowledge production

  • Book production grew exponentially after 1450
  • A positive feedback loop linked costs, literacy, and demand
  • But who benefited and who lost out?

Next: How did cheap information reshape social structures?

III. Social and Political Effects

Information Dissemination

The press changed who could say what to whom

Before the press:

  • Information flowed through hierarchical channels
  • The Church monopolized large-scale communication
  • Dissent was local and easily suppressed

After the press:

  • Pamphlets reached thousands in days
  • Luther’s 95 Theses: ~300,000 copies in 3 years
  • Authorities could no longer control the narrative

The Reformation as a Case Study

The press as accelerant of religious change

  • Luther deliberately wrote in German, not Latin
  • 1518–1525: ~6 million pamphlets in German lands
  • Cities with presses adopted Protestantism faster

“Printing is God’s highest act of grace.” — Martin Luther

The Reformation was not caused by the press — but hard to imagine without it.

Social Mobility

The press created new economic roles

New Role Description
Printer Entrepreneur-craftsman; capital, not birth
Bookseller Commercial intermediary in urban networks
Author Could earn income directly from writing
Translator Bridged Latin scholarship and vernacular
Editor Curated knowledge for emerging markets

The press created a new middle class of knowledge workers.

Power Structures

Shifting the balance of power

Lost control:

  • Catholic Church (doctrine monopoly)
  • Scribes and copyists (labor replaced)
  • Monarchs (censorship became harder)

Gained influence:

  • Protestant reformers
  • Urban merchant class
  • Vernacular intellectuals
  • Printers as new gatekeepers

Causal Framework: Press → Social Change

%%{init: {"flowchart": {"useMaxWidth": true, "nodeSpacing": 30, "rankSpacing": 50, "width": 1150, "height": 650}, "themeVariables": {"fontSize": "20px", "primaryColor": "#4a7c6f", "primaryTextColor": "#1e293b", "lineColor": "#334155"}}}%%
flowchart LR
    A["Printing<br/>Press"] --> B["Lower Book<br/>Prices"]
    A --> C["Information<br/>Access"]
    B --> D["Literacy &<br/>Human Capital"]
    D --> C
    C --> E["Reformation"]
    D --> F["Economic<br/>Growth"]
    E --> G["Political<br/>Change"]
    F --> G
    D --> H["Social<br/>Mobility"]
    F --> H

Multiple causal channels: direct information access, literacy-driven human capital, and the Reformation as a mediator.

Class Exercise 2

Winners Write History

Prompt: The printing press empowered some groups and weakened others.

  1. Pick one winner and one loser from the press
  2. What strategy did the loser use to resist?
  3. Was the resistance ultimately effective? Why?

Time: 5 minutes — discuss with your neighbor, then share.

So What?

The press reshuffled power across Europe

  • New information channels bypassed traditional gatekeepers
  • New economic roles created a knowledge middle class
  • But some societies embraced the press — others resisted

Next: Why did institutional responses diverge so sharply?

IV. Political Economy: Winners and Losers

A Political Economy Framework

Every technology creates winners and losers — losers fight back

  1. Adoption is not automatic — it needs institutional tolerance
  2. Incumbents who lose will try to block the technology
  1. Diffusion speed depends on the balance of power
  2. Institutions shape who wins and who loses

The printing press is a textbook case of this framework.

Winners and Losers

Group Effect Mechanism
Printers & publishers Winner New profitable industry
Merchants & middle class Winner Cheaper commercial knowledge
Protestant reformers Winner Mass pamphlet dissemination
Vernacular authors Winner Audiences without Church patronage
Scribes & copyists Loser Labor replaced by machines
Catholic Church Loser Lost doctrinal monopoly
Monarchs Mixed Used press but faced censorship limits

Pattern: urban commercial groups gained; information monopolists lost.

Case Study: The Ottoman Empire

Why resist the press for 270 years?

  • First Arabic-script press: Istanbul, 1729
  • Ulema argued printing the Quran was sacrilegious
  • Scribes’ guild wielded political influence at court
  • Sultan granted monopoly to calligraphers

Political economy: incumbents had veto power; adopters lacked voice.

Consequence: slower human capital accumulation.

Case Study: England vs. France

Same technology, different institutional responses

England

  • Printing arrived 1476 (Caxton)
  • Crown initially supportive
  • Stationers’ Company: guild but market-driven
  • Press relatively free after 1695

France

  • Printing arrived 1470 (Paris)
  • Heavy royal and Church censorship
  • Index of Forbidden Books enforced
  • Philosophes used underground presses

Result: England’s open knowledge market contributed to earlier industrialization.

Institutional Openness to Print

Figure 4: Institutional environments diverged sharply across polities.

Censorship and Resistance

The political economy of information control

  • Index Librorum Prohibitorum (1559): Church banned book list
  • Licensing Acts (England, 1538–1695): pre-publication censorship
  • Book burnings: symbolic but often ineffective

Censorship is costly to enforce and creates smuggling incentives:

  • Banned books printed in tolerant jurisdictions
  • Prohibition often increased demand

So What?

Institutions determined whether technology could transform society

  • Where incumbents blocked the press, adoption stalled
  • Where institutions were permissive, knowledge markets flourished
  • Can we measure these effects empirically?

Next: What does the evidence show — and what are the modern parallels?

V. Evidence and Modern Parallels

Empirical Evidence: Dittmar (2011)

“Information Technology and Economic Change”

Key findings:

  • Press cities grew 20–80% faster than comparable cities
  • Robust to controlling for pre-existing characteristics
  • Mechanism: human capital and commercial activity

Identification: geographic proximity to Mainz as instrument for early adoption.

City Growth: Press vs. No Press

Figure 5: Early adopters experienced faster and sustained growth.

Long-Run Effects: Human Capital

Persistent effects on education and development

  • Becker & Woessmann (2009): proximity to Wittenberg predicts higher literacy centuries later
  • Rubin (2014): press mattered most where institutions did not block it
  • Dittmar & Seabold (2019): print competition drove human capital and Protestant adoption

Takeaway: technology + permissive institutions → persistent advantage.

Modern Parallels

The internet as the “new printing press”

Dimension Printing Press (1450) Internet (1990s)
Reproduction cost Near zero (after setup) Near zero
Gatekeepers displaced Church, scribes Media, publishers
New intermediaries Printers, booksellers Platforms, search engines
Censorship challenge Smuggled books VPNs, encryption
Concentration Fragmented producers Network effects → monopoly

Key Parallels and Differences

Similarities:

  • Technology reduces cost of information reproduction
  • Incumbents resist; new intermediaries emerge
  • Institutional context shapes adoption speed

Differences:

  • Speed: press took decades; internet took years
  • Scale: press reached thousands; internet reaches billions
  • Concentration: internet gatekeeping far exceeds the press

Class Exercise 3

Modern Incumbents and Resisters

Prompt: Think of a modern technology where incumbents are currently trying to block or slow adoption.

  1. Who are the incumbents and what are they protecting?
  2. Who are the adopters and what do they gain?
  3. What institutional mechanisms are being used to resist?

Time: 5 minutes — discuss with your neighbor, then share.

So What?

The political economy of technology is timeless

  • The same framework applies: winners, losers, institutions
  • Technology alone does not determine outcomes
  • The institutional environment decides who benefits

Next: Let’s pull it all together.

Conclusion

Summary: Key Takeaways

  1. The press was disruptive: it collapsed knowledge reproduction costs
  2. It created mass markets for ideas: lower prices, wider access
  3. It shifted power from clerical elites to urban middle classes
  1. Institutions shaped diffusion: incumbents blocked where they could
  2. The political economy framework applies to all tech transitions

Discussion Questions

  1. Why did the Ottoman Empire resist while Western Europe embraced the press?
  1. Is the internet comparison useful? What are its limits?
  1. What modern technology faces similar institutional resistance?

References

  • Becker, S. O., & Woessmann, L. (2009). Was Weber wrong? A human capital theory of Protestant economic history. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 531–596.

  • Buringh, E., & van Zanden, J. L. (2009). Charting the “Rise of the West”: Manuscripts and printed books in Europe, a long-term perspective from the sixth through eighteenth centuries. Journal of Economic History, 69(2), 409–445.

  • Dittmar, J. E. (2011). Information technology and economic change: The effect of the printing press. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(3), 1133–1172.

  • Dittmar, J. E., & Seabold, S. (2019). New media and competition: Printing and Europe’s transformation after Gutenberg (CEP Discussion Paper No. 1600). Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.

  • Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change. Cambridge University Press.

  • Febvre, L., & Martin, H.-J. (1976). The coming of the book: The impact of printing 1450–1800 (D. Gerard, Trans.). Verso. (Original work published 1958)

  • Rubin, J. (2014). Printing and Protestants: An empirical test of the role of printing in the Reformation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(2), 270–286.