Centers of Progress, Pt. 19: Philadelphia (Liberal Democracy)
As the “cradle of liberty” and headquarters of the American Revolution, Philadelphia helped humanity to discover the benefits of liberal democracy.
Chelsea Follett —
Today marks the nineteenth installment in a series of articles by HumanProgress.org called Centers of Progress. Where does progress happen? The story of civilization is in many ways the story of the city. It is the city that has helped to create and define the modern world. This bi-weekly column will give a short overview of urban centers that were the sites of pivotal advances in culture, economics, politics, technology, etc.
Our nineteenth Center of Progress is Philadelphia, nicknamed the “cradle of liberty” and the “birthplace of America.” This early U.S. capital is where the Second Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence. It is also the place where a new form of government was debated and put into practice. Previously, the prevalent form of political organization was monarchy. But the Founders of the American republic attempted to create something new.
Today, Philadelphia is the largest city in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania and forms the heart of the eighth-largest metropolitan area in the country. The city is a major cultural center, known for its historical monuments such as the Liberty Bell, its famous cheesesteak sandwiches, the University of Pennsylvania, and cultural icons such as the famous “Rocky Steps.” The historic Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed, is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. “The principles debated, adopted and signed in Independence Hall have profoundly influenced lawmakers and policymakers around the world,” according to UNESCO.
William Penn, an English Quaker, founded Philadelphia in 1682 as the capital of his new “Pennsylvania Colony.” The city’s name means “brotherly love” in Greek. It pays homage to an ancient city, in what is today Turkey, which is referenced in the Bible. Ancient Philadelphia served as an early center of Christianity. The Quakers, a Protestant denomination, were known for promoting pacifism and for their opposition to slavery. The latter was a particularly radical position at the time. Initially, about 7 percent of Philadelphian households owned slaves. It is estimated that by 1767 that figure grew to fifteen percent of Philadelphian households. In 1712, the Pennsylvania Assembly—which met in Philadelphia—banned the import of slaves into the colony. That decision was overruled by the British government under Queen Anne in early 1713. The next year (1714) and again in 1717, the Pennsylvania Assembly tried to limit slavery in the colony. Each time, the British government in London rejected the decision.
Penn founded the Pennsylvania colony as a “Holy Experiment” to be governed by Quaker values. Its laws differed from those in the other American colonies in notable ways. Pennsylvania guaranteed religious freedom, promoted education for girls as well as boys, and sought to rehabilitate prisoners by teaching them a trade, rather than simply punishing the offenders. The death penalty in Pennsylvania was reserved for those convicted of murder or treason at a time when in Britain people were put to death for a wide variety of trivial offenses. Penn, who kept at least twelve slaves, proposed before the Pennsylvania Assembly legislation that would have freed Pennsylvania’s slaves and given the latter property in a new township. Alas, his proposal was voted down.
Abolitionism, universal education, and enlightened penal practices were not the only radical ideas spreading through Philadelphia in the 18th century. Many colonists grew increasingly frustrated with their lack of political representation in the far-off, yet micromanaging, Britain. Enlightenment ideas inspired the discontented colonists to embark on an experiment that would change the world. In 1774, representatives from 12 of the 13 British colonies in America convened in Philadelphia. They formed the First Continental Congress. (The colony of Georgia did not dare send a representative as it was struggling in a war against local tribes and could not risk losing British military assistance).
The First Continental Congress endorsed the boycotting of British goods and militia-raising, but its most significant decision was to call for a Second Continental Congress. While no war against Britain was yet officially declared, George Washington (1732–1799), who was one of the delegates from Virginia, bought new muskets and military apparel. He also placed an order for a book on military discipline. As he walked the cobblestone streets of Philadelphia, the future president sensed that war was imminent.
Several events escalated the conflict. In 1775, British forces attempted to seize a Massachusetts armory. Local militiamen resisted. It is not clear which side fired first, but the resulting violence left 90 Americans and 273 Britons dead. Americans then besieged the British-held city of Boston. Those events—the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and the Battle of Bunker Hill—are often seen as the start of the American Revolution.
However, at that point, the conflict between the colonists and the British still resembled a civil war, not a revolution. Many colonists wanted a resolution to the violence that did not involve separating from Britain. Rather, they wanted to receive better political representation in the British parliament. In January of 1776, the English-born American writer Thomas Paine (1737–1809) published a pamphlet titled Common Sense that argued for independence from Britain and for the formation of a liberal democratic republic. Paine published that work in Philadelphia and soon sold more than 100,000 copies. It energized public support for a break from Britain and experimentation with the republican form of government. The Founding Father and second U.S. president John Adams (1735–1826) famously opined: “Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.” The printing presses of Philadelphia thus catalyzed the American Revolution.
Philadelphia then hosted the Second Continental Congress. Although the Second Continental Congress met in several other places as well, it was in Philadelphia that Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. A Virginian, Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), drafted the document while staying at a brick mason’s house in Philadelphia. The document laid out the rebel colonists’ reasoning for wishing to separate from Britain and spelled out several ideals of the new nation. The United States of America became the first country founded on Enlightenment principles, including human rights and consensual government. The Declaration’s most well-known passage reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Many of the ideas expressed in the document came directly from Enlightenment philosophers. For example, it paraphrased the “father of liberalism” John Locke’s belief in the rights to “life, liberty and property.” The young American republic did not always live up to its own ideals—most glaringly in the case of slavery. The founding ideals have nonetheless inspired countless Americans to strive to create a freer society with greater legal equality. The country’s founding values thus ultimately helped to bring about the end of slavery (1865), the expansion of the voting franchise to all races (1870) and women (1920), and the right to marriage for interracial couples (1967) and same-sex couples (2015). In other words, the Declaration of Independence’s eloquent statement of Enlightenment ideals has continued to resonate across generations and to encourage progress.
It is unsurprising that Philadelphia served as the headquarters, if not the official capital, of the new nation during the war. It was the young country’s most populous city. As with so many other Centers of Progress, a relatively large population helped the city thrive and act as a cultural hub. While Philadelphia had only about 40,000 residents, it would have felt crowded compared to other towns in the colonies. If you could visit Philadelphia during the American Revolution, you would enter a prospering city of shops and brick rowhouses, abuzz with the latest news about the war.
You might have run into the scientist, newspaperman, and statesman Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790), one of the most prominent proponents of the Revolution. He also helped to shape Philadelphia. He first moved from his hometown of Boston, governed by Puritans, to the relatively tolerant Philadelphia at the age of 17, to seek work in the printing industry. (He had previously apprenticed for his brother’s newspaper, which the Boston authorities soon banned). In 1729 Franklin began the Pennsylvania Gazette, which became one of the top papers in the colonies. He founded Philadelphia’s Library Company in 1731, thus pioneering the concept of a lending library at a time when books were often prohibitively expensive. Membership subscriptions funded the library. In 1751, Franklin also founded the Pennsylvania Hospital, funded by charity (including financial support from many of Philadelphia’s wealthiest families) and a grant that Franklin secured from the government to match private donations. The hospital served patients free of charge, and Philadelphia soon became the medical capital of the colonies that would later become the United States.
Once the revolution began, the threat of seizure by the British loomed large in Philadelphians’ minds. In autumn of 1777, those fears came to pass. The British occupation of the city has been called “one of the greatest blunders of the Revolutionary War.” As the Philadelphians suffered from wartime shortages, the occupying British officers gained a reputation for living in luxury and for illegal looting. As Elizabeth Drinker, a Quaker diarist residing in Philadelphia at the time, described the situation: “How insensible do these people appear, while our Land is so greatly desolated, and Death and sore destruction has overtaken and impends over so many.” In 1778, as the American forces grew stronger thanks to aid from France, the British recalled their troops from Philadelphia. In 1783, the war ended in a victory for the rebels.
Toward the end of the American Revolution, Pennsylvania abolitionists—including many Quakers and Presbyterians motivated by their religious values—helped abolish slavery in Pennsylvania by passing legislation in Philadelphia in 1780 that phased out the practice. Soon after, several other U.S. states (New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) followed suit with legislation modeled closely after Pennsylvania’s. Continuing its central role in the young republic, Philadelphia served as the official U.S. capital between 1790 and 1800 while Washington, D.C. was constructed.
By being the “cradle of liberty” and headquarters of the American Revolution, Philadelphia helped humanity to discover the benefits of liberal democracy. The ideas at the heart of the new form of government proved so successful that today representative liberal democracies can be found throughout much of the world. Philadelphia was also a notable early center of anti-slavery abolitionism, Enlightenment values, medical science, and culture. It is for these reasons that Philadelphia is rightly our 19th Center of Progress.
Are the Autocratizers Overtaking the Democratizers?
The decline of democracy in the last decade has largely wiped out the recent 35 years of improvement.
Russell Cui —
The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.
Thomas Jefferson
While we are seeing human progress across many well-being indicators, on the dimension of freedom and democracy, the trend is less clear in recent decades. Reports from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute show three major trends regarding the decline of the global levels of democracy.
First, the global level of democracy, as measured by a population-weighted average level of the V-Dem’s Liberal Democracy Indices, has been declining steadily since the 2010s. By 2022, the level of democracy enjoyed by the average global citizen deteriorated to 1986 levels. In the Asia-Pacific region, the level of democracy fell back to levels last recorded in 1978.
While we can still say that there has been global progress in democracy compared with the early 1970s, when the “third wave of democratization” began, the decline of democracy in the last decade largely wiped out the 35 years of improvement.
Second, the number of countries that moved from democracy toward autocracy (the “autocratizers”) over the last decade is far greater than the number of countries moving from autocracy toward democracy (the “democratizers”). In 2022, there was a record number of 42 autocratizers, containing 43 percent of the world’s population. In comparison, the number of democratizing countries was 14, with only 2 percent of the world’s population. This is a record low number last seen in 1973—50 years ago.
Third, the global balance of power has also been shifting significantly in favor of autocracies. In particular, autocracies accounted for 46 percent of global GDP (in purchasing power parity) in 2022, up from 24 percent in 1992. Trade between democracies was 47 percent of world trade in 2022, down from 74 percent in 1998, with an increasing share of world trade happening with and between autocracies. Democracies’ trade dependency on autocracies grew from 21 percent of world trade in 1999 to 35 percent in 2022. The share of between-autocracies trade tripled from 6 percent of world trade in 1992 to almost 18 percent in 2022.
The Rise of China played a major role in the shifting balance of economic and trade power. In purchasing power parity terms, China’s GDP surpassed the United States around the year 2014, making a closed autocracy the largest economy in the world. As a share of global GDP, China rose from 4.4 percent in 1992 to 18.5 percent in 2022. China also accounts for a significant part of the trade pattern changes, with its share of global trade reaching almost 15 percent and being a major trading partner for many autocracies and democracies.
Political scientists have argued that great powers’ influence on the structure of the international system is important in affecting the trajectories of democracies and authoritarian regimes. The implications of the rise of China for the fate of democracy is still an unfolding story.
Overall, these trends are alarming and worth more attention from people who care about democracy and human progress. The progress of political freedom is fundamental for human progress in other areas. It is, therefore, possible that human progress in general could face decline if the trend of autocratization continues.
While the general trend of human progress in the realm of political freedom still prevails – when we look at it from a time horizon of more than 40 years – we should also recognize that progress in freedom is never guaranteed. Freedom is “fragile” and must be, as President Reagan pointed out, “fought for and defended constantly by each generation.”
Overwhelming evidence shows that we are richer, healthier, better fed, better educated, and even more humane than ever before.
Marian L. Tupy —
Imagine, if you will, the following scenario. It is 1723, and you are invited to dinner in a bucolic New England countryside, unspoiled by the ravages of the Industrial Revolution. There, you encounter a family of English settlers who left the Old World to start a new life in North America. The father, muscles bulging after a vigorous day of work on the farm, sits at the head of the table, reading from the Bible. His beautiful wife, dressed in rustic finery, is putting finishing touches on a pot of hearty stew. The son, a strapping lad of 17, has just returned from an invigorating horse ride, while the daughter, aged 12, is playing with her dolls. Aside from the antiquated gender roles, what’s there not to like?
As an idealized depiction of pre-industrial life, the setting is easily recognizable to anyone familiar with Romantic writing or films such as Gone with the Wind or the Lord of the Rings trilogy. As a description of reality, however, it is rubbish; balderdash; nonsense and humbug. More likely than not, the father is in agonizing and chronic pain from decades of hard labor. His wife’s lungs, destroyed by years of indoor pollution, make her cough blood. Soon, she will be dead. The daughter, the family being too poor to afford a dowry, will spend her life as a spinster, shunned by her peers. And the son, having recently visited a prostitute, is suffering from a mysterious ailment that will make him blind in five years and kill him before he is 30.
For most of human history, life was very difficult for most people. They lacked basic medicines and died relatively young. They had no painkillers, and people with ailments spent much of their lives in agonizing pain. Entire families lived in bug-infested dwellings that offered neither comfort nor privacy. They worked in the fields from sunrise to sunset, yet hunger and famines were common. Transportation was primitive, and most people never traveled beyond their native villages or nearest towns. Ignorance and illiteracy were rife. The “good old days” were, by and large, very bad for the great majority of humankind. Since then, humanity has made enormous progress—especially over the course of the last two centuries.
How much progress?
Life expectancy before the modern era, which is to say, the last 200 years or so, was between ages 25 and 30. Today, the global average is 73 years old. It is 78 in the United States and 85 in Hong Kong.
In the mid-18th century, 40 percent of children died before their 15th birthday in Sweden and 50 percent in Bavaria. That was not unusual. The average child mortality among hunter-gatherers was 49 percent. Today, global child mortality is 4 percent. It is 0.3 percent in the Nordic nations and Japan.
Most of the people who survived into adulthood lived on the equivalent of $2 per day—a permanent state of penury that lasted from the start of the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago until the 1800s. Today, the global average is $35—adjusted for inflation. Put differently, the average inhabitant of the world is 18 times better off.
With rising incomes came a massive reduction in absolute poverty, which fell from 90 percent in the early 19th century to 40 percent in 1980 to less than 10 percent today. As scholars from the Brookings Institution put it, “Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history.”
Along with absolute poverty came hunger. Famines were once common, and the average food consumption in France did not reach 2,000 calories per person per day until the 1820s. Today, the global average is approaching 3,000 calories, and obesity is an increasing problem—even in sub-Saharan Africa.
Almost 90 percent of people worldwide in 1820 were illiterate. Today, over 90 percent of humanity is literate. As late as 1870, the total length of schooling at all levels of education for people between the ages of 24 and 65 was 0.5 years. Today, it is nine years.
These are the basics, but don’t forget other conveniences of modern life, such as antibiotics. President Calvin Coolidge’s son died from an infected blister, which he developed while playing tennis at the White House in 1924. Four years later, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin. Or think of air conditioning, the arrival of which increased productivity and, therefore, standards of living in the American South and ensured that New Yorkers didn’t have to sleep on outside staircases during the summer to keep cool.
So far, I have chiefly focused only on material improvements. Technological change, which drives material progress forward, is cumulative. But the unprecedented prosperity that most people enjoy today isn’t the most remarkable aspect of modern life. That must be the gradual improvement in our treatment of one another and of the natural world around us—a fact that’s even more remarkable given that human nature is largely unchanging.
Let’s start with the most obvious. Slavery can be traced back to Sumer, a Middle Eastern civilization that flourished between 4,500 BC and 1,900 BC. Over the succeeding 4,000 years, every civilization at one point or another practiced chattel slavery. Today, it is banned in every country on Earth.
In ancient Greece and many other cultures, women were the property of men. They were deliberately kept confined and ignorant. And while it is true that the status of women ranged widely throughout history, it was only in 1893 New Zealand that women obtained the right to vote. Today, the only place where women have no vote is the Papal Election at the Vatican.
A similar story can be told about gays and lesbians. It is a myth that the equality, which gays and lesbians enjoy in the West today, is merely a return to a happy ancient past. The Greeks tolerated (and highly regulated) sexual encounters among men, but lesbianism (women being the property of men) was unacceptable. The same was true about relationships between adult males. In the end, all men were expected to marry and produce children for the military.
Similarly, it is a mistake to create a dichotomy between males and the rest. Most men in history never had political power. The United States was the first country on Earth where most free men could vote in the early 1800s. Prior to that, men formed the backbone of oppressed peasantry, whose job was to feed the aristocrats and die in their wars.
Strange though it may sound, given the Russian barbarism in Ukraine and Hamas’s in Israel, data suggests that humans are more peaceful than they used to be. Five hundred years ago, great powers were at war 100 percent of the time. Every springtime, armies moved, invaded the neighbor’s territory, and fought until wintertime. War was the norm. Today, it is peace. In fact, this year marks 70 years since the last war between great powers. No comparable period of peace exists in the historical record.
Homicides are also down. At the time of Leonardo Da Vinci, some 73 out of every 100,000 Italians could expect to be murdered in their lifetimes. Today, it is less than one. Something similar has happened in Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia, and many other places on Earth.
Human sacrifice, cannibalism, eunuchs, harems, dueling, foot-binding, heretic and witch burning, public torture and executions, infanticide, freak shows and laughing at the insane, as Harvard University’s Steven Pinker has documented, are all gone or linger only in the worst of the planet’s backwaters.
Finally, we are also more mindful of nonhumans. Lowering cats into a fire to make them scream was a popular spectacle in 16th century Paris. Ditto bearbaiting, a blood sport in which a chained bear and one or more dogs were forced to fight. Speaking of dogs, some were used as foot warmers while others were bred to run on a wheel, called a turnspit or dog wheel, to turn the meat in the kitchen. Whaling was also common.
Overwhelming evidence from across the academic disciplines clearly shows that we are richer, live longer, are better fed, and are better educated. Most of all, evidence shows that we are more humane. My point, therefore, is a simple one: this is the best time to be alive.
David Ansara, the Chief Executive of the Free Market Foundation, a South African think tank, joins Chelsea Follett to discuss progress and problems in Africa.
David Ansara —
Listen to the podcast or read the full transcript here.
What is the broad state of progress, free markets, and individual liberty in Africa today?
You must always be cautious about broad brushstroke assessments of Africa, but there are a few general trends we can observe.
During the post-liberation period, there was a trend towards socialist and nationalist policies and highly interventionist states across sub-Saharan Africa. Many African countries were economically isolated. But since the end of the Cold War, there’s been quite an improvement, not only in economic openness but also a broader political liberalization.
However, it’s a mixed picture. There are still significant security concerns in large parts of Africa, and we also have fragile and often hostile state institutions.
What are some strengths and opportunities for Africa?
One big strength is the demographic dividend. Sub-Saharan Africa has a very young population relative to the rest of the world. Young men without jobs tend to cause trouble, but they also have huge productive potential. But you also need an enabling policy framework. You need economic opportunities. You need good education.
Internet access is allowing people to bypass traditional university systems. Before, maybe the elites in Lagos could have gone to study at King’s College in London. Now, anyone can learn the skills they need through Khan Academy or Coursera. Africa’s also located in a very favorable time zone for remote services. So, Africa is well positioned to take advantage of these opportunities.
Another opportunity is the African Continental Free Trade Agreement, which aims to reduce 90% of tariffs over the next 12 years. The rate of trade between African countries is low, roughly 10 to 15%, whereas intra-European trade is north of 60%, so something like the African Continental Free Trade Agreement has potential. However, many non-tariff barriers still exist, such as meddling officials trying to extract bribes and poor infrastructure.
What about the threats to progress on the continent?
Governance issues remain a big problem, especially corruption. Here in South Africa, we’re dealing with endemic corruption that has resulted in rolling blackouts. That problem extends across all spheres of government in South Africa. President Ramaphosa himself had about $6 million worth of US currency hidden in his couch.
Another major threat is the lack of respect for private property. In South Africa, we have constitutional protection for private property, but there were recent moves to amend the constitution to include expropriation with nil compensation. That amendment was unsuccessful, but now a bill has been introduced in Parliament which tries to, through normal legislation, introduce expropriation without compensation.
Security of tenure is also weak. If you want to purchase property in Mozambique, for example, you have to take a 99-year lease, which is not comforting to a potential investor. Sub-Saharan African countries need to take this seriously, and countries like Botswana and Mauritius that do take it seriously will reap the benefits.
How has the pandemic been for Africa?
What was interesting about the pandemic is that, either through a lack of respect for Covid lockdown restrictions or just the impossibility of enforcing these restrictions, much of sub-Saharan Africa escaped the worst excesses of the lockdowns. People just continued to go about their business. In many respects, I think the developed world was hit harder by the Covid responses.
Sub-Saharan Africa remains the world’s poorest region. How can this region unlock its economic potential?
Economists and policymakers make economic development seem very technically complicated, but the ingredients are actually well-tried and tested. The Economic Freedom of the World Report measures five areas: the size of government, the legal system and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and appropriate regulation. When you adjust for purchasing power, the freest quartile of nations in the Economic Freedom of the World Report have average incomes more than seven times higher than those of the least free quartile. Average incomes in the top quartile are about $48,000; in the least free quartile, they are about $6500.
In many African states, government consumption accounts for most of the country’s total consumption, and most of the middle classes in many African countries are civil servants. That has an opportunity cost; somebody working for the government could otherwise have added new value to the economy. Keeping the government small is essential.
One of Africa’s real Achilles’ heels is the lack of respect for private property rights and the rule of law. Many critics of free-market policies, particularly here in South Africa, think private property rights just protect the interests of the wealthy, but it’s the poorest people in society who need private property rights the most. Across Africa, many poor families lack any formal title to their property, and it’s very common for a local official to come and say, “You have to dismantle your shack and move your entire home because we tell you to.” At the Free Market Foundation, we have a project that assists poor homeowners with their property title applications. That is a really impactful way of driving development. You don’t need some massive World Bank loan or a foreign NGO. If you protect people’s property, they will create prosperity for themselves.
Many people in rich countries think foreign aid is the best way to combat poverty. Do you agree?
Charity can be effective, but if you contrast it to, for example, the growth of telecommunications, it’s clear that market forces are creating prosperity orders of magnitude larger than what any NGO can achieve.
One of the problems with aid is political. International aid agencies often prefer or are mandated to work with local governments. In Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi used development funding to distribute patronage in his country to buy political favor. Paul Kagame in Rwanda has effectively played the international donor community and used that favor to entrench his power. Another problem is that much of the funding for these global development projects is used for administration. In a country like Malawi or Tanzania, whenever you see a four-wheel drive motor vehicle in the city, you know it’s being driven by somebody working for an international NGO.
International organizations have a role, for example, in emergency responses to famines. But as Amartya Sen has indicated, liberal democracies with market economies seldom suffer from famines. Those systemic reforms are not as sexy as running a well-funded United Nations project, but they are more durable. GDP per capita has increased by about 30% across Africa in the last 20 years, and that is mostly from removing barriers and letting people get on with their business. People are naturally ambitious. They want to improve their families’ lives, and they want their children’s lives to be better than their own. They just need the right conditions in which to operate.
What are you the most optimistic about regarding Africa’s future?
I’m actually bullish about Africa.
As you’ve documented so well in your work, the story of human progress is profound. But I get a sense that, in many Western countries, there’s a lack of optimism about the future. I don’t see that in Africa. There’s a sense of imminent change. Many post-liberation movements have declining electoral majorities, which could usher in much more political competition.
Africans also have that fire in their belly. In Western countries, there’s an expectation that living standards have always been a certain way and will remain that way forever. But Africans have a real hustle-and-grind mentality, and that’s going to be able to take them very far indeed. There are strong headwinds: security issues, vulnerability to extreme weather events, and energy issues. But problems breed innovation, and I think Africans have that innovative spirit to change their circumstances and to get things done.
David Ansara, the Chief Executive of the Free Market Foundation, a South African think tank, joins Chelsea Follett to discuss progress and problems in Africa.
