redaktion granaria
Abstract
We examine the intertwined relationship between sovereign power, banking policy, and financial innovation in early modern Europe, focusing on the seminal financial crises of the early eighteenth century: John Law’s Mississippi System in France and the South Sea Bubble in Great Britain. Challenging interpretations that prioritize speculative mania or market irrationality, this analysis argues that these crises were fundamentally state-engineered events, driven by the existential funding imperatives of warring European powers. We deconstruct the architecture of these ambitious debt-for-equity schemes, revealing them as sophisticated, albeit ultimately unsustainable, innovations designed to manage colossal sovereign debts and expand state capacity. Through a comparative analysis, we contrast the catastrophic collapse of France’s centrally controlled system with the more contained, though still disruptive, outcome in Britain’s pluralistic political environment. Furthermore, the study juxtaposes the monopolistic, state-serving model of the Bank of England with the competitive, growth-oriented banking system that flourished in Scotland during the same period. This comparison demonstrates that banking structures were not determined by abstract economic logic but were contingent upon the prevailing political equilibrium and the sovereign’s strategic needs. By synthesizing historical case studies with modern financial theory, the paper posits that the tension between a sovereign’s need for survival and the conditions required for stable private credit markets is a recurring theme in financial history. Ultimately, the paper concludes that the legacies of these early modern crises profoundly shaped subsequent developments in financial regulation, public finance theory, and the enduring debate over the state’s role as both a catalyst for financial innovation and an architect of systemic risk.
1. Introduction
The dawn of the eighteenth century heralded an era of profound transformation in European finance, marked by unprecedented innovation and equally dramatic crises. At the heart of this volatile landscape were the intertwined ambitions of burgeoning states and the nascent power of organized capital. The period’s defining financial events—John Law’s Mississippi System in France and the South Sea Bubble in Great Britain—have long served as archetypal tales of speculative folly and market irrationality (Streib, 2024)(Menning, 2020). While the narrative of public mania remains a powerful element of their legacy, a deeper examination reveals a more complex and consequential story rooted in the exigencies of state power. This paper argues that these crises were not primarily products of spontaneous market hysteria but were, in fact, “state schemes” conceived and executed to solve a critical and recurring problem for early modern sovereigns: the financing of incessant warfare and the management of overwhelming public debt.
The late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries were dominated by a series of protracted conflicts between Europe’s great powers, most notably Britain and France. These wars demanded resources on a scale previously unimaginable, pushing state finances to the brink of collapse and compelling governments to seek novel methods for raising revenue and managing liabilities. In this context, financial innovation became an instrument of statecraft. Visionaries like John Law saw an opportunity to harness the power of credit, paper currency, and joint-stock companies not only for commercial profit but also to fundamentally restructure state finance (Bruner, 2020). His grand experiment in France, which consolidated colonial trade, tax collection, and the national debt under the umbrella of the Mississippi Company, represented a radical attempt at a state-engineered financial revolution (Spread, 2025). This system, which initially appeared miraculously successful, sought to liquefy the nation’s wealth and expand its fiscal capacity through centralized control.
Simultaneously, across the Channel, Great Britain was grappling with its own monumental war debts. The South Sea Company emerged as a powerful rival to the established Bank of England, proposing a similar, albeit politically distinct, scheme to convert government debt into company equity. The ensuing speculative bubble, much like its French counterpart, was fueled by a combination of genuine financial innovation, political intrigue, and widespread public participation. However, the distinct political structures of absolutist France and post-Glorious Revolution Britain profoundly shaped the trajectory and aftermath of their respective crises. Scholarly debates continue to probe the nature of these events, with some interpretations emphasizing the rationality of market participants responding to novel financial instruments, while others highlight the inherent instability created when state power and speculative finance become inextricably linked (Jackson, 2017)(Bilginsoy, 2014).
To fully understand the institutional divergence that defined this era, this paper extends its analysis beyond the bubbles of 1720 to a comparative study of banking development in England and Scotland. Under the same British sovereign, two starkly different financial systems evolved. England’s finance was dominated by the Bank of England, a monopolistic institution created primarily to serve the state’s borrowing needs. In contrast, Scotland developed a remarkably competitive, decentralized, and stable banking system that fostered significant economic growth and innovation without a central bank (Calomiris, 2013). This divergence was not accidental; it was the product of a political equilibrium in which the British state prioritized its direct funding needs in England while permitting a more commercially oriented system to flourish in Scotland as a means of political and economic integration. This “natural experiment” provides crucial insights into how sovereign imperatives directly shape the architecture of a nation’s financial system, often prioritizing state survival over the optimal development of private credit markets (Duncan, 2023).
This paper will proceed in four main parts. First, it will analyze the theoretical foundations and ultimate collapse of John Law’s Mississippi System, highlighting the limits of centralized financial control under an autocratic regime. Second, it will deconstruct the South Sea Bubble, examining the interplay of sovereign debt, political rivalry, and public speculation within Britain’s more fragmented political landscape. Third, it will contrast the monopolistic banking model of England with the competitive system in Scotland, arguing that political equilibrium was the key determinant of these divergent paths. Finally, the paper will engage with key scholarly debates surrounding these historical events, assessing their lasting impact on financial regulation and the theory of public finance. By tracing the complex relationship between the state, its finances, and the market, this study aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of these foundational crises and their enduring relevance to the perennial challenges of sovereign debt and financial stability.
2. John Law and the Mississippi System: A State-Engineered Financial Revolution
The financial crisis that engulfed France between 1716 and 1720, known as the Mississippi Bubble, was not merely a spontaneous speculative mania but a deliberate and ambitious state-engineered financial revolution. Orchestrated by the Scottish financier John Law, under the authority of the French Regent, Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, the “System” represented a radical attempt to solve France’s crippling sovereign debt crisis through an unprecedented fusion of central banking, a state-backed trading monopoly, and the issuance of paper currency. Law’s enterprise was a product of the immense fiscal pressures facing the French absolutist state following the ruinous wars of Louis XIV. It sought to transform the illiquid and distrusted national debt into a liquid and productive asset, stimulate commerce, and ultimately enhance the power of the French crown. This chapter will analyze the theoretical origins of Law’s ideas, the intricate architecture of his Mississippi Company, and the ultimate reasons for its spectacular rise and catastrophic collapse, revealing the profound risks inherent in a financial system where sovereign imperatives completely dominate market mechanisms.
2.1. Theoretical Foundations: From Scottish Land Banks to French State Finance
John Law was a financial theorist of considerable sophistication whose ideas were forged in response to the economic conditions of his time. His intellectual journey began in his native Scotland, where he observed a stagnant economy hampered by a scarcity of money and an abundance of unproductive, illiquid assets—namely, land. In his 1705 publication, Money and Trade Considered: with a Proposal for Supplying the Nation with Money, and in his related “Essay on a Land Bank,” Law articulated a powerful, and for its time, revolutionary theory of money and credit (Murphy, 2023). He argued that a nation’s prosperity was directly linked to the abundance of its money supply, which facilitated trade and industry. He proposed the establishment of a “land bank,” a state-sanctioned institution with the authority to issue paper notes backed not by scarce gold or silver but by the value of the nation’s land (Murphy, 2017).
Law’s core insight was that paper money, if properly managed, could unlock the latent wealth tied up in illiquid assets, providing the credit necessary for economic expansion. He believed that the value of land was more stable than that of precious metals, which were subject to the vagaries of mining and international trade. A land bank, therefore, could provide an elastic currency, expanding or contracting the money supply in response to the needs of commerce, a concept that presaged modern monetary policy. His proposal for Scotland, however, was rejected by its more conservative Parliament, which feared the inflationary potential of such a scheme. Undeterred, Law sought a sovereign who would be more receptive to his bold vision, one who faced a fiscal crisis so severe that radical solutions were not just appealing, but necessary (Wiston-Glynn, 2022).
He found that sovereign in the Regent of France. Upon the death of Louis XIV in 1715, France was effectively bankrupt. The crown’s debts were massive, fragmented, and trading at deep discounts, reflecting a near-total collapse of state credit. The tax system was inefficient and oppressive, and the economy was moribund. In this environment of desperation, Law saw an unparalleled opportunity to implement his financial schemes on a grand scale (Wiston-Glynn, 2022). He astutely adapted his earlier land bank concepts to the specific problems facing the French state. While the underlying principle of monetizing illiquid assets remained, the primary asset to be monetized was no longer Scottish land but the vast and discounted French national debt. His initial step was the establishment of the Banque Générale in 1716, a private bank authorized to issue banknotes. These notes were accepted in payment of taxes, which quickly established their credibility and circulation. The bank was a success, providing a stable medium of exchange and reviving commercial activity, demonstrating the initial viability of Law’s ideas.
However, Law’s ultimate ambition extended far beyond simply managing a private bank. He envisioned a fully integrated system where banking, public finance, and colonial trade were merged into a single, powerful engine for national economic renewal (Spread, 2025). This vision culminated in the transformation of his private bank into the Banque Royale in 1718, effectively nationalizing it and making its notes legal tender. Simultaneously, he was building the commercial pillar of his system, the Mississippi Company, which would serve as the vehicle for his grand debt-for-equity swap. Law’s theoretical evolution from a Scottish land bank proponent to the architect of French state finance demonstrates a remarkable pragmatism, adapting his core belief in the power of credit and paper money to the monumental task of restructuring the finances of Europe’s largest absolutist monarchy.
2.2. The Architecture of the Mississippi Company: Consolidating Debt, Trade, and Currency
The Mississippi Company, formally the Compagnie d’Occident (Company of the West), was the centerpiece of John Law’s System and the instrument through which his financial revolution was to be executed. Established in 1717, its initial mandate was to develop France’s vast colonial territories in North America, particularly the Louisiana Territory, which was believed to be rich in precious metals and other valuable resources (Bruner, 2020). This colonial enterprise, however, was merely the public face of a much more ambitious financial operation: the complete takeover and restructuring of the entire French national debt (Murphy, 2018). The company’s architecture was designed to create a set of powerful, self-reinforcing synergies between sovereign debt management, colonial trade, and currency issuance.
The core mechanism was a series of debt-for-equity swaps. The French crown’s debt consisted of a bewildering array of bonds and annuities (rentes), which were highly illiquid and traded at substantial discounts due to the state’s poor credit history. Law proposed that holders of this government debt could exchange it, at par, for shares in the Mississippi Company. This was an attractive proposition for creditors, as it allowed them to convert their depreciated, non-performing government paper into shares of a dynamic new enterprise that promised immense future profits from colonial trade. For the state, the swap was equally beneficial. It converted its high-interest, short-term obligations into a single, consolidated, low-interest loan from the company. The company, in turn, would receive a steady stream of income from the government to service this debt, which would underwrite its operations and provide a baseline for its share value.
To enhance the company’s appeal and perceived value, Law systematically consolidated a vast array of economic privileges under its control. The Mississippi Company absorbed other French overseas trading companies, securing a monopoly over virtually all of France’s colonial trade. It was granted the lucrative monopoly on tobacco sales and, most significantly, took over the collection of all French taxes. This vertical and horizontal integration transformed the company into an unparalleled economic powerhouse, a quasi-state entity deeply interwoven with the fiscal and commercial apparatus of the French monarchy. Each new privilege and revenue stream added to the company’s balance sheet was used to justify further increases in its share price, creating a powerful narrative of limitless growth.
The system was fueled by the Banque Royale, which Law also controlled. The bank issued an increasing volume of paper money, which was used to facilitate the purchase of company shares. Law instituted an innovative installment plan for share purchases, allowing investors to buy shares with a small down payment, with the balance due in subsequent months. This created immense leverage in the market, as rising share prices enabled investors to use their initial holdings as collateral to finance further purchases. The bank’s ability to print money provided the liquidity necessary to sustain this upward spiral. In effect, Law had created a closed loop: the bank printed money to inflate the price of the company’s stock, which in turn increased the perceived wealth of the nation and the success of the debt conversion, justifying the issuance of more money. This intricate architecture, combining debt consolidation, monopoly trade rights, and a pliant central bank, was designed to engineer a sustained economic boom, but it contained the seeds of its own destruction by severing the link between financial asset values and their underlying economic reality.
2.3. The Bubble and its Collapse: The Limits of Centralized Financial Control
The perceived success of John Law’s System between 1718 and early 1720 created a speculative frenzy unlike anything seen before. As the Mississippi Company absorbed more state functions and announced grandiose plans for the development of Louisiana, its share price soared. The initial offering price of 150 livres per share skyrocketed to over 10,000 livres by the end of 1719 (Bruner, 2020). Fortunes were made overnight, and a wave of “millionaires” (a term coined during the bubble) emerged from all social classes. The Rue Quincampoix in Paris, the center of share trading, became a scene of chaotic and fevered speculation. The bubble was sustained by a powerful combination of factors: genuine public enthusiasm for Law’s vision, the leverage afforded by the installment payment system, the continuous injection of paper money by the Banque Royale, and the official sanction of the Regent, which lent the entire enterprise an aura of state-guaranteed success.
However, the System’s centralized and autocratic nature was both its greatest strength and its fatal weakness. Law’s control over the bank, the company, and the state’s finances allowed him to implement his plan with remarkable speed, but it also eliminated any effective checks and balances. The escalating share price bore little relation to the company’s actual or potential earnings. The Louisiana colony was largely undeveloped, and the profits from tax collection and trade monopolies were insufficient to justify the astronomical market capitalization of the company. The value of the shares was sustained not by fundamental performance but by the continuous expansion of credit and the collective belief in ever-rising prices.
The turning point came in early 1720. Astute investors, including powerful nobles, began to realize that the bubble was unsustainable and started to cash in their shares, demanding payment in specie (gold and silver coin) from the Banque Royale. This placed immense pressure on the bank’s reserves. In a series of increasingly desperate moves to prop up the System, Law revealed the inherent conflict between sovereign control and market discipline. He made the Banque Royale’s notes forced legal tender and restricted the use and possession of gold and silver, effectively abandoning the pretense of convertibility. Most fatefully, he moved to fix the price of Mississippi shares by decree and announced a plan to gradually deflate the value of both shares and banknotes, a clumsy attempt to engineer a soft landing that instead shattered public confidence (Nguyen, 2018).
These actions destroyed the very trust upon which the paper money system was built. The public, realizing that the value of their paper assets was subject to arbitrary state decree, rushed to convert their holdings into anything of tangible value, primarily land and durable goods. The result was hyperinflation and the complete collapse of the company’s share price. By the end of 1720, the System was in ruins, Law had fled France in disgrace, and the nation was left to deal with a worthless currency and a disordered financial landscape. The collapse of the Mississippi Bubble demonstrated the profound dangers of a financial system completely subordinated to the will of the state. While Law’s initial ideas contained “sensible” economic insights, their implementation within an autocratic political framework, which allowed for the abandonment of market discipline and the unrestrained printing of money, transformed a bold financial innovation into a national catastrophe. The experience left a deep and lasting scar on the French psyche, fostering a profound distrust of paper money, stock markets, and centralized banking that would hinder France’s financial development for generations.
3. The South Sea Bubble: Sovereign Debt and Speculative Mania in Britain
Contemporaneous with John Law’s grand experiment in France, a similar drama of sovereign debt, financial innovation, and speculative frenzy unfolded across the English Channel. The South Sea Bubble of 1720, while sharing surface similarities with the Mississippi Bubble, was fundamentally a product of Britain’s unique political and financial landscape. It was not the creation of a single autocratic figure but the result of a competitive, pluralistic political system grappling with the immense fiscal pressures of war and empire. The British state, transformed by the Glorious Revolution, had developed a sophisticated, if fractious, system of public finance built on a partnership between the sovereign and powerful private financial interests. The South Sea Bubble emerged from this very system, representing an audacious attempt to manage a colossal national debt through a state-sponsored, publicly traded corporation. This chapter examines the origins of the South Sea Bubble within the context of Britain’s post-revolutionary financial innovations, analyzes the mechanics of the debt-for-equity scheme that propelled the crisis, and dissects the anatomy of the speculative mania that ensued, revealing a complex interplay of political rivalry, insider maneuvering, and broad public participation.
3.1. The Post-Glorious Revolution Financial Landscape: War, Debt, and Innovation
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was not merely a political and constitutional event; it precipitated a profound transformation in English public finance, often termed the “Financial Revolution” (Walsh, 2014). The new constitutional settlement, which subordinated the monarch to Parliament, created a more credible and stable framework for government borrowing. This enhanced credibility was crucial, as Britain almost immediately embarked on a series of protracted and costly wars against France, spanning from the Nine Years’ War (1688–1697) to the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). These conflicts necessitated unprecedented levels of state expenditure, forcing the government to innovate in the realm of public debt. The old methods of royal finance were inadequate for the scale of modern warfare, pushing the state to develop new instruments and institutions to mobilize the nation’s wealth.
A central pillar of this new financial architecture was the creation of the Bank of England in 1694. Established as a joint-stock company, the Bank was chartered to lend £1.2 million to the government in exchange for, among other privileges, the right to issue banknotes. This represented a foundational partnership between the state and a powerful faction of private financiers, primarily aligned with the Whig party. The Bank’s success in providing a stable source of funding for the sovereign cemented its position at the heart of the British financial system. However, its monopoly and political alignment also made it a target for rivals. The financing of war debt became a highly politicized process, with different factions vying for the lucrative contracts and influence that came with being the government’s primary creditor.
The national debt, a direct consequence of this new model of war finance, grew exponentially. Much of this debt was fragmented, consisting of various short-term instruments, annuities, and lottery tickets, making it illiquid and difficult to manage. This created a persistent challenge for the Treasury and an opportunity for financial entrepreneurs. The core problem was converting this unwieldy mass of high-interest, short-term obligations into a more manageable, long-term, and lower-interest liability. The solution that emerged was the debt-for-equity swap, a financial innovation that would become the central mechanism of the South Sea Bubble (Frehen, 2013). The concept was simple yet powerful: a large, chartered company would offer holders of government debt the opportunity to exchange their illiquid bonds for shares in the company. The company, in turn, would become the government’s primary creditor, receiving a steady stream of interest payments on the consolidated debt. This process offered benefits to all parties: the government consolidated its debt and lowered its interest burden; bondholders gained liquid, tradable equity in a company with perceived monopoly privileges and growth prospects; and the company’s founders stood to profit immensely from managing the scheme and from the anticipated rise in their stock’s value. This period was characterized by a fervent belief in the potential of such financial innovations to solve complex economic problems, creating an environment ripe for ambitious, and ultimately dangerous, financial engineering (Dale, 2014).
3.2. The South Sea Company’s Debt-for-Equity Swap: A Rival to the Bank of England
The South Sea Company was chartered in 1711 by the Tory government of Robert Harley, explicitly as a political and financial counterweight to the Whig-dominated Bank of England. Its initial purpose was to execute a debt-for-equity swap for approximately £9 million of unfunded government debt. In return, the company was granted a monopoly on trade with Spanish South America—the Asiento de Negros, a contract to supply slaves, and other trading concessions. Although the commercial value of these trading rights proved to be vastly overestimated and largely illusory, the perception of immense potential profits from colonial trade provided a powerful narrative that fueled public interest in the company’s stock.
By 1719, with the national debt still immense, the stage was set for a much larger operation. John Law’s successes in France, where his Mississippi Company was absorbing the entire French national debt, created a sense of competitive urgency in London. The British government, seeking to replicate this apparent success, invited proposals for a new, comprehensive debt conversion scheme. The South Sea Company entered into a fierce bidding war with its established rival, the Bank of England. Both institutions submitted plans to Parliament to take over the majority of the national debt, which stood at over £30 million.
The South Sea Company ultimately won the contract in 1720, not because its plan was necessarily more sound, but because its directors made a more aggressive and enticing offer to the government. They promised not only to convert the debt at a lower interest rate but also to pay the government a fee of over £7 million for the privilege. This “excess bid” was predicated on the assumption that the company’s stock price would rise dramatically during the conversion process. The scheme’s profitability for the company and its directors was entirely dependent on their ability to issue new shares at prices far above their par value. To facilitate this, the company was empowered to offer its own shares to holders of government debt at a market-determined price. The higher the stock price rose, the fewer shares the company would need to issue to absorb a given amount of debt, thus creating a massive surplus (the “fictitious capital”) on its balance sheet. This structure created a powerful, self-reinforcing incentive to inflate the company’s share price by any means necessary, setting the stage for the speculative bubble that was to follow (Menning, 2020). The entire enterprise was a state-sanctioned gamble on market sentiment and the company’s ability to manage public perception.
3.3. Anatomy of the Bubble: Insider Trading, Political Rivalry, and Public Participation
With the passage of the South Sea Act in April 1720, the company began its conversion scheme, and its stock price embarked on a spectacular ascent. Rising from around £128 in January, the price surged to over £1,000 by early August. This meteoric rise was not driven by the company’s underlying commercial prospects, which remained negligible, but by a combination of deliberate market manipulation, political corruption, and a contagion of speculative fever that swept through British society.
A crucial element in inflating the bubble was the extensive use of what was effectively legalized corruption. To secure parliamentary approval for its scheme, the South Sea Company distributed large blocks of shares and bribes to key politicians, courtiers, and even the King’s mistresses. These influential figures, now stakeholders in the company’s success, used their positions to publicly tout the stock and foster an atmosphere of boundless optimism. This political backing lent the scheme an aura of official endorsement and invincibility, encouraging public investment.
Furthermore, the company employed innovative financial techniques to sustain the upward momentum of its stock price. It offered installment plans for share purchases, allowing investors to buy stock with only a small down payment, effectively creating a highly leveraged market. More significantly, the company began lending money directly to individuals against their own holdings of South Sea stock. This created a circular flow of credit that directly fueled the bubble: investors could borrow money from the company to buy more of its shares, which in turn drove the price higher, increased the value of their collateral, and enabled them to borrow even more. This mechanism created enormous artificial demand for the stock and disconnected its price entirely from any plausible assessment of fundamental value.
The speculative mania was not confined to a small financial elite; it drew in a wide cross-section of society, from aristocrats and members of Parliament to merchants, artisans, and servants. London’s Exchange Alley became the epicenter of a frenzy of buying and selling (Streib, 2024). The South Sea Company’s success spawned a host of imitator companies, known as “bubbles,” which raised capital for increasingly outlandish and often fraudulent ventures. This proliferation of rival schemes threatened to divert capital away from the South Sea Company, prompting its directors to lobby for the passage of the Bubble Act in June 1720. The Act, intended to shut down unincorporated joint-stock companies, ironically contributed to a final, sharp spike in the South Sea stock price as it was seen as the only remaining legitimate investment vehicle.
However, the bubble’s foundation was inherently unstable. As the summer progressed, knowledgeable insiders and sophisticated investors began to quietly sell their shares, recognizing that the price was unsustainable. Records from institutions like Hoare’s Bank show that informed financiers were systematically liquidating their positions at the peak of the market. The collapse began in late August and accelerated rapidly. As the price fell, the company’s loans-on-stock scheme went into reverse; margin calls were triggered, forcing leveraged investors to sell their shares, which pushed the price down further in a vicious spiral. By the end of the year, the stock had crashed back to below £200, wiping out fortunes and triggering a severe economic and political crisis. The South Sea Bubble, born from the nexus of sovereign debt, political ambition, and financial innovation, had spectacularly burst, leaving a legacy of ruin and a profound lesson on the perils of state-sponsored speculation (Odlyzko, 2019). The subsequent parliamentary inquiry exposed the depth of the corruption, leading to the disgrace of several government ministers and forever linking the episode with financial scandal and irrational exuberance (McColloch, 2013).
4. A Tale of Two Systems: Contrasting Banking Development in Scotland and England
The parallel financial dramas of the Mississippi and South Sea bubbles in France and Britain underscore a fundamental principle of early modern finance: the structure of a nation’s banking system is not a predetermined outcome of economic logic, but a contingent result of political imperatives. While France and Britain both grappled with the immense fiscal pressures of war and empire, their distinct political equilibria produced divergent institutional paths. An even more revealing comparison, however, can be found within the borders of a single sovereign entity: the United Kingdom. The striking contrast between the banking systems that evolved in England and Scotland during the eighteenth century provides a controlled historical experiment, demonstrating how a sovereign’s strategic needs can foster radically different financial environments. In England, the imperative of war finance led to the creation and preservation of a powerful central monopoly in the Bank of England. In Scotland, a different political calculation—the need to appease a newly incorporated nation—allowed for the flourishing of a competitive, decentralized, and highly innovative banking system. This tale of two systems reveals that the architecture of finance is often a direct reflection of the sovereign’s priorities, where the state’s survival and consolidation of power precede the development of a banking sector oriented toward private commerce and economic growth.
4.1. The Bank of England’s Monopoly: Serving the Sovereign’s Needs
The establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 was a direct response to the Crown’s desperate need for funds to prosecute the Nine Years’ War against France. It was not conceived primarily as an institution to serve the broader commercial needs of the English economy, but as a novel public-private partnership designed to solve a sovereign solvency crisis. The Bank was granted a charter and limited liability status in exchange for a substantial loan to the government. This foundational transaction set the precedent for a century-long symbiotic relationship in which the Bank of England’s primary function was to act as the financial arm of the state. Its monopoly privileges were the explicit price paid by the English public for securing a stable source of war funding for the sovereign.
Central to the Bank’s power was the monopoly it held over joint-stock banking in England and Wales. The initial charter and subsequent renewals, particularly the Tonnage Act, effectively prohibited the formation of other banking corporations with more than six partners. This legal barrier stifled the development of large, robust, and capitalized banking institutions that could rival the Bank of England or provide extensive credit to the burgeoning industrial and commercial sectors (Turner, 2015). Consequently, the English banking landscape outside of London was dominated by a fragmented network of small, undercapitalized, and often unstable private banks. While these country banks played a role in local economies, their inability to operate as joint-stock companies limited their scale, scope, and resilience, contributing to a comparatively underdeveloped private credit market.
The Bank of England’s monopoly was politically expedient for the ruling Whig party, which saw the Bank as a crucial ally in maintaining political stability and financing its military ambitions. By channeling the nation’s financial power through a single, controllable institution, the sovereign and its political allies could ensure a reliable flow of credit in times of national emergency. This arrangement, however, came at a significant economic cost. The lack of competition insulated the Bank of England from market pressures that might have spurred greater innovation and efficiency in serving private enterprise. Its focus remained squarely on managing government debt, issuing notes that served as a key source of state credit, and conducting open-market operations to stabilize the market for government securities. The needs of provincial merchants, nascent industrialists, and the broader agricultural economy were a secondary concern. The structure of English banking was, therefore, a deliberate political choice, prioritizing the fiscal health and military capacity of the sovereign state over the optimal development of a competitive, market-driven financial system. This model endured for over a century, demonstrating the sovereign’s power to shape financial architecture to meet its own existential needs, even at the expense of broader economic development.
4.2. Scotland’s Competitive Banking Model: Innovation and Stability Without a Central Bank
In stark contrast to the monopolistic system imposed on England, the banking environment that emerged in Scotland after the Act of Union in 1707 was remarkably competitive, dynamic, and decentralized. The British sovereign, having secured its strategic goal of political union, had different priorities for Scotland. Rather than viewing it as a primary source of war finance, the Crown’s objective was to ensure Scottish stability and loyalty, and fostering local economic prosperity was a key means to that end. Consequently, the British Parliament did not extend the Bank of England’s monopoly north of the border, creating a unique regulatory space for a different kind of banking system to evolve (Duncan, 2023). This political decision allowed Scotland to become a laboratory for financial innovation, ultimately producing one of the most advanced and stable banking systems in the world by the mid-eighteenth century.
The Scottish system was characterized by “free banking,” with relatively open entry for new institutions. It was anchored by three privileged, chartered banks in Edinburgh—the Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the British Linen Company—but also included a growing number of private and provincial joint-stock banks (White, 2014). Unlike in England, Scottish partnership law did not prohibit the formation of banks with numerous shareholders, which allowed for the creation of well-capitalized and robust institutions. This competitive pressure forced banks to innovate constantly to attract and retain customers. As a result, the Scottish system pioneered many of the core practices of modern commercial banking.
Among these innovations were the payment of interest on deposits, which encouraged savings and drew capital into the formal financial system. Perhaps the most significant invention was the “cash credit” system, an early form of the overdraft or line of credit, which allowed trustworthy borrowers—from small farmers to merchants—to draw funds as needed up to a pre-approved limit. This flexible form of credit was instrumental in fueling Scotland’s economic development during the Enlightenment and the early Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, Scottish banks developed sophisticated mechanisms for interbank cooperation, including a note-clearing system in Edinburgh that settled balances between institutions daily. This practice ensured that no single bank could over-issue its notes without being disciplined by its rivals, creating a self-regulating system of monetary stability without the need for a central bank to act as a lender of last resort. The success of this model demonstrates that financial stability and innovation are not exclusively the domain of centralized, state-controlled systems. Given the political space to develop, a competitive framework can produce superior outcomes in serving the needs of the private economy, fostering both growth and resilience (Calomiris, 2013). The Scottish experience stands as a powerful historical counterexample to the English model, illustrating that when the sovereign’s imperative shifts from direct resource extraction to securing regional stability, a more market-oriented and economically beneficial financial structure can thrive (Bédard, 2018).
4.3. Political Equilibrium as the Determinant of Financial Structure
The divergence of the English and Scottish banking systems under a single crown provides a definitive illustration of a central thesis in political economy: the prevailing political equilibrium is the primary determinant of financial structure. Economic efficiency or the needs of private commerce are often secondary to the strategic calculations of the sovereign. The British government’s decision to enforce a monopoly in England while permitting competition in Scotland was not an economic oversight; it was a coherent political strategy tailored to different circumstances.
In England, the memory of the civil wars and the existential threat posed by France created an urgent and overriding need for a centralized and reliable war-financing mechanism. The Glorious Revolution had established a pluralistic political system, but one that was still fragile and constantly engaged in geopolitical conflict. In this high-risk environment, the Bank of England’s monopoly was a tool of state survival. It provided the Whig establishment with a dependable financial partner, capable of mobilizing the nation’s wealth for war in a way a fragmented system of competing banks could not. The economic cost of this monopoly—a less dynamic private credit market—was a price the sovereign was willing to pay for fiscal security and military power. The Bank was an integral part of the political bargain that secured the post-1688 regime.
In Scotland, the political calculation was entirely different. Following the Act of Union, the primary challenge for the British state was not raising funds but integrating a restive and economically distinct nation. Imposing an English-style banking monopoly would have been politically inflammatory and economically counterproductive, potentially fueling Jacobite sentiment. Instead, by allowing the Scots to develop their own financial institutions, the Crown offered a form of economic home rule. Permitting a competitive, innovative banking system that demonstrably spurred Scottish trade and industry was a powerful tool for political appeasement. It fostered a new class of Scottish merchants and professionals whose prosperity was tied to the Union and the stability it provided. The Scottish banking system was allowed to flourish precisely because it did not directly serve the sovereign’s war machine; its purpose was to secure the political settlement by generating domestic prosperity.
This contrast is a powerful historical lesson, encapsulated by the work of scholars like Charles Calomiris, who argue that governments in risky situations will not permit the development of robust private banking systems that could compete with the state for resources. Only when the sovereign’s own solvency is secure does it create the political space for a financial system oriented toward private growth to emerge. The tale of the two banking systems within Britain shows this principle in action. England’s system was designed for a state in a perpetual state of fiscal and military emergency. Scotland’s system was the product of a state seeking to secure a political union through economic development. The two systems were not good or bad in the abstract; they were each perfectly adapted to the specific political equilibrium they were designed to uphold. The ultimate lesson is that to understand the structure of a nation’s financial system, one must first understand the survival imperatives of its sovereign.
5. Scholarly Debates and Historical Interpretations
The Mississippi and South Sea bubbles have remained subjects of intense scholarly fascination for three centuries, serving as foundational case studies in the history of financial crises. The dramatic rise and fall of these state-sponsored enterprises have generated enduring debates that cut across the fields of economic history, political science, and financial theory. These discussions revolve around three central questions: Were the bubbles products of irrational mania or were they underpinned by a discernible, albeit flawed, logic? What was the precise role of the state—was it a catalyst for beneficial innovation that went awry, or the principal architect of the ensuing crisis? Finally, what were the lasting legacies of these events on the development of financial regulation, public finance, and the broader relationship between the state and the market? Examining these debates reveals the complexity of the crises and the evolution of historical interpretation itself.
5.1. Rationality vs. Irrationality: Valuing the Mississippi and South Sea Companies
One of the most persistent debates concerns the valuation of the Mississippi and South Sea companies and, by extension, the rationality of the investors who participated in the speculative booms. Early historical accounts often portrayed the bubbles as straightforward examples of mass hysteria, driven by greed and ignorance—a “madness of crowds.” However, modern scholarship, employing more sophisticated financial and economic tools, has offered more nuanced interpretations that challenge this simplistic narrative (Bilginsoy, 2014). The central question is whether the soaring stock prices reflected plausible, if optimistic, expectations about future profits, or whether they were entirely detached from fundamental value.
In the case of the Mississippi System, scholars have rigorously analyzed the potential value streams John Law consolidated under the company’s umbrella. The company held a monopoly on all French colonial trade, managed the collection of national taxes, and controlled the nation’s sole bank of issue. François Velde, in a prominent re-evaluation, argued that if one were to take an optimistic view of the potential profits from these ventures—particularly the colonial trade and the efficiencies from tax collection—the peak market valuations might not have been entirely absurd (Condorelli, 2018). Law’s system was designed to create powerful synergies: profits from trade would support the currency, which in turn would facilitate the servicing of the national debt held by the company. From this perspective, the initial rise in the company’s shares could be interpreted as a rational response to a credible, albeit unprecedented, plan for national economic revitalization. The “irrationality” may have entered not at the outset, but at the point where Law’s commitment to maintaining a high share price at all costs led him to abandon market discipline through excessive money printing and the suspension of convertibility.
Similarly, interpretations of the South Sea Bubble have evolved beyond a simple tale of speculative frenzy. While the company’s primary asset was a monopoly on trade with Spanish America—a prospect whose value was highly uncertain and ultimately disappointing—its more immediate function was as a vehicle for converting high-interest government debt into company equity. Scholars like Peter Temin and Hans-Joachim Voth have argued that the bubble had a rational component rooted in the financial innovation of the debt-for-equity swap itself (Jackson, 2017). This mechanism increased the liquidity of government debt and, by placing it in the hands of a powerful corporation with strong political connections, arguably reduced the sovereign’s default risk. Investors may have been rationally bidding up the price of shares based on the perceived value of this financial engineering, the political influence of the company’s directors, and the expectation of future government contracts and privileges. The momentum of the rising stock price, fueled by installment payment schemes and widespread public participation, then amplified this initial logic into a full-blown speculative bubble. The line between rational risk-taking and irrational exuberance thus becomes blurred, with modern analysis suggesting that while the ultimate valuations were unsustainable, they were not born from a complete vacuum of economic reasoning (Condorelli, 2019).
This debate underscores a fundamental challenge in analyzing historical financial crises. What appears as irrational mania in hindsight may have been perceived as a plausible investment strategy based on the information and expectations available at the time. The novelty of the financial instruments and the deep entanglement of the companies with sovereign power made fundamental valuation exceptionally difficult. Both the Mississippi and South Sea schemes presented investors with a complex mix of commercial prospects, financial engineering, and political promises, creating a fertile ground for divergent expectations and, ultimately, speculative excess.
5.2. The Role of the State: Catalyst for Innovation or Architect of Crisis?
A second major area of scholarly debate centers on the role of the state in precipitating these crises. The traditional narrative often casts the government as either a passive victim of market forces or a well-intentioned but misguided actor. However, a more critical perspective, informed by the principles of political economy, posits the sovereign not as a bystander but as the central protagonist. In this view, the bubbles were not merely market phenomena but “state schemes” deliberately engineered to address existential fiscal challenges, primarily the crushing burden of war debt.
John Law’s Mississippi System is the archetypal example of a state-led financial revolution. The French Regency, facing potential bankruptcy, granted Law sweeping powers to restructure the nation’s finances. His system was a state-sponsored project from its inception, evolving from a private bank to a state bank and finally to the all-encompassing Mississippi Company (Spread, 2025). The French state was not just a regulator; it was the ultimate sponsor and beneficiary of the scheme. Law’s innovations in paper money and debt consolidation were initially aimed at solving the sovereign’s problems. The crisis emerged when the state’s insatiable need for funds and its autocratic power allowed Law to override the market’s corrective mechanisms. By nationalizing the bank and printing money to support the company’s stock, the French state became the architect of the hyperinflation that destroyed the system. The collapse was therefore not a failure of the market alone, but a failure of unchecked sovereign power fused with financial engineering.
The British state’s role in the South Sea Bubble was more complex, reflecting the country’s post-Glorious Revolution political landscape. The government did not grant one individual the kind of autocratic power wielded by John Law. Instead, it presided over a competitive process where the South Sea Company and the Bank of England bid for the right to manage the national debt. Nonetheless, the state was deeply complicit in the bubble’s formation. Parliament’s acceptance of the South Sea Company’s ambitious proposal, the active promotion of the scheme by key government ministers, and the entanglement of political and financial elites all contributed to the speculative atmosphere. The crisis was a product of a state-corporate partnership where political influence was traded for financial solutions to the sovereign’s debt problem. The subsequent parliamentary inquiry and the punishment of some directors revealed the extent of the collusion between political power and high finance. The event triggered a profound crisis of political legitimacy and spurred debates about the proper relationship between the state and financial markets, shaping constitutional thought in the process (Lebovitz, 2017).
This debate highlights a fundamental tension inherent in state-led financial development. On one hand, the sovereign can be a powerful catalyst for innovation, using its authority to overcome coordination problems and create new financial instruments and institutions, as seen in the debt-for-equity swaps. On the other hand, the state’s own fiscal imperatives and political objectives can lead it to promote and sustain financial structures that are ultimately unstable. The Mississippi and South Sea crises demonstrate that when the state’s need for funding overwhelms its duty to act as a prudent regulator, it can become the primary source of systemic risk, transforming promising financial innovations into instruments of economic catastrophe.
5.3. Lasting Legacies: The Impact on Financial Regulation and Public Finance Theory
The collapse of the Mississippi and South Sea bubbles in 1720-1721 sent shockwaves across Europe, leaving lasting legacies that profoundly shaped the subsequent evolution of financial markets and public finance theory (Streib, 2024). The immediate aftermath was characterized by a wave of revulsion against speculative finance and joint-stock companies, leading to regulatory responses that would define the financial landscape for over a century. However, the long-term impacts were more complex, contributing to divergent developmental paths in France and Britain and providing foundational lessons for modern economic thought.
In France, the collapse of the Mississippi System was catastrophic, wiping out fortunes and instilling a deep and lasting public distrust of paper money, national banks, and sophisticated financial instruments. This “anti-finance” sentiment is often cited as a key reason why France lagged behind Britain and the Netherlands in financial development throughout the 18th century. The state’s direct and absolute control over Law’s system meant that its failure was seen as a failure of the state itself, discrediting the concept of centralized, state-led financial engineering. The trauma of the bubble arguably constrained French public finance, reinforcing a reliance on traditional and less efficient methods of taxation and borrowing, which would have significant consequences in the lead-up to the French Revolution.
In Britain, the consequences of the South Sea Bubble were severe but ultimately less debilitating. While the crisis led to a widespread public outcry and significant financial losses, the institutional framework proved more resilient. The response was not to abandon financial innovation but to regulate it. The passage of the Bubble Act in 1720, which restricted the formation of joint-stock companies without a royal charter, is a direct legislative legacy of the crisis. While often criticized for stifling corporate development, the Act reflected an attempt by the state to reassert control over financial markets and prevent a recurrence of uncontrolled speculation. Crucially, the crisis did not destroy the core institutions of British public finance. The Bank of England survived and solidified its position as the government’s primary fiscal agent, and the market for government debt, after a period of reconstruction, continued to function. The experience reinforced the importance of political checks and balances, parliamentary oversight, and the separation between the state and specific financial ventures, even as their interests remained deeply intertwined.
The bubbles also left a profound intellectual legacy. They provided Adam Smith, and subsequent generations of economists, with powerful case studies on the dangers of speculative manias and the follies of mercantilist economic policy. The debates over the bubbles’ causes contributed to a deeper understanding of the nature of money, credit, and asset valuation. Furthermore, the contrasting outcomes in France and Britain offered a crucial lesson in political economy: that the success of a financial system is contingent not only on the cleverness of its design but also on the political and institutional context in which it operates. The Scottish banking system, which developed in parallel, offered a powerful counter-example. By the mid-18th century, Scotland had cultivated a highly competitive, stable, and innovative banking sector without a central bank or the direct, heavy-handed intervention of the sovereign (Calomiris, 2013). This demonstrated that a decentralized, market-driven approach could foster robust economic development, a lesson that would inform financial theory for centuries to come. The crises of 1720 thus served as a crucible, forging new approaches to regulation, shaping divergent national financial trajectories, and providing enduring insights into the complex and often perilous relationship between sovereign power and financial markets (Jackson, 2017).
6. Conclusion
The financial crises of the early 18th century, epitomized by John Law’s Mississippi System in France and the South Sea Bubble in Britain, were defining moments in the history of modern finance. Far from being simple episodes of irrational speculative mania, they were complex phenomena rooted in the political and economic imperatives of their time. This analysis has argued that these events are best understood as “state schemes” born from the intense fiscal pressures placed on emerging European powers engaged in protracted imperial warfare. The relationship between sovereign power, banking policy, and financial innovation was not incidental but central to both the creation of these ambitious systems and their ultimate, spectacular collapse.
The cases of France and Britain reveal how sovereign needs acted as a powerful catalyst for financial innovation. Faced with mountains of high-interest, illiquid debt, both nations embraced radical solutions. John Law’s vision of a unified system controlling national debt, currency, and colonial trade, and the South Sea Company’s massive debt-for-equity swap, were unprecedented attempts to rationalize public finance and enhance state capacity. These were not merely market-driven developments but deliberate acts of statecraft designed to subordinate financial mechanisms to the goal of sovereign survival and expansion. The innovations they introduced—consolidated public debt, the expanded use of paper currency, and the large-scale joint-stock company as a tool of fiscal policy—laid foundational elements for modern financial systems.
However, this analysis has also demonstrated that the very sovereign power that enabled these innovations was also the primary source of their undoing. In absolutist France, the lack of political checks and balances allowed John Law, acting as an agent of the Regent, to push his “sensible ideas” to a dangerous “point of excess.” The state’s decision to abandon specie convertibility and print money to support share prices destroyed the market discipline necessary for stability, transforming a bold economic experiment into a hyperinflationary disaster. In Britain, while the more pluralistic political system prevented a single figure from gaining autocratic control, the crisis still arose from a toxic collusion between the government and the South Sea Company. Political ambition and the allure of a quick fiscal fix led the state to sponsor and promote a scheme whose speculative potential far outstripped its fundamental value.
The contrasting development of the banking systems in England and Scotland provides the clearest illustration of the paper’s central thesis: that political equilibrium is the ultimate determinant of financial structure. The same British sovereign that sanctioned a monopolistic, state-serving Bank of England to fund its wars simultaneously permitted a competitive, decentralized, and highly innovative banking system to flourish in Scotland as a means of ensuring political stability and fostering local economic growth. This divergence underscores that banking policy is not a purely economic choice but a political one, shaped by the sovereign’s strategic priorities. The principle that states under duress will invariably prioritize their own solvency over the development of robust private credit markets emerges as a powerful explanatory framework, connecting the choices of 18th-century European monarchs to the behavior of modern states in times of crisis.
Ultimately, the scholarly debates surrounding rationality, state culpability, and lasting impact converge on a single, powerful conclusion. The Mississippi and South Sea bubbles were crucibles in which the modern relationship between the state and financial markets was forged. They exposed the immense potential of financial innovation to solve problems of public finance, but also revealed its profound dangers when untethered from market discipline and subjected to overwhelming political pressure. The legacies of 1720 were divergent regulatory paths and a deep-seated intellectual awareness of the systemic risks inherent in the sovereign-finance nexus. These centuries-old crises thus remain profoundly relevant, offering enduring lessons on the necessity of credible state commitment, the importance of institutional checks and balances, and the perennial struggle to harness the power of finance without succumbing to its potential for ruin.
References
Streib, R… (2024). Akteure und Räume der South Sea Bubble. books.google.com. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=v483EQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA18&dq=
South+Sea+Bubble+British+financial+innovations+early+18th
+century&ots=0JmbGBPm7k&sig=Bc–_zIFTa1RJ7NxMRBcQ-Pxw_w
Menning, D… (2020). Politik, Ökonomie und Aktienspekulation:” South Sea Bubble” und Co. 1720. books.google.com. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ShTzDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP5&dq=South+
Sea+Bubble+British+financial+innovations+early+18th+century&
ots=0yCw2S9UTL&sig=bKhBQVJzghtjc6pXfIlmhrXJ_pY
Bruner, R. & Miller, S… (2020). The first modern financial crises: the South Sea and Mississippi bubbles in historical perspective. Journal of applied corporate finance. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jacf.12429
Spread, P… (2025). Political-Financial Support-Bargaining: The Mississippi System. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-92289-3_6
Jackson, T… (2017). Markets of Exception: An Economic History of Impunity in Britain and France, 1720-1830. search.proquest.com. https://search.proquest.com/openview/a9ca230cdf5b8007ad06
180ba542aa82/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750
Bilginsoy, C… (2014). A history of financial crises: Dreams and follies of expectations. taylorfrancis.com. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/978131578
0870/history-financial-crises-cihan-bilginsoy
Duncan, A. & Nolan, C… (2023). Adam Smith and the bankers: retrospect and prospect. National Institute Economic Review. https://www.cambridge.org/core
/journals/national-institute-economic-review/article/adam-smith-and-the-bankers-retrospect-and-prospect/B2814D67C14E70BE28E4A18B6CD36B59
Murphy, A… (2023). John Law and the Mississippi System. A History of Economic Thought in France. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/
9780429202414-3/john-law-mississippi-system-antoin-murphy
Murphy, A… (2017). The first financial market bubble: Perspectives from John Law and Richard Cantillon. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/
9781315188058-1/first-financial-market-bubble-antoin-murphy
Wiston-Glynn, A… (2022). John Law of Lauriston: financier and statesman, founder of the Bank of France, originator of the Mississippi scheme, etc. books.google.com.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NiJ9EAAAQBAJ&oi=
fnd&pg=PT12&dq=
John+Law+Mississippi+bubble,+Banque+Générale+France,
+Louisiana+land+bank+scheme,+18th+century+French+finance
&ots=jfpY0_j3Wy&sig=zz-11kEigCrsScyo2-95fExWD_Q
Murphy, A… (2018). John Law: A Twenty-First Century Banker in the Eighteenth Century?. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-90248-7_12
Nguyen, J… (2018). Building on Credit. Grey Room. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26778482
Walsh, P… (2014). The South Sea bubble and Ireland: Money, banking and investment, 1690-1721. books.google.com. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0zM3BAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=
South+Sea+Bubble+British+financial+innovations+early
+18th+century&ots=7EIEM2c8ZE&sig=Nn06PSAyUpEbsK0W5H_9VrISI7o
Frehen, R. & Goetzmann…, W… (2013). New evidence on the first financial bubble. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X12002541
Dale, R… (2014). The first crash: lessons from the South Sea Bubble. torrossa.com. https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5579872&publisher=FZO137
Odlyzko, A… (2019). Newton’s financial misadventures in the South Sea Bubble. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0018
McColloch, W… (2013). A shackled revolution? The Bubble Act and financial regulation in 18th century England. econstor.eu. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/98619
Turner, G… (2015). English Banking in the Eighteenth Century: Bankers, merchants and the creation of the English financial system. etheses.dur.ac.uk.
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11297/
White, L… (2014). Free banking in history and theory. papers.ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2435536
Bédard, M., Dowd, K., & Selgin, G… (2018). Financial Stability Without Central Banks. papers.ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3853687
Condorelli, S… (2018). Price momentum and the 1719-20 bubbles: A method to compare and interpret booms and crashes in asset markets. mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de.
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/89888
Condorelli, S. & Menning, D… (2019). Boom, bust, and beyond: new perspectives on the 1720 stock market bubble. books.google.com.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0zzEDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP5&dq=
modern+scholarly+interpretations+and+debates+financial
+crisis+theory+early+modern+sovereign+risk+banking
+history+François+Velde+Mississippi+valuation+Temin
+Voth+South+Sea+analysis&ots=v4N1ocbyhj&sig=
b1XtbKmgQiIm8EVBa6sime46HWU
Lebovitz, A… (2017). An Economy of Violence: Financial Crisis and Whig Constitutional Thought, 1720-1721. Yale JL & Human… https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/yallh29§ion=10