The canonical case is the 1685 Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Louis XIV expelled the Huguenots — skilled silk weavers, watchmakers, glassblowers, silversmiths, printers, financiers — in the name of religious uniformity. Between two hundred thousand and one million left France for England, the Netherlands, Brandenburg-Prussia, Switzerland, the Cape Colony, and the American colonies. Every receiving society was enriched. France was diminished. The damage was not merely lost labor but the destruction of networks of knowledge, trade, and trust that had taken generations to build.
Landes contrasted this with China's 1430s decision to end maritime exploration. The emperor burned the treasure ships and forbade vessels with more than two masts. The decision stuck. There was no rival court, no competing harbor where Chinese shipwrights could relocate. The same centralized authority that had enabled the Zheng He voyages also enabled their termination, and the termination was final because the authority was total.
The AI parallel that this volume develops is structural rather than superficial. The question is not which nation builds the most powerful model but which creates the conditions — political, economic, cultural — in which AI capability can be directed toward broad-based flourishing rather than narrow extraction. Landes's framework suggests that the answer lies with nations whose institutional pluralism prevents any single authority from determining how an entire population uses transformative technology.
Landes developed the argument across The Unbound Prometheus (1969) and The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (1998), drawing on extensive archival research into Huguenot diaspora records, Chinese imperial decrees, and the comparative economic performance of European states across the early modern period. The phrase 'advantage of backwardness' was borrowed from Alexander Gerschenkron but redeployed with specific reference to political fragmentation rather than economic latecomer status.
Fragility as precondition. The absence of centralized authority sufficient to suppress innovation across a continent was Europe's decisive structural advantage — not a weakness to be overcome but the condition that allowed innovation to survive.
Exit as safety valve. When jurisdictions expelled productive minorities or suppressed innovations, the expelled and suppressed moved. The receiving jurisdictions gained. The expelling jurisdictions lost. The competitive dynamic rewarded tolerance structurally, regardless of individual rulers' preferences.
Networks are not regenerable. Expelled communities carried networks of trust, knowledge, and trade that took generations to build. Re-admitting exiles did not restore what had been lost — the connections had been rewired, the trust broken, the knowledge rehomed.
AI parallel. Nations whose political and economic fragmentation prevents any single authority from determining AI's use possess the same structural advantage today that fragmented Europe possessed in 1685.