It seems to me that while Acemoglu and Robinson, in their book "Why Nations Fail", discuss the historical evolution of England at considerable length, they almost totally neglect the Netherlands (except as having embraced industrialization along with political inclusion after the Batavian state period). They talk about England as being the first truly inclusive society, both politically and economically, especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (in which William III of the Netherlands was victorious and became the English king). But the Netherlands, in the 1600s, was a major trading power with a high standard of living for its day - and England (and Britain as a whole) followed suit. So was Holland in fact the first inclusive society - politically and economically - along with England (or even before England)? And why doesn't the book talk about Holland in the same manner as England - because Holland's political development was disrupted by Napoleon more than England's?
I have read it and frankly the dutch "golden century" (apprently golden age is more common in english) would have made a great chapter but maybe they lacked time or decided to focus on Venice and England. Indeed you rightly mention that england as greater materials due to the direct continuity of the institutions which were not disturbed by the revolution. It would really be a great reading. The most interesting point of view would be the causes of the end of the golden age.