Are their any sources for the percentage of spanish state revenues deriving from trade with the americas and asia in the 16th-18th centuries?

by [deleted]

The only sources I've found so far are:

However by contrast:

  • According to Luc-Normand Tellier, "It is estimated that the port of Antwerp was earning the Spanish crown seven times more revenues than the Americas." (In the 16th century) (From wikpedia - sourced to Tellier, Luc-Normand (2009), Urban world history: an economic and geographical perspective, PUQ,p.308) )

So both of these can't be true. Then:

  • Royal revenues extracted from America to Spain formed about 13 percent of the total receipts of the Madrid treasury in the later 18th century (Grafe and Irigoin 2008:5)

There seems to be more stuff online about the 18th century than before. Perhaps there's more data available from this period.

Itsalrightwithme

Good question!

First, I cite some figures from several articles:

  • The Great Shift: the rise of Mexico and the Herbert S. Klein,

Decline of Peru in the Spanish American Colonial Empire, 1680–1809, Revista de Historia Económica / Volume 13 / Issue 01 / March 1995, pp 35 - 61, DOI: 10.1017/S0212610900004870, Published online: 28 April 2010.

  • Drelichman, Voth, The Sustainable Debts of Philip II: A Reconstruction of Spain’s Fiscal Position, 1560-1598, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra in its series Economics Working Papers with number 1121.

  • J. Tracy, Emperor Charles V. Impresario of War. Campaign Strategy, international finance, and domestic politics, Cambridge University Press 2002.

The second one is available online and has revenue numbers nicely tabulated. The third one gives exact numbers from 1520/1540:

  • Low Countries, ordinary income: 75k/103k ducats, subsidies: 162k/376k ducats, extraordinary: 252k/256k ducats. Total: 415k/632k ducats.
  • Indies treasure: 38k/282k ducats.
  • Castile, ordinary income alone: 1023k/1160k ducats.

So it's clear Castile gave very reliable income and was the most important for a long time, but that Indies treasures also rose rather rapidly.

So several comments:

  • Income from the Americas became really significant only after 1550-1560, around the same time of the revolt in the Netherlands. Income from the American mines really took off as silver production increased with better processes (read: using mercury) in the 1560-1580.

  • Trade tax and monopoly income from the Indies also became an increasingly important component starting with an 8x jump in the 1780s, with increasing population and trade in the colonies. Total revenues jumped 8x from the 16th century to the end of the 18th century.

  • Ordinary income was the most important, and that Castile was key to this. Most income from the Low Countries came as special ordinances, which led to various tax revolts in the 1530s-1540s.

So if you are to compare the 16th century to the late 18th century, all those statements are not inconsistent with each other, although subjectively speaking, the period when Antwerp was earning the Spanish crown seven times more revenue than the Americas was in the heyday of Antwerp's economic might, meaning the early half of the 16th century. Then, it is entirely possible it was earning a lot more revenue than the Americas. After all, income from the Americas started from near zero.

Finally, when speaking of the revenue from Antwerp to the Spanish crown, meaning to their common Habsburg rulers Charles V, Philip II, and their descendants, it is important to be careful whether those were special tax levies. It is known that the various governor-generals did raise significant taxes on their holdings in the Netherlands during the rebellion. I do not have access to Tellier's book so I do not know the context in which the numbers were given. Such is Wikipedia.....