ABSTRACT
Despite certain differences in chronology and geographical distribution, to which we shall return, regional fair networks developed in very similar ways across Europe. The claim however that changes in regional fairs reflect broader improvements in market structures raises two objections that still need to be addressed. In the first place, the claim seems to be suggesting that institutional innovation responded ‘efficiently’ to changes in the relative price of labour and land caused by demographic decline, or in other words, that rising demand for better quality ‘mass’ consumer goods produced a spontaneous and frictionless change in the way trade was organised. This ignores the fact that institutional change has both distributive and allocative effects. Since major institutional changes produce both winners and losers, they will be resisted by those who stand to lose the most and who also often happen to be the incumbent elites. Significant institutional change is therefore frequently hard to achieve. When institutions do change systematically and in similar ways notwithstanding different local circumstances, as in the case of late medieval fairs, this raises two puzzles. First, what made change possible? Second, why did societies resort to fairs rather than to other commercial institutions? Were fairs introduced because they were less threatening to the political status quo, implying that other institutions have performed the same function at less cost?
