This book by a Harvard Law School professor presents a history of the evolution of modern money as a social and political institution. Professor Desan focuses on the British experience, since that is obviously her specialty and because the evolution of money in the British economy was central to its development elsewhere in modern capitalism, including in the US. This is a carefully argued, richly detailed, and thoroughly documented work of scholarship. Those expecting popular HBS style trade books should go elsewhere. It would be foolish to attempt to simply summarize Professor Desan's arguments here. But I can address why I found the book fascinating.
Start with the question of how the current monetary system arose and you may well end up repeating some truisms from an introductory course in microeconomics or a course on money and banking. Money is a unit of measure, a store of value, a medium of exchange, or something similar. It obviously arose when it was needed out of earlier archaic systems, such as barter or early lotteries, which modern money replaced. The base explanation will see money as an economic rather than a political phenomenon and not credit government with a central role beyond that of maintenance and administration. As most subsequent variants of liberal economic theory have argued, government intervention with money should be minimized. Consider the German inflation of 1922-23 if you need details of why that is so.
It is at this point that Professor Desan's book is relevant. After just a little thought, it becomes fairly clear that money did not emerge bottom-up from primitive exchanges and barter arrangements and that even if such evolution was plausible on a small scale, the emergence of national and global monetary systems on a spontaneous basis would be a very low probability event. While it makes for good traditional liberal rhetoric, does this account of the rise of money square with the historical experience of Britain (or anyone else)? Professor Desan says no. Monetary systems were produced by states in the effort to efficiently tax their populations and then expanded to include private transactions to the extent possible and to the extent that doing increased tax revenues. The invention of money is not separate from the market but fundamental to it. Money and markets are not separate from the state but fundamentally tied to state activities. Once one can look at a monetary system as a social institution in service to the state, the analysis then can shift to understanding what it means for such a system to function effectively, how problems with money can be identified, and how the system can be improved. Professor Desan tracks this process in Britain from the end of the Roman period up through the seventeenth history with its mix of monarchy, rebellion, restoration, and revolution. Modern money developed after the longer term development of the fundamental practices and ideas. It came to be justified by Locke, Hume, Smith, and others, even while the developmental history of money failed to make it into the ideological account of British commercial and imperial triumph.
The book is well written and fascinating. It is also filled with lots of odd details. I never knew there was so much to know about the penny, for example. I also never realized the difference between the pound and the guinea. This is a read that requires attention, but if you are interested in money and finance, this is a wonderful history book and well worth reading.