Modernization Theory is Hokum.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am pretty sure I mentioned this somewhere else, but Weber was wrong. Catholics did not magically gain a work ethic because of a change in their confessional habits - those groups that converted to Protestantism because they already had a strong work ethic and wanted to keep more of what they made. They were avoiding Papal taxes. The individualist inclinations were already there. Think of them as the TEA party of the Late Renaissance.

Individual salvation plants the seed of an idea, that you have worth in Gods eyes and you are responsible for your own fate. A radical idea in some more communal societies, especially strongly caste societies where the entire justification of the horribly inequitable system is based (at least partially) on Gods design. Now the Catholics did a better job of using these ideas to justify the inequity - pay now, heaven later - it was all God's plan. There had been dissenters for a long time in Europe but they were always suppressed. The dissent was founded in the Roman Church's corruption and wasteful spending - on worldly matters. Once Luther opened the door people like Henry VIII jumped through it. People like Calvin came up with new ideas about how to please God which matched their own predilections.

Anyway, Weber was looking as a snapshot in time well after the transitional period. He opened a door to an idea that different parts of society may be interrelated, but he was wrong about cause and effect.

[condottiere]

My demographics are probably wrong, but northern Germany, Netherlands, England and Scandinavia just screams Anglo-Saxon. (And Danes, Jutes, Geats etcetera.)

Basically, people more used to autonomy and a tribal structure than ruled top down in an Imperial bureaucracy.

Doesn't quite gel with the entrepreneurial spirit of the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans and supposedly the Jews.

[TheCurmudgeon]

My demographics are probably wrong, but northern Germany, Netherlands, England and Scandinavia just screams Anglo-Saxon. (And Danes, Jutes, Geats etcetera.)

Basically, people more used to autonomy and a tribal structure than ruled top down in an Imperial bureaucracy.

Doesn't quite gel with the entrepreneurial spirit of the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans and supposedly the Jews.

I think you have the connection right. It is not the entrapeneurial spirit (See Greenfeld's "The Spirit of Capitalism" which ties it to nationalism) but the individualistic spirit. I don't have enough of a background in the nature of the tribal history of that region but I have material that indicates the Brits had individualistic leanings at least back to the tenth century, so you may be on to something.