« Daniel Klein categorizes classical liberals | Main | In which Cowen Tyler resembles Arvo Part »
When did the Industrial Revolution start?
Had I mentioned that the Journal of Political Economy is my favorite academic journal? In the December 2005 issue, the still under-valued Gregory Clark writes:
I use building workers' wages for 1209-2004 and the skill premium to consider the causes and consequences of the Industrial Revolution. Real wages were trendless before 1800, as would be predicted for the Malthusian era. Comparing wages with population, however, suggests that the break from the technological stagnation of the Malthusian era came around 1640, long before the classic Industrial Revolution, and even before the arrival of modern democracy in 1689 [TC: was that when it came?]. Building wages also conflict with human capital intepretations of the Industrial Revolution, as modeled by Gary Becker, Kevin Murphy...and Robert Lucas. Human capital accumulation began when the rewards for skills were unchanged and when fertility was increasing.
Here is an earlier but longer version of the paper. Here is an on-line version of his book on growth. Here is a previous MR post on the long, slow nature of the Industrial Revolution.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 11, 2006 at 06:51 AM in History | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e550979ae78834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When did the Industrial Revolution start?:
Comments
"...the arrival of modern democracy in 1689 [TC: was that when it came?]"
The English Bill of Rights made the accession of William and Mary as monarchs (after the Glorious Revolution) contingent on a set of conditions that amounted to Parliamentary supremacy over the monarchy.
Many historians now consider the English Bill of Rights (1689) to be the first real-world application of the principle of popular sovereignty--that sovereignty derives from the people, not from God (or--perhaps more exactly--that God has entrusted His sovereign rule to the people, and that it is mediated through them to the ruler).
Posted by: David Hecht at Jan 11, 2006 8:30:16 AM
I would agree with David Hecht that 1688-89 was an important moment for democracy. However, it is clearly a misstatement to call it "the arrival of modern democracy" -- 1688, like the Magna Carta, was the act of a small elite who would have been horrified by the word "democracy" and who often achieved their seats in the House of Commons by buying uncompetitive districts rather than winning elections. A better candidate for "modern democracy" would the first universal male sufferage, achieved in England in the 1830's, and in the US in 1865. (I'm not sure when France achieved it.)
I would disagree with David Hecht that 1689 was the "first real-world application of popular sovereignty." The Mayflower compact, the English Civil War, the Iroquois Confederation, the Athenian democracy, and the Prebyterian Church can all be seen as real-world applications of popular sovereignty. IMHO, what distinguishes 1688 and the English Bill of Rights is that they were the critical point when it became clear that popular sovereignty could survive and win in a major European power.
Posted by: DK at Jan 11, 2006 9:08:26 AM
I vote for the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. Not only did it lower production and transportation costs in the U.S. and enable westward expansion, but it actually made American agriculture so cheap that even Britain imported our grain (after the horrific hyper-protectionist "Corn Law" was repealed). With England's peasant population liberated from farming and free to work in factories, Britain was also able to become a manufacturing nation. The tag team of England and America initiated the modern industrial global economy.
Also, if you look at the number of patents issued before the Canal versus after, and the number issued along the canal's route during and immediately after its construction, you can see what a singularly immense effect the Canal had in bringing about the Industrial Revolution.
Posted by: KipEsquire at Jan 11, 2006 9:50:03 AM
DK: I didn't say whether I agreed or disagreed. I merely tried to synopsize a large body of historical thinking in a couple of sentences. I agree that my phraseology may have been excessively compact.
Let's also be clear: by "popular sovereignty", I don't mean "broad-based democracy based on near-universal suffrage", as we nowadays understand the term. I mean that *conceptually*, sovereignty is understood to derive from the governed, not from the monarch.
To provide a contrast, consider this: as late as the Bourbon Restoration, Charles X prefaces the Constitution of 1814 by stating that "Divine Providence, having summoned Us back to Our estate after a long absence, has imposed great obligations on Us...a constitutional charter is needful given the current condition of the kingdom, which we...hereby publish...mindful that the entire authority [by which he means, sovereignty--DH] in France resides in the person of the monarch...
...
"...Therefore, We have voluntarily, and through the unfettered exercise of Our royal authority [again--meaning "sovereignty" as we understand the term--DH], granted, conceded, and made a free gift to Our loyal subjets of...the constitutional charter which follows..."
(Original French text: http://www.archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/raffarin_version1/fr/ie4/contenu/15096.htm) [all translations mine-DH]
Posted by: David Hecht at Jan 11, 2006 10:27:48 AM
I'm not disagreeing with Kip/Esquire but instead of "freed from farming" try "forced off the land" and instead of "free to work in factories" try "forced to work for "Iron Law of Wageswages.
Posted by: lee at Jan 11, 2006 11:41:05 AM
Fabulous group of commentors. 5 insightful points in a row!
Oops. I guess I just ruined the streak.
Posted by: michael vassar at Jan 11, 2006 12:21:03 PM
When I was studying US history in grad school in the mid-1980s, the general view among the faculty seemed to be that the consumer revolution (in the West) began in the 17th century. So Clark's conclusion does not seem especially surprising.
Posted by: John P. at Jan 11, 2006 1:19:03 PM
David -- I agree with you about popular sovereignty vs. democracy, and in my comments on universal sufferage I was disagreeing with the original article Tyler quoted, not with you. Thus it was my phraseology that was too compact.
I did intend to disagree with your summary of historians about 1688/89 -- the historians I've read would agree completely that it was a key turning point in favor of popular sovereignty, but not that it was the first real-world application. Just as many Vikings and Indians would disagree that Columbus was the first to discover America, Charles I and his executioners would certainly consider the regicide to be a real-world event. 1688's significance is largely that it settled the issues raised at Charles I's trial.
See for example http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_charle88.htm, which reports that not just the prosecution but Charles I argued in terms of popular sovereignty and rule of law; he claimed in the end that he was dying for the people, defending the rule of law from a tyrannical House of Commons.
Posted by: DK at Jan 11, 2006 1:31:14 PM
DK: understand your points, and agree with them in general. I guess the question before the house is, what constitutes the key moment, when sovereignty is no longer held to emanate from the person of the monarch (as Charles X of France is still asserting, 125 years after the Glorious Revolution), but rather from the people (or, as is usually the case, their elected representatives)?
While you are right about Charles I, I for one am not altogether clear whether the regicide parliament really believed themselves to own the sovereign authority of the nation, or whether that is simply rhetoric (as, one might argue, the King's statements may be also). Indeed, the speech you link to makes it perfectly clear that Parliament were acting much further outside the scope of their authority than was the King!
I also think you may be reading the King's statements with too much of a modern sensibility: he isn't saying he represents the people, he is saying he represents the nation, but that--as an Englishman--he also has (as a minimum!) the same rights as any ordinary Englishman...and that when Parliament tramples those rights in an effort to achieve a victor's justice, they endanger the rights of the people under law.
ISTM that there is a huge difference between saying that Charles, as a bad king, must be cast down, and saying that the monarchy as an institution must be abolished: or indeed, saying that future monarchs must accept the supremacy of popular sovereignty as embodied by Parliament. It's one thing to say that the monarch has--in effect--committed treason by exceeding his authority: it's another to claim that only parliament may define the limits of that authority.
Posted by: David Hecht at Jan 11, 2006 4:23:26 PM
I agree that 1688 is the key moment, just not that it is the first. It is the Christopher Columbus of popular sovereignty, which changed the world for good while previous Vikings and world-is-round-believing scholars had only limited impact. My point is largely that it is just dangerous to say that any historical phenomenon is the "first", or true without exception, or any other excessive generalization.
Posted by: DK at Jan 11, 2006 5:23:23 PM
I don't quite follow David Hecht's timeline. The Bourbon Restoration was in the person of Louis XVIII who went out of his way to portray himself as a Constitutional Monarch. Only 14 years later did his younger brother(Charles X) ascend the throne(1828). He did try to bring back absolute rule and lasted 1 year.
Posted by: lee at Jan 11, 2006 9:23:33 PM
1) That's the first time that I've seen the Duke of Wellington referred to as "Divine Providence".
2) Just a guess, but by "modern democracy" he may just be excluding Greek Democracy. Which obviously wasn't real democracy since it didn't extend to women or slaves. Oh.
3) "Christopher Columbus of popular sovereignty, which changed the world for good while previous Vikings and world-is-round-believing scholars": come off it. There were no world-is-flat-believing scholars; that's a 19th Century invention by the fable-spinners of American history.
Posted by: dearieme at Jan 11, 2006 10:15:53 PM
DK -- Gotcha. We're on the same page here! :-)
lee -- Slip o'the brain: it's been a while since I memorized the French monarchs. You're right on the succession (L18 before C10), but the quotes I gave from the 1814 Constitutional Charter are nevertheless the point--L18 may have talked the talk, but he sure didn't walk the walk: indeed, if you keep going further in the Charter it talks about how all executive power rests in the king, all judicial power emanates from the king, and so on.
Posted by: David Hecht at Jan 11, 2006 11:09:21 PM
dearime, I have no idea what you mean with your point #3, or what you are trying to dispute. I think my point may be the opposite of what you think. I am saying that just as lots of round-world or new-world believers preceded Columbus' big moment, there were lots of antecedents leading up to the 1688 big moment.
Posted by: DK at Jan 12, 2006 8:17:21 AM
DK, then my apologies for misunderstanding you.
P.S. does anyone know a web-site where the 1689 Bill of Rights can be compared easily - say, in parallel columns - with the US one? I'd like to see how much of the former was included in the latter.
Posted by: dearieme at Jan 12, 2006 5:56:25 PM
I do early modern history (now France, orig. Britain). The conclusions of the paper are not especially surprising. See Ann Kussmaul (A General View...) and Margaret Spufford on the early consumer revolution. Both of them peg the major change in the 2nd half or the 1600s. Additional evidence to back them up is also good, although the wage series the paper seems to be using is hardly new.
Posted by: AA Tulchin at Jan 12, 2006 9:32:18 PM
When I wrote the first comment I thought the series was more heavily based on Phelps Brown and Hopkins than it is. So Clark's result is "more new" than I realized.... but it is still weird that Clark doesn't cite Kussmaul (espcially) or Spufford, whose work would buttress his, although they might also make his conclusions less new and surprising. It's also odd that he doesn't cite any of the "height in history" literature, such as Fogel... see the recent issue of Social Science History on this, for references. The issue is that using one real wage series is kind of risky, because it is prone to systemic errors. It would be better to compare wages and prices with other kinds of measurements (like height) and agricultural productivity.
Posted by: AA Tulchin at Jan 12, 2006 10:28:29 PM
"the break from the technological stagnation of the Malthusian era came around 1640, long before the classic Industrial Revolution"
If they are implying that Europe before 1640 was technologically stagnant, they are completely wrong. Europe invented (printing press, eye-glasses, new kinds of sailing vessles, cannons) imported (magnetic compasses, paper, windmills, gunpowder) and applied enormous amounts of technology throughout the middle ages and renaisance. That this dynamic affected the standard of living of the average man by the 17th century is shown by Locke's statment in the Second Treatise:
41. There cannot be a clearer demonstration of anything than several nations of the Americans are of this, ... yet, for want of improving it by labour, have not one hundredth part of the conveniencies we enjoy, and a king of a large and fruitful territory there feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day labourer in England.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at Jan 13, 2006 12:43:41 AM
If the 1640 date is accurate, the piece seems to argue that the economies of Europe started to take off about the time of the agricultural revolution (I think I remember that from my modern history class). The extent of the market limits the extent of specialization, and specialization drives innovation and technological development. So when food supply became more certain and steady (productivity increased because of the fencing in and privatizing of land plots in Britain) the population grew and was able to support more people. The growing market allowed for new opportunities for specialization and development.
Posted by: Erik at Jan 18, 2006 1:16:08 AM
hi jckljvk;ljvdkjvsdklvj
Posted by: munender at Jan 29, 2006 6:43:09 AM
when did the revolution war take place?
Posted by: unoosha malik at Jan 30, 2006 3:54:29 PM
Folks might be interested in my explanation of Clark's data:
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2006/02/roundhead-revolution.html
Posted by: nick at Feb 9, 2006 10:54:13 PM
leuk babes ^^^ babe prostituee vredig ^^^ infermiera merda nel bagno ^^^ gotico clima ^^^ froid jouets ^^^ amusement vingt ^^^ plus froid trente et un ^^^ fils trente quatre ^^^ molto bollente fighetta spogliarello ^^^ raro ragazze ubriache ^^^ himmelsk elev striptease ^^^ komfortabel cowboyflicka karlek ^^^ coraggioso lesbiche azione ^^^ funny giovane doppio penetrazione ^^^ utmerket portrett ^^^ vennlig videoer ^^^ kjolig attraktiv blond ^^^ fin brystvorte ^^^ agapi koritsi praxi ^^^ dropali mora katourima ^^^ fils trente ^^^ plus frais papa videos ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 6, 2006 2:17:25 AM
Hello all really cool blog
buy alprazolam buy fioricet buy hydrocodone buy vicodin buy tramadol buy xanax buy valium buy ultram buy soma buy carisoprodol buy ambien buy ativan buy lorazepam buy propecia buy adipex buy didrex buy cialis buy levitra buy paxil buy meridia buy viagra buy wellbutrin buy clonazepam buy xenical buy prozac buy butalbital buy phentermine
buy ativan online buy adipex online buy didrex online buy levitra online buy cialis online buy phentermine online buy soma online buy tramadol online buy diazepam online buy carisoprodol online buy meridia online buy paxil online buy valium online buy xanax online buy ultram online buy fioricet online best tooth whitening online pharmacy drugstore alprazolam online car insurance online payday loan online web directory online business directory online carisoprodol online hydrocodone online buy vicodin online
Posted by: linda at Oct 9, 2006 7:29:58 AM
Pozycjonowanie stron
Pozycjonowanie www
Pozycjonowanie reklama
Pozycjonowanie oferta
Pozycjonowanie stron internetowych
Pozycjonowanie reklama stron
Pozycjonowanie strony
Posted by: Max at Nov 1, 2006 5:35:15 PM
