A classic view of British industrialization, dating back to Marx, holds that autonomous change in agriculture—enclosures, private property, large farms—increased worker productivity, supplying the growing cities with labor, food, and raw materials 2/
Crafts and Harley (2004), for example, find that French-style peasant farming would have had a significant "deindustrializing" effect by lowering urban employment.
The implication: capitalist farming permits city growth and explains British structural transformation. 3/
But the evidence is lacking. Enclosures barely increased farm output, especially when turning arable to pasture, and many workers—as evidenced by a widening rural-urban wage gap—were not released, but rather remained unemployed in the countryside. 4/
Causation ran the other way. Urban demand from Britain's high-wage cities raised agricultural goods prices. Favorable terms of trade led farmers to cultivate intensively and specialize by comparative advantage (a la @antonhowes), buying manufactures rather than making them. 5/
Simulations by Allen (2003) show that enclosures had next to no effect on urbanization and that external trade and manufacturing productivity drove most British city growth up to 1800. 6/
To explain why Britain moved out of agriculture so early, then, we must explain her exceptional success in trade and various urban industries, viewing agricultural change as generally a response to these developments. 7/
Once again, if you find this newsletter valuable, please do send it to anyone who might be interested (and subscribe yourself!). You are collectively my sole means of getting this before a wide audience. #econhist#EconTwitter
Did Britain sacrifice the Industrial Revolution to defeat Napoleon? A thread: 1/
We've long known that growth during the classic IR of 1760-1820 was slow, and that major increases in real GDP per capita did not really occur until the early nineteenth century. 2/
What we're less sure about is why. One popular rationale—to which I largely subscribe—stressed inherent factors, such as the lag-times in technological adoption, development, and diffusion, or the inevitably slow rate at which the "modern" sector outgrows lagging sectors. 3/
A summary thread and musings on Allen and Wrigley's theory of early pre-industrial urbanization in Britain. 1/ #econhist#EconTwitter#twitterstorians
Most pre-industrial societies were caught in a devastating low-level equilibrium trap: they had small cities (in absolute and relative terms) and unproductive agriculture (low crop yields and labor efficiency). 2/
To expand the cities and get more labor into industry, farms needed to become more productive—e.g. investment, land use optimization, crop experimentation, etc. for raising yields. 3/
I've recently been privileged to join in some fun discussions with @pseudoerasmus and @antonhowes on the path of British development. 1/7
Pseudo, following Robert Allen and E. A. Wrigley, has been strongly emphasizing his argument that autonomous development in British trade and manufacturing provoked productive responses by farmers, allowing for structural transformation. 2/7
Anton has made similar arguments in his blog, emphasizing the role of a growing London in promoting specialization by comparative advantage in the English countryside. 3/7 antonhowes.substack.com/p/age-of-inven…
The Industrial Revolution was NOT caused by institutional reforms. A THREAD (and a newsletter): #econhist#EconTwitter
Acemoglu and Robinson, in *Why Nations Fail*, argue that the Glorious Revolution created "inclusive institutions" that started British industrialization. 1/4
Their claims are premised on the notion that Glorious Revolution made Parliament an open-access institution where wealth-holders could constrain the monarchy and protect their property rights.
They hold that this promoted investment and later enabled modern growth. 2/4
But that doesn't fit the facts. Parliament remained elite-dominated, there was no discontinuous change in property rights (which had been secure since the Middle Ages), and the merchants in Parliament used the body to enrich themselves. 3/4