Share this page!

Davis Kedrosky Profile picture
Twitter logo
26 Aug, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Considering that this poll was taken in a Berkeley history course, I'm mildly shocked! Image
Oh, you get to see my answers, too. That's nice.
Ah, back in business. We have an audience question seeking reassurance that the link between imperialism and capitalism will be discussed.
Bob Allen cameo... explaining a Marxist definition of capitalism? Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Davis Kedrosky

Davis Kedrosky Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dkedrosky

Davis Kedrosky Profile picture
31 Aug
Did Britain sacrifice the Industrial Revolution to defeat Napoleon? A thread: 1/ Image
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/ Image
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/ Image
Read 19 tweets
Davis Kedrosky Profile picture
27 Aug
A summary thread and musings on Allen and Wrigley's theory of early pre-industrial urbanization in Britain. 1/ #econhist #EconTwitter #twitterstorians Image
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/
Read 26 tweets
Davis Kedrosky Profile picture
18 Aug
THREAD+NEWSLETTER: Urban demand, NOT agrarian capitalism, drove city growth in early modern Britain. 1/

If you enjoy this, please share! I rely primarily on word of mouth for spreading the good word. daviskedrosky.substack.com/p/london-calli… #EconTwitter #econhist
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/
Read 8 tweets
Davis Kedrosky Profile picture
16 Aug
Why cities drove change in pre-industrial British agriculture, A THREAD (and newsletter daviskedrosky.substack.com/p/london-calli…): #EconTwitter #econhist

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… Image
Read 7 tweets
Davis Kedrosky Profile picture
9 Aug
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
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @dkedrosky has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @dkedrosky!

Read all threads by @dkedrosky

:(