Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Columns By Topic
People
ePubs
Debates
Events
Jobs
About
Search
By Reads
By Tag
Ralf R Meisenzahl 7 A
The Industrial Revolution is widely regarded as the start of modern economic growth. In his recent influential work, Allen (2009a, 2009b) has resurrected induced innovation theory and re-emphasised the role of factor prices. As the theory goes, scarce labour (measured by high wages) stimulated labour-saving inventions in Britain basically induced innovation is a corollary of the old saying, necessity is the mother of invention. We beg to differ. In our recent work (Meisenzahl and Mokyr 2011), we argue that there were deep complementarities between the groups of key workers. The first is the relatively small group of people who actually invented things. The second is the somewhat larger group of highly-skilled craftsmen who possessed the training and natural dexterity to actually carry out the instructions. The second group is critical. They had to implement with a high degree of accuracy the new recipes and blueprints that inventors wrote. This involved building the parts on a routine basis with very low degrees of tolerance for error while still being able to fill in the blanks when the instructions were inevitably incomplete. It was this technical competence of the British mechanical elite that was able to implement and tweak the great ideas and turn them into economic realities. In other words, our view on what determined the rate and direction of technological change during the Industrial Revolution is entirely supply-based. Our analysis raises the question of whether education can foster an innovative environment.
Joel Mokyr
Professor of Economics, Northwestern University.
Don't Miss
The ECB would benefit from less gender discrimination Open Letter Which of the 50 states practise personal responsibility? Frankel Whats the use of economics? A new Vox debate Coyle How Germany can avoid wealth losses if the Eurozone breaks up: Limit conversion to German residents De Grauwe, Ji
Most Read
This Month All Time
What have the economists ever done for us? Haldane How Germany can avoid wealth losses if the Eurozone breaks up: Limit conversion to German residents De Grauwe, Ji Fact-checking financial recessions Schularick, Taylor The doomsday cycle turns: Whos next? Johnson, Boone
chief mode of the intergenerational transmission of skills and competence. The question then becomes: What were the prime economic incentives driving this second tier of technological creators? Many authors have highlighted the importance of intellectual-property rights for innovation, but we find that many skilled workmen relied on secrecy and first-mover advantages to reap the benefits of their innovations. In fact, over 40% of our sample here never took out a patent. Reputations derived from inventive accomplishments and alternative rewards such as prizes and medals also contributed to the rise in inventive activity. One point needs to be emphasised. Invention took place in all sectors of the economy, not just in cotton and steam engines. In fact, the results of our analysis show that patterns for the textiles sector differ substantially. This is not an unusual finding. Becker et al. (2009), studying the impact of literacy on technology adoption in Prussia a technological follower find that literacy fostered industrialisation in all sectors except textiles. Hence, inferences based primarily on evidence from the textile sector about the whole economy might be misleading.
Vox Talks
The path to sustainable recovery for the Eurozone
Sims, 12 October 2012 Listen | Open Player More Vox Talks
Subscribe
@VoxEU RSS Feeds Weekly Digest
Implications
The centrality of the supply of competence in this period suggests something of wider significance about the direction of innovation. The rate of technological change is dependent on those supply factors that reflect what engineers and skilled workers actually can do regardless of what they would like to do. The drive toward improvement was quite general in the eighteenth century, but the results were highly uneven, with major productivity improvements in textiles, iron, civil engineering, and power technology, but few in farming, medicine, steel, chemicals, and communications. Competence as defined here was an integral part of the supply side, as inventors would not be able to carry out their ideas without the trained workers they employed. The direction of technological progress reflected the difficulties on the supply side rather than any obvious demand-side bias. Factor endowments may in some cases have helped decide what problems inventors chose to work on. Thus, the presence of coal in Britain may have led to the development of mechanical pumps to remove water from mine, and from those pumps, of course, the steam engine was born.
References
Allen, Robert C (2009a), The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective, Cambridge University Press. Allen, Robert C (2009b), The Industrial Revolution in Miniature: The Spinning Jenny in Britain, France, and India, Journal of Economic History, 69(04):901-927. Becker, Sascha O, Erik Hornung, and Ludger Woessmann (2009), Catch Me If you Can: Education and Catch-up in the Industrial Revolution, Stirling Economics Discussion Paper, No. 2009-2019. Humphries, Jane (2003), English Apprenticeships: A Neglected Factor in the first Industrial Revolution, in Paul A David and Mark Thomas (eds.), The Economic Future in Historical Perspective, Oxford University Press, 73-102.
Meisenzahl, Ralf R. and Joel Mokyr. 2011. The Rate and Direction of Invention in the British Industrial Revolution: Incentives and Institutions. NBER Working Paper 16993. Mitch, David. 1998. The Role of Education and Skill in the British Industrial Revolution. In Joel Mokyr, ed., The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective, 2nd edition, Westview Press, 241-279. Mokyr, Joel (2009), The Enlightened Economy, Yale University Press. North, Douglass C and Barry Weingast (1989), Constitutions and Commitment: Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth Century England, Journal of Economic History, 49(4):803-832. Wrigley, EA (2004), The Divergence of England: The Growth of the English Economy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, In EA Wrigley, Poverty, Progress, and Population,Cambridge University Press, 44-67. Wrigley, EA (2010), Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, Cambridge University Press. 7
Topics: Development, Poverty and income inequality Tags: education, growth, Industrial Revolution Login or register to post comments 7915 reads Printer-friendly version
VoxEU.org