Some economic history

There was a good interview on Counterpoint today with economist Gregory Clark talking up his book "A Farewell to Alms" about economic history.

This book seems to have something of a slow burn. Clark's website lists reviews, and although the New York Times covered it well in November 2006, there have been a spate of recent reviews, including a short one in The Economist, which opens with his most controversial idea:

WHY did the Industrial Revolution begin in the 18th century? Why did it start in Britain, a medium-sized island in north-west Europe? And, once the revolution had occurred, why did the gains accrue so disproportionately to countries in Europe and North America?

These are questions that have kept economists busy for decades. Gregory Clark, of the University of California, Davis, thinks the answers lie in the nature of European societies. “Millennia of living in stable societies, under tight Malthusian pressures that rewarded effort, accumulation and fertility limitation, encouraged the development of cultural forms—in terms of work inputs, time preference and family formation—which facilitated modern economic growth,” he contends.

This is not a fashionable thesis. Indeed, it may well get Mr Clark into trouble, given the implication that other societies are less “evolved”. His argument is that throughout the Middle Ages British society was slowly acquiring characteristics that made it a favourable agent for rapid economic change. The rich tended to have more children who survived than their poorer compatriots and this led to a kind of downward mobility as sons of merchants became small traders, sons of traders became craftsmen and so on. The result was that middle-class attributes such as patience, hard work and education spread through society.

As other reviews note, this is a big contract to Jared Diamond's idea in "Guns Germs and Steel" that Europe took off because it was just geographically lucky. (Oddly, I used to quite like Diamond as an essayist in Discover magazine in the 1980's - 90's, but I find him an un-engaging writer when he is at book length.)

Clark come across well in the Counterpoint interview, and it is well worth listening to.