A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy
- Downloads：6707
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-07-29 09:56:16
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Joel Mokyr
- ISBN：0691180962
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
During the late eighteenth century， innovations in Europe triggered the Industrial Revolution and the sustained economic progress that spread across the globe。 While much has been made of the details of the Industrial Revolution， what remains a mystery is why it took place at all。 Why did this revolution begin in the West and not elsewhere， and why did it continue， leading to today's unprecedented prosperity？ In this groundbreaking book， celebrated economic historian Joel Mokyr argues that a culture of growth specific to early modern Europe and the European Enlightenment laid the foundations for the scientific advances and pioneering inventions that would instigate explosive technological and economic development。 Bringing together economics， the history of science and technology， and models of cultural evolution， Mokyr demonstrates that culture--the beliefs， values， and preferences in society that are capable of changing behavior--was a deciding factor in societal transformations。
Mokyr looks at the period 1500-1700 to show that a politically fragmented Europe fostered a competitive "market for ideas" and a willingness to investigate the secrets of nature。 At the same time， a transnational community of brilliant thinkers known as the "Republic of Letters" freely circulated and distributed ideas and writings。 This political fragmentation and the supportive intellectual environment explain how the Industrial Revolution happened in Europe but not China， despite similar levels of technology and intellectual activity。 In Europe， heterodox and creative thinkers could find sanctuary in other countries and spread their thinking across borders。 In contrast， China's version of the Enlightenment remained controlled by the ruling elite。
Combining ideas from economics and cultural evolution， "A Culture of Growth" provides startling reasons for why the foundations of our modern economy were laid in the mere two centuries between Columbus and Newton。
Reviews
G Steele
，
Prof。 Mokyr is very erudite。 The book is a tome and very well written。 Francis Bacon and Newton were awesome。 And if Newton had not come along Leibniz would have done just as well。 As Euclid and Pythagoras had done years ago。Any kind of growth， national， modern， local needs capital。 A LOT of capital。 The GDP of the Mughal Empire during Shah Jahan's era was 27x that of Louis XIV。 That's a lot of capital。 In fact Pliny the Elder complained that tens of thousands of talents of gold and silver were Prof。 Mokyr is very erudite。 The book is a tome and very well written。 Francis Bacon and Newton were awesome。 And if Newton had not come along Leibniz would have done just as well。 As Euclid and Pythagoras had done years ago。Any kind of growth， national， modern， local needs capital。 A LOT of capital。 The GDP of the Mughal Empire during Shah Jahan's era was 27x that of Louis XIV。 That's a lot of capital。 In fact Pliny the Elder complained that tens of thousands of talents of gold and silver were disappearing into India from trade back in 77 CE。 Pliny was pretty grumpy about that。Prof。 Utsa Patnaik; Oxford trained economist has estimated that $48 Trillion was appropriated/transferred （pinched） by the British Empire and re-invested in US， Canada， NZ and Australia and also in industrialization。 India was de-industrialized。 No more gun， canon making， fabrics， silks， the Taj Mahal， ship building nope wasn't allowed。 What could be produced？ Why opium， tea and blue aniline dye。According to Margaret C。 Jacob's First Knowledge Economy its the practical application of science that led to Industrial revolution。The New World provided vast new lands for agriculture （after the Native people were eliminated）。India + China （Captive Markets） = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ = Technology Application + Knowledge + Massive FactoriesThe New World = Food goods + Timber for the Royal NavyIndustrial finished good -> （Captive Markets） = $$$$$$$$$$$$Its pretty simple。 I wish respected economists and historians like Irfan Habib and Joel Mokyr could write that more meaningful and deeper view of how Modern Economies came about。 。。。more
Carlos
，
Mokyr， the non plus ultra of erudition， explores the interaction of the cultural entrepreneurs that ultimately led to the Industrial Revolution。 Why did it take place in Europe？ What was the contribution of Luther， Paracelsus， Marx and Darwin to economic growth？ What made European intellectuals challenge Ptolemy， Aristotle， or Galen？ Find out in this sensationally good book， one of the best I have ever read。
Jon Wlasiuk
，
Mokyr’s text feels like it was published a generation ago and represents the very worst academic prose。 His main contention that “nations and economies grow。。。because they increase their collective knowledge about nature” might have passed as an intellectually significant contribution to the discipline seventy years ago， but for a book so heavy on theory and light on primary research I expected a more sophisticated analysis。 For instance， scholars exploring the role of ignorance such as Robert P Mokyr’s text feels like it was published a generation ago and represents the very worst academic prose。 His main contention that “nations and economies grow。。。because they increase their collective knowledge about nature” might have passed as an intellectually significant contribution to the discipline seventy years ago， but for a book so heavy on theory and light on primary research I expected a more sophisticated analysis。 For instance， scholars exploring the role of ignorance such as Robert Proctor and Jonathan Kominsky have developed a significant body of literature that explores knowledge formation and suppression extremely relevant to Mokyr’s argument。 Neither are cited and the index contains zero entries for “agnotology” or “ignorance。” The worst aspect of this text is that the author presents it as a groundbreaking perspective， claiming economists have completely overlooked the role of nature。 Woof。 。。。more
Taylor Barkley
，
A thorough look at why the Industrial Revolution started Europe in the 1700-1800s。 Dense and well researched。 If you are asking why did the world go from living on meager incomes for most of history and then suddenly everyone became richer？ then this book helps provide a the cultural answer to that colossal question。
Adam
，
This book sits at such a precise intersection of things I've been interested in for so long that I still can't quite believe I only happened across it by chance， in a random general "economic history" recs twitter thread。 I remember a moment in my freshman dorm room， speculating naively over a yawning pit of ignorance I was barely aware of at all about whether there was any place not just for individual "agency" but for individual creative and intellectual products to influence the course of his This book sits at such a precise intersection of things I've been interested in for so long that I still can't quite believe I only happened across it by chance， in a random general "economic history" recs twitter thread。 I remember a moment in my freshman dorm room， speculating naively over a yawning pit of ignorance I was barely aware of at all about whether there was any place not just for individual "agency" but for individual creative and intellectual products to influence the course of history。 The conventional wisdom that took this for granted， and the obvious examples--Marx， various religions， etc--that seemed to clearly disprove it， were， I presumed， somehow mere epiphenomena explained on some deeper level by ecological processes。 I had read Guns Germs and Steel and similar works， and simply took this for granted。 What other causal process was there？ I've learned in the past couple years that there is an enormous other process missing in this view， one that is crucial to explain practically anything any human has ever done: cultural evolution。 I am ultimately still approaching history with the same lens; I've just learned how to integrate the most important ecological process of all （evolution） at a relevant timescale。 So I've been reading about cultural evolution， but it's mostly studied in very narrow settings （the "grist" of the mill like folklore， technology， or scientific paradigms） or very wide ones （the evolution of the psychological "mills" themselves）。 On the other hand， I've been learning about economic growth for my overpopulation essay， thinking about the processes that made the Industrial Revolution possible/inevitable and why they emerged when and where they did。 This book uses medium-term， society-scale cultural evolution to answer that exact question。 As soon as I realized exactly what it was， I got quite excited to read it。But the book itself tempered that enthusiasm。 It's not badly written， but it's not especially engaging either。 The biggest issue is that it opens with 100 pages of discussion of cultural evolution theory before even reaching its subject。 It's a strange choice that I think even most academic books wouldn't make; this is certainly an academic book， but it is also popular one at least to some extent。 That accounts for only some of its trouble， though。 There's I think a sort of fundamental problem with what Mokyr is trying to do here。 He establishes in the intro， and I already came in believing， that cultural evolution is inevitably the broad-strokes answer to this question。 He doesn't ever seriously consider alternative hypotheses。 The question is really *how* cultural evolution came to spark the Industrial Revolution。 IE， what were the traits a culture needed to have to make this leap and why did those traits emerge， together， in Europe by the 1800s， and at no other moment in human history。 In my overpopulation piece， I focus on the broadest aspect of these preconditions: a large population， connected by at least a moderate volume of international travel and trade。 Mokyr takes these totally for granted。 They're necessary at some level but not sufficient at any level。 You need innovation， and for that you need a certain set of beliefs。 The problem is that it's difficult to prove even in biology which genes were adaptive and which were just along for the ride （or even detrimental）。 Culture is even more complex because adaptations are under selection from intermediate cultural elements as well as the environment and niche construction。 It's very difficult to imagine what kind of quantitative studies you might conduct to test this question。 What Mokyr does instead is essentially tell a plausible story and make reasonable inferences along the way。 The book's narrative is so uncontroversial it almost comes around to being controversial again。 There's something odd about it， actually， because for years as an anti-civ ideologue I held the belief that there was some kind of destructive spirit to capitalism that motivated endless growth at the expense of the environment。 And more recently， I've moved away from that view because it felt hard to justify ecologically。 But Mokyr's hypothesis is in a sense just that this view is correct。 The thing that made economic growth take off in Europe was the belief that it was okay to impose human dominance on the natural world。 This belief， expressed as a conscious imperative to understand the "rules" of the world and apply that understanding to human well-being， motivated a process of mutually reinforcing scientific and technical discoveries （a new environment of mutation， combination， and niches for the grist of cultural evolution） that enabled economic growth to become exponential。 It's a faith in the possibility and desirability of technological progress， in the desirability of private property and individual rights and the mutual benefit of trade， and a support for the social institutions （state， business， unviersity） that bring these about。 Exactly the sorts of things the radicals had identified。 After that， most of it involves intermediate-level norms that are sort of obvious adaptations to the selection imposed by the prior steps--norms about answering correspondence， giving credit， accepting testimony， etc， that make the process accelerate once it's begun。You could separate Mokyr's argument into two fundamental parts: Baconian knowledge norms and political permissiveness。 There is （inevitably） a bit of a chicken-egg issue at play here。 Culture needs to be motivated to explore useful knowledge， but it also needs to be able to escape repression by the status quo。 It's not entirely clear how Mokyr understands the relationship between the two。 Are they two independent conditions that need to arise at the same time？ Or are these preconditions somehow linked？ Anyway， Europe had them both， whereas China （the only counterexample discussed） did not， despite having a large population， an integrated market， a high degree of specialization， education， literacy， printing press， etc。 One critical difference was that Europe was politically fragmented， often antagonistically so， but still united by a shared language （latin） and culture （Christianity） endowed with institutional power。 Chinese people came up with many of the ideas necessary for the IR at one point or another， but were stifled by the power of the united state， which funneled intellectual talent and activity into civil service exams that was conservative and focused on past texts。 In Europe， political fragmentation made this rebellion against conservatism unquashable， and eventually even fanned it。 If rulers couldn't collude to stifle free-thinking together， some would instead encourage ideas dangerous to each other purely out of competition or spite。 Mokyr spends much of the first half discussing Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton as "cultural entrepreneurs"--not "Great Men" who transformed history through their will and genius so much as people who successfully "sold" ideas that people were already prepared to accept， in such a way that made them dominant and influential in the way the next generation evaluated new ideas of their own。 Mokyr is unapologetic about the fact that this process took place entirely among the elite--it was the "Republic of Letters" where these norms were adopted， perpetuated， and put to use。 It's a premise of the hypothesis that while normal iterative cultural evolution can produce tremendous improvements in particular fields over time （something China benefited from earlier than Europe） and that technicians played an irreplaceable role in the IR， only the introduction of experimental knowledge of the rules of nature to the system can start exponential technological change。 The sine qua nons had to come from scientists， not technicians。 It's certainly not an airtight proof， and a lot of it ends up being boring simply because it feels like Mokyr is just listing quotes and naming names to trace the path of the ideas spread by his "cultural entrpreneurs。" Is this a convincing way to argue？ Maybe， but not decisively。 Still， I found the argument reasonable enough to accept overall。 It is， again， sort of the least controversial imaginable version of this process we know must have occurred in some form or other。 That also makes it maybe the least interesting！ I'll be curious to see if anyone has advanced a meaningful challenge to it， and how they go about arguing their case。 There are still plenty of intermediate steps Mokyr doesn't address that are waiting to be filled in here。 It's a fairly broad picture。 Why did European Republic of Letters come into being in the first place （the extent of correspondence seems hugely significant here and the absence of such a culture in China is conspicuously under-discussed in that section）？ Why did it hold the ideas on evidence that made Bacon come up with his ideas and that caused his peers to accept them as they did？ Etc。 But those are minor points， perhaps， and the sort of thing that can always be traced one step back in evolutionary questions。 。。。more
Ronan Lyons
，
Very interesting thesis （in need of an editor） This is ultimately a 100-page book that somehow ended up as 300 pages。 Mokyr sets out his stall well， although I think the list of biases he tells on when discussing the transfer of knowledge is perhaps too loose to be useful。 He also finishes the book strongly， with a contrast of Europe and China。 But the middle is a muddle， with meandering and repetitive chapters。 It's a pity， as it takes away from what is otherwise a strong argument - that Europe Very interesting thesis （in need of an editor） This is ultimately a 100-page book that somehow ended up as 300 pages。 Mokyr sets out his stall well， although I think the list of biases he tells on when discussing the transfer of knowledge is perhaps too loose to be useful。 He also finishes the book strongly， with a contrast of Europe and China。 But the middle is a muddle， with meandering and repetitive chapters。 It's a pity， as it takes away from what is otherwise a strong argument - that Europe's Enlightenment was unique but not planned or due to some inherent advantage and that its irreverence for 'The Ancients' sparked the idea of progress that humans could control。 Worth a read。 。。。more
Alina
，
My all-time favorite Historian。
Matt Lively
，
Joel Mokyr’s A Culture of Growth doesn’t read like history。 As a study into the conditions of Europe from 1500-1700， Mokyr utilizes a cultural and economic model in production of an intellectual history to assert his principal claim: European culture was responsible for the snowballing technological and intellectual takeoff of the Industrial Revolution， Enlightenment， and ultimately the founding of the modern economy。 That is a bold claim that， in the contemporary academic world， on its face inv Joel Mokyr’s A Culture of Growth doesn’t read like history。 As a study into the conditions of Europe from 1500-1700， Mokyr utilizes a cultural and economic model in production of an intellectual history to assert his principal claim: European culture was responsible for the snowballing technological and intellectual takeoff of the Industrial Revolution， Enlightenment， and ultimately the founding of the modern economy。 That is a bold claim that， in the contemporary academic world， on its face invites charges of Eurocentrism， which Mokyr acknowledges and rebukes。 With a more singularly historical narrative perspective， Mokyr likely would not be able to make that argument effectively。 The interdisciplinarity of A Culture of Growth， born of Mokyr’s dual hatted-ness as an economist and historian， enables it to make bold causal claims。 Adopting an interdisciplinary model has its downsides as well， but on the whole， we need more history that crosses disciplinary boundaries to truly flesh out our arguments and tease out the truth and meaning of the past。 The interdisciplinarity of A Culture of Growth better enables Mokyr to make his case and the strength of the interdisciplinary approach far outweighs its weaknesses。 A Culture of Growth is a good example of the direction that the field of history should be moving in。 Before making this case in further detail， a summary of Mokyr’s argument will be useful。A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy is aptly named; the book is a causal inquiry into the origins of the modern economy that places cultural change and intellectual developments in Europe at the center of its story。 It is probably best described as an intellectual and economic history using a cultural model; but at some point of synthesis these adjectives cease having high definitional power， and this book passes that bar。 The book is divided into five parts。 In chapters 1-5， Mokyr establishes his analytical model and claims; he wisely defines “culture” （“a set of beliefs， values， and preferences， capable of affecting behavior， that are socially （not genetically） transmitted and that are shared by some subset of society”） before placing it at the center of his analysis， describing its inexorability with technological growth， its evolution and relation to the economy， and the things that affect that evolution。 Chapters 6-8 establish the notion of the “cultural entrepreneur” and employ Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton as important case studies for the analysis。 The next two sections of the book explore the conditions behind the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment from 1500-1700， including human capital， shifting foundations in perception of knowledge， fragmentation， pluralism， and competition， institutional impact （especially the Republic of Letters）， religion （specifically Puritanism） and British （mostly non-） exceptionalism （except for Puritanism）， the idea of progress and the coming “Enlightenment。” The concluding section compares developments in Europe to the different， but not “worse” characteristics of Chinese intellectual， technological， and economic developments of the same periods。 The defining theme of all professional history， the emphasis of contingency in processes of change， is stressed throughout the argument。 That summary sounds like a hodgepodge of confusingly arranged ideas all related to Mokyr’s broad thesis。 Indeed that is the case in A Culture of Growth。 Its stylistic weakness， though I argue that Mokyr still effectively makes his point， is that the argument is born of a series of guest lectures seemingly thrown together to form a book。 Mokyr’s argument for the importance of European intellectual and cultural currents causing the takeoff of technological progress and the modern economy is powerful and hits the mark， but it does so more as a rhetorical shotgun loaded with buckshot than as a rifle firing with precision。 The raw effectiveness of Mokyr’s argument stems from its interdisciplinary analytical model， the merits and weaknesses of which we now turn to。Mokyr’s final paragraph states the conclusion of his argument succinctly。 The emergence and interplay of the ideas that “knowledge and the understanding of nature can and should be used to advance the material conditions of humanity” and “that power and government are there not to serve the rich and powerful but society at large” ultimately led to the “triumph in the market for ideas” and “the economic sea changes” that formed the basis for the modern economy。 The nature of that argument hints that the work is an intellectual history， and involves tracing ideas。 That is a messy process; revealing any sort of causality or even untangling the strands of intellectual and cultural change is difficult enough in analysis let alone in conveyance of argument。 But cultural and economic treatment， under Mokyr’s frameworks of the “market of ideas” and “cultural entrepreneurs” resolves much of the causal complexity in argumentation。How do ideas change？ That is a tough question that many intellectual historians overlook despite their ambition and claims to trace such changes。 Mokyr devotes two chapters to detailing “choice-based cultural evolution，” describing the socialization process and the incentives and disincentives behind individual shifts in cultural attitudes as reflective of broader shifts。 Such a model is simple compared to alternatives， revelatory， and natural for an economist – most historians probably wouldn’t be comfortable with such a level of theoretical social atomization or detailing of market shifts。 By treating culture as a good， Mokyr is able to analyze and track it; beliefs， values， and preferences are able to be separate and analyzed in a way that makes sense – culture is: spread through transmission （“social learning”） and most of the time through choice （this is problematic but it allows for a good model）， and is in some ways like genes （sometimes vertically imparted but always extremely complex but separable and made up of composite parts）。 Rather than describing a nebulous intellectual chronology， Mokyr uses his economic background to establish a concrete concept， culture， as the driver of intellectual and eventually economic change， an extremely useful historical contribution。 Given the political fragmentation of 1500-1800 Europe， the mobility of ideas， and the rapidity of change， the reader almost finds themselves asking how such treatment， which enables actual definition and analysis of the critical “market of ideas，” was not undertaken before 2018。 The fact that this intervention took so long is probably due to the fragmentation of social scientific thought and assumptions in modern academia， a fact that Mokyr overcomes through the interdisciplinarity of A Culture of Growth and from his training as a historian and economist。tThis interdisciplinary treatment also enables Mokyr to employ the useful concept of “cultural entrepreneurs。” Certain individuals， according to Mokyr， can synthesize ascending cultural variables into an argument that can persuade large amounts of cultural consumers into accepting them， sometimes rather durably。 Mokyr is careful to qualify this， and in the absence of such cultural entrepreneurs in history， others may very well have emerged that could have wrought similar effects on their cultural spheres – though entrepreneur’s distinct， contingent actions matter greatly。 Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton are the two central cultural entrepreneurs of Mokyr’s argument。 Bacon provided the “Baconian program” of linking the ideas of intellectual， empirical， scientific progress with the idea of material human betterment， creating a “feedback loop that changed the economic history of the world。” Newton provided one of the first and most dramatic realizations of the Baconian program， not necessarily providing immediate impetus for economic transformation but definitively fusing Baconian cultural ideas into the Western （at first elite but later broader） cultural ethos through his work。 This isn’t great man history。 Mokyr is careful to differentiate the representation of cultural entrepreneurs from the idea that singular actors produce massive historical shifts。 Cultural entrepreneurs only partly drive history， serving as focal points of broader forces。 Bacon and Newton aren’t important because they’re Bacon and Newton， they’re important because they convinced other cultural consumers to buy their “products” and integrate them into society。 The concept of cultural entrepreneurs thus helpfully reinforces the “market of ideas” paradigm and the broader economic treatment of Europe’s intellectual and cultural development。The atomistic market treatment of cultural consumers allows easier definition and analysis of historical problems， but it also gives rise to my chief criticism of the book。 Cultural consumers’ freedom of choice is overstated。 Mokyr acknowledges that such choice is not unconstrained， but that assumption does seem to run through A Culture of Growth at least in analysis of specific regions。 Despite this flaw， Mokyr’s interdisciplinary treatment of the cultural and intellectual development of Europe is a revelatory intervention; more work like this should be done。 。。。more
Matt
，
I think Mokyr is basically right: this is the key to the industrial revolution。 But the book is a bit hard to read。
Laurent Franckx
，
Few questions are more important in economic history than the origins of the Great Divergence: why did the Industrial Revolution start in， of all places， Europe （and Great Brittain， to be more precise） in the second half of the 18th century， to set off the first period of sustained economic growth per capita in world history。 After all， certainly until the end of the 18th century， there were no notable differences in living standards between Europe on the one hand， and China and India on the oth Few questions are more important in economic history than the origins of the Great Divergence: why did the Industrial Revolution start in， of all places， Europe （and Great Brittain， to be more precise） in the second half of the 18th century， to set off the first period of sustained economic growth per capita in world history。 After all， certainly until the end of the 18th century， there were no notable differences in living standards between Europe on the one hand， and China and India on the other hand。 However， by the end of the 19th century， this difference had become huge。There are several competing， but not mutually exclusive， explanations。 The first important line of thought emphasizes institutions that stimulate economic activity， such as the rule of the law， the protection of property rights （including intellectual ones）， doubly entry bookkeeping， joint stock companies， etc。 A typical example of this approach is "Why Nations Fail" by Acemoglu and Robertson。The second approach emphasizes cultural factors， and argues that a unique combination of mindsets and values explains the emergence of Europe。 A prominent representative of this approach is the late David Landes。Joel Mokyr's book can be situated in the second strand of literature。According to Mokyr， the Industrial Revolution was the result of a revolution in the approach to knowledge， that can be traced back to Francis Bacon。 Bacon was the first to emphasize the importance of a science that was grounded in the critical examination of observed facts， and to argue that the application of science must yield practical improvements in the quality of life。 Although Mokyr acknowledges that， in the century after Bacon， big scientific advances had very limited impact on technology， he argues that it is the changes in attitudes that were key。 Although they were initially limited to a small elite （"the Republic of Letters"）， those attittudes would eventually permeate European society。Mokyr also admits that， in the same period， there was also a lot of intellectual activity on China， but that this was more focused on the analysis of the past than on the development of genuinely new knowledge。 A key element according to Mokyr is that， due to the political fragmentation of Europe， it was impossoble for even the most retrograde and reactionary forces to stop the development of new ideas; in a centralised country such as China， censorship didn't need to be repressive to be much more effective。As Mokyr points out himself， the idea that the political fragmentation of Europe stimulated its development， is not new: it was already formulated by Hume。 Nevertheless， the thesis developed in this book is extremely important。 My main point of criticism against it is that Mokyr never explains what type of evidence would enable one to chose between the cultural approach and the institutional approach as having the more predictive power/Also， the book is too long。 It is based on a series of guest lectures， and this shows。 In order to have a book length treatment， Mokyr is extremely repetitive， with the exception of the two final chapters 'on China， which also happen to be the most surprising ones。 Despite its flaws， the book is highly recommended to anyone with an interest in economic history。 。。。more
Elizabeth
，
A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy （Hardcover） by Joel Mokyr from the libraryhttps://www。intelligencesquaredus。org。。。audio about 32-to---34minI am not interested in risk， I am interested in the history about how men didn't use to work for another man that wasn't family because that was too emasculating。 in the Industrial rev with the beginning of factories they hired women and children because they were more compliant。 also ref'd in the radio show-An Economist Walks Into a Br A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy （Hardcover） by Joel Mokyr from the libraryhttps://www。intelligencesquaredus。org。。。audio about 32-to---34minI am not interested in risk， I am interested in the history about how men didn't use to work for another man that wasn't family because that was too emasculating。 in the Industrial rev with the beginning of factories they hired women and children because they were more compliant。 also ref'd in the radio show-An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk （Hardcover） by Allison SchragerTOC from Worlcat:Contents:tEvolution， Culture， and Economic History。 Culture and Economics ; Nature and Technology ; Cultural Evolution and economics ; Choice-based Cultural Evolution ; Biases in Cultural Evolution -- Cultural Entrepreneurs and Economic Change， 1500-1700。 Cultural Entrepreneurs and Choice-based Cultural Evolution ; Francis Bacon， Cultural Entrepreneur ; Isaac Newton， Cultural Entrepreneur -- Innovation， Competition， and Pluralism in Europe， 1500-1700。 Cultural Choice in Action : Human Capital and Religion ; Cultural Change and the Growth of Useful Knowledge， 1500-1700 ; Fragmentation， Competition， and Cultural Change ; Competition and the Republic of Letters -- Prelude to the Enlightenment。 Puritanism and British Exceptionalism ; A culture of Progress ; The Enlightenment and Economic Change -- Cultural Change in the East and West。 China and Europe ; China and the Enlightenment ; Useful Knowledge and Economic Growth。 。。。more
Christos
，
Interesting book but for a someone I believe that already has a relative background to the subject。 Otherwise it is a bit challenging to keep up with the terminology。 Plus I feel that the author used pompous words just for the sake of it。
Robert Stevenson
，
Too much tautology， what does culture the word mean， how does the author use the word。 This discussion is 10% of book。 And the narrative of book is after a culture discussion non-existent and comes across as ODTAA （one damn thing after another） history book。
Kathleen
，
A well-researched analysis of interrelated factors leading to the Enlightenment， Industrial Revolution， and modern growth。 The academic writing style makes for a convincing but dry read。
Fabian
，
Simply great
Mateo
，
An excellent synthesis of Mokyr's previous work。 It's written in a way that might appeal to a nonacademic， but make no mistake， it is noted and cited in a way that might be unappealing to a casual reader of economic history。 An excellent synthesis of Mokyr's previous work。 It's written in a way that might appeal to a nonacademic， but make no mistake， it is noted and cited in a way that might be unappealing to a casual reader of economic history。 。。。more
Franz
，
Focusing on the years from 1500-1700， Mokyr traces the influences foreshadowing the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution。 One crucial key was the writings of Francis Bacon， whose explanation of how knowledge can be discovered through close observation of nature and by conducting experiments to discover Nature's secrets， guided and inspired subsequent tinkerers， scientists， and mathematicians。 One question that Mokyr explores is why the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries Focusing on the years from 1500-1700， Mokyr traces the influences foreshadowing the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution。 One crucial key was the writings of Francis Bacon， whose explanation of how knowledge can be discovered through close observation of nature and by conducting experiments to discover Nature's secrets， guided and inspired subsequent tinkerers， scientists， and mathematicians。 One question that Mokyr explores is why the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries occurred in the Western Europe， which led to the the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution， and not elsewhere， especially China， which was about equal to Western Europe in technology， wealth， and cultural attainments in 1500。 His answer is complex。 He emphasizes the contingent nature of the rise and eventual domination of much of the world by Europeans， that the outcome could have been much different。 China and other areas of the world could have achieved the sort of advancements had their situations been somewhat different。 The circumstances in Europe encouraged the communication among the educated elite， which Mokyr calls the Republic of Letters， that spread the the scientific， technological， and philosophical discoveries and innovation widely throughout Western Europe。 Aiding in spreading these ideas was the fragmentation of Europe into different nations with different political divisions and levels of tolerance for radical ideas。 China， being more centralized politically and culturally， lacked much of this， especially the questioning of ancient canonical authors such as Confucius。 In the West， respect for Aristotelian science declined as new discoveries contradicted its claims。 Galileo， Hooker， Newton， Boyle， Descarte， Leibniz， and numerous others won the struggle in the market of ideas。 Communication by letters and books， aided by the printing press （the Chinese had already developed movable type in the 11th century， but ultimately its advantages were partially compromised by the enormous number of Chinese written characters）， helped produce an atmosphere of open discussion and debate。 Discoveries made by Galileo in Italy could be explored by Descarte in France and further improved by Newton in England。 Writing in the common scientific and philosophical language of Latin aided in the spreading new ideas widely regardless of political boundaries and religious commitments of the different thinkers。 While discoveries during the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries contributed to the ideas of the Enlightenment， such as the autonomy of the individuals to choose their own political and religious beliefs， the gradual growth of tolerance to different viewpoints， and subjecting ideas to tests that to judge their efficacies， there was a lag of about a century before applying scientific principles for practical purposes had any influence on the Industrial Revolution。 The early years of the Industrial Revolution depended on practical men inventing new marvels such as the steam engine based on trial-and-error experience rather than on scientific principles。 Once scientific principles were combined with practical experience， the Scientific Revolution really took off in the 19th century and accelerating in the 20th century。 Although the subtitle of the book is "The Origins of the Modern Economy"， I found little in the book that I thought relevant to economics。 Mokyr imagines that economic concepts such as incentives and markets played a role in which ideas survived and which were forgotten。 He does take a kind of Darwinian approach in the sense that the most useful ideas tend to be the ones that survive based on incentives。 Although somewhat repetitious， the book contains a wealth of ideas and does try to explain why the West arose economically and technologically while the rest of the world didn't。 Mokyr doesn't automatically assume that the West was somehow superior than the rest of the world。 He implies the the West was just lucky。 。。。more
Allan
，
Emphasizes the importance of the Scientific Revolution to the long-term success of industrialization。 Altered my view of things， although I think there is more merit to Allen's British Industrialization in Global Perspective （2009） than Mokyr does。 Emphasizes the importance of the Scientific Revolution to the long-term success of industrialization。 Altered my view of things， although I think there is more merit to Allen's British Industrialization in Global Perspective （2009） than Mokyr does。 。。。more
Diego
，
Joel Mokyr continua con el tren de ideas The Gift of Athena y An Enlighted Economy explorando los origines de la revolución industrial。 Esta vez lo hace desde el punto de vista de los cambios culturales que se dan en Europa entre 1500 y 1700， aproximadamente entre el descubrimiento de América y la publicación de Philophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica de Newton。En este periodo se establecio una red intra-continental de cientificos y filosofos "La república de las letras" en la que el conocimi Joel Mokyr continua con el tren de ideas The Gift of Athena y An Enlighted Economy explorando los origines de la revolución industrial。 Esta vez lo hace desde el punto de vista de los cambios culturales que se dan en Europa entre 1500 y 1700， aproximadamente entre el descubrimiento de América y la publicación de Philophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica de Newton。En este periodo se establecio una red intra-continental de cientificos y filosofos "La república de las letras" en la que el conocimiento de sus integrantes se difundia y permitia ser replicado y mejorado con el tiempo。 Este proceso eventualmente llevo al nacimiento de las academías de ciencia como la Royal Society en Inglaterra。 De acuerdo a Mokyr los origines de la ilustración y despues de la revolución industrial se encuentran en la naturalza libre del flujo de información de esta comunidas， de la naturaleza abierta de la ciencia de la época y el surgimiento de la concepción practica del conocimiento， el conocimiento como vía para mejorar las condiciones materiales de las sociedades y la riqueza de los estados。 El libro hace una revisión profunda de la los trabajos desde Bacon hasta Darwin en occidente y de filosofos Chinos del siglo X con el proposito de contratar la evolución cultural y cientifica Europea vis á vis con la ocurrida en China （los últimos dos capitulos）。 Es una lectura recomendable para complementar el entendimiento sobre los origines de la gran divergencia que hasta nuestros tiempos comienza a revertirse。 。。。more
Jeanne T
，
In this book， Mokyr explores how cultural changes in Europe during the Scientific Revolution is different from past events， and how these changes led up to the Industrial Revolution。 He talks about the how cultural evolution leads up to the Industrial Enlightenment。 In particular， he argues that the change in the beliefs of a group of intellectual elites under the Republic of Letters led to the success of a competitive market for ideas。 The common Baconian belief by the RoL that knowledge shoul In this book， Mokyr explores how cultural changes in Europe during the Scientific Revolution is different from past events， and how these changes led up to the Industrial Revolution。 He talks about the how cultural evolution leads up to the Industrial Enlightenment。 In particular， he argues that the change in the beliefs of a group of intellectual elites under the Republic of Letters led to the success of a competitive market for ideas。 The common Baconian belief by the RoL that knowledge should be used to better human lives led to competition and open contest of knowledge。 The adoption of the idea of progress and Puritanism also led to to the Industrial Enlightenment， where theory meets practice。 I had to read this book and do a review for one of my modules。 The idea proposed by Mokyr is a refreshing one and I like how he manages to link culture to economics。 He is also quite specific in the kind of culture he is looking at and provides a coherent and consistent argument throughout the book。 His comparison of China to Europe instead of Britain made the whole idea less Eurocentric as well， and he doesn't disprove alternative theories brought up by other economists and historians。 This also serves the double-edged effect of making his thesis less strong though， because it is hard to get a grasp of the main argument when you bring in all other theories and say they play a part here and there。 The points get pretty messy。 And the book is pretty repetitive at some points I feel？ The lead up to the book was also pretty draggy， and it was so hard for me to carry on。 Oh he had a nice witty twist at the end of his book about this book contributing to the market for ideas， which I thought was really cool。 。。。more
Kenric Nelson
，
Outstanding history of the Enlightenment and its impact on Europe。 I found the insights about the Republic of Letters particularly valuable。
Paul Fulcher
，
Hadrian's review （https://www。goodreads。com/review/show。。。） does the book far more justice than I can， so just some brief thoughts。Joel Mokyr reminds us that the British Industrial Revolution from the late 18th Century "unleashed an phenomenon never before even remotely experienced by any society，" namely sustained technological progress leading to worldwide economic growth。In this book he looks not at the what， how and where of these events， but rather the why and argues that their origins Hadrian's review （https://www。goodreads。com/review/show。。。） does the book far more justice than I can， so just some brief thoughts。Joel Mokyr reminds us that the British Industrial Revolution from the late 18th Century "unleashed an phenomenon never before even remotely experienced by any society，" namely sustained technological progress leading to worldwide economic growth。In this book he looks not at the what， how and where of these events， but rather the why and argues that their origins lie in the European Enlightment in the period "roughly speaking between the first voyage to America by Columbus and the publication of Principia Mathematica by Newton。"His methodological innovation is to look at the importance of culture on economics and in particular his concept of the market place for ideas in Europe between 1500-1700 and the key role played by "cultural entrepreneurs" who transform beliefs and ultimately behaviours in the same way that today's tech entrepreneurs might hope to change our transport， shopping and communication systems。Mokyr's two featured cultural entrepreneurs are Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon， and he places much emphasis on the latters inductive and empirical approach to science vs。 the Hobbesian approach in the UK， and even the more top down deductive approach of the Cartesians， although his particular ire is reserved for the Jesuits and their opposition even to mathematical concept of infinitesimals （he cites Kingsley Amis's The Alteration as an example of an alternative history where the reformation didn't take place and the industrial revolution consequently failed to happen）。Mokyr's ideas are interesting and his treatment wide ranging but unfortunately his writing style doesn't match his erudition， the odd good line apart （"belief in predestination was doomed from the start"）。 In part this is he， as a good academic， avoids easy answers and gives a balanced and detailed view of what is a complex topic， but even allowing for that his arguments can feel rather tortuous and repetitive， and not at all well organised: for example， the existence of the Republic of Letters is key to his history from the outset but he only defines his view of the term on page 186。 Mokyr has little time for those who argue that scientific advances had little to do with the industrial revolution， arguing that even if the theories developed didn't lead directly to innovations in production， they provided an important cultural backdrop。 But then it is inconsistent that he himself seems dismissive of any part of learning other than applied sciences。 He argues somewhat convincingly that the relegation of studies of the Classics was a key advance （and a difference between Europe and China）， as a by-product of replacing the veneration of the wisdom of the ancients for an optimistic view of scientific progress， but extends this， less compellingly to an implicit dismissal of music， literature and indeed even pure mathematics。 Indeed he argues: "In societies dominated by a small， wealthy， but unproductive and exploitative elite， the low social prestige of productive activity meant that creativity and innovation would be directed toward an agenda of interest to the elite。 The educated and sophisticated elite focused on efforts supporting its power such as military prowess and administration， or on such topics of leisure as literature， games， the arts， and philosophy， and not so much on the mundane problems of the farmer in his field， the sailor on his ship。 Or the artisan in his workshop。 The agenda of the leisurely elite was of great importance to the lovers of music in the eighteenth century Hapsburg lands， but was not of much interest to their farmers and manufacturers。 The Austrian Empire created Haydn and Mozart， but no Industrial Revolution。"Finally， and given the depressing change of political views on migration， multiculturalism and globalisation in 2016， it is notable that quoting Cipolla， he observes "throughout this centuries the countries in which intolerance and fanaticism prevailed lost to more tolerant countries the most precious of all possible forms of wealth: good human brains" 。。。more
Adora
，