|
Title: A
Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World |
|
Author: Gregory Clark |
|
Reviewer: Howard Davies |
|
Publisher: Princeton University Press |
|
ISBN: 9780691121352 |
|
Pages: 440 |
|
Price: £17.95 |
Howard Davies ponders an intriguing theory of economic
growth
My first paid employment was in a Lancashire cotton mill
at the bottom of our road. The mill straddled the river Irk, which
lived down to its name. At 16, I was engaged for two shillings and five
pence an hour in what was misleadingly called "conveyancing". That
amounted to pushing elderly trucks built like railway wagons and loaded
with curtain fabric from one part of the mill to another. It was
back-breaking work, but thankfully intermittent as the superannuated
machinery often stopped. The mill itself, a remarkable survivor into
the early 1970s, closed a few years later.
So, for me, the Industrial Revolution does not seem a
remote phenomenon. The consequences, for good and ill, were all around
in my childhood. Today, they are everywhere in the world: dead fish
float through Harbin in northern China or São Paulo in Brazil, just as
they did through north Manchester. Manchester's entrepreneurs, and
subsequently its liberal economists, have a lot to answer for.
Why did this revolution begin among the dark satanic
mills in and around my home town, which is now more famous for football
and nightclubs? That is the question Gregory Clark seeks to answer in A
Farewell to Alms, modestly subtitled "A Brief Economic History of
the World".
In fact, Clark turns the question on its head. For him,
the issue is rather why the Industrial Revolution did not happen
earlier. Indeed, he argues that "the mystery of why the Industrial
Revolution was delayed until around 1800 is the great and enduring
puzzle of human history".
This is a rather grandiose claim, and there are a few
other historical puzzles that have detained historians from time to
time, but let that pass. What is his answer to the examination question
he has set himself?
His first point is that the Industrial Revolution is
misnamed. The productivity acceleration that characterised it applied
to the agricultural sector just as much as it did to manufacturing. So
he sees the challenge as being to explain why and how, from about 1780,
England achieved productivity gains, associated with population
increases, that allowed it to break out of the Malthusian trap in which
other societies languished for so long.
Clark briefly and aggressively dismisses three
conventional explanations. He rejects exogenous growth theories on the
grounds that there were no obvious changes in legal institutions around
the time of the Industrial Revolution.
He dismisses multiple equilibrium and endogenous growth
theories. He argues that none of these explanations is adequate to
distinguish English societies in the late 18th century from other
societies at different points in history where plausible combinations
of economic inputs and stable institutions were similarly in place.
The answer to the conundrum that he posits is not
presented as punchily as the question. The shortest summary he offers
is that "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 argues that the dramatic acceleration in
economic growth that occurred in England from 1780 was the result of a
kind of Darwinian process of natural selection. He produces evidence
that prosperous families in England were systematically more successful
than others at reproducing themselves. And, crucially, they passed down
through the generations attitudes to hard work, saving and deferred
consumption that were the essential prerequisites of a productivity
breakthrough.
He acknowledges that particular inventions that made
manufacturing processes more efficient were significant, but he argues
that population growth was just as important: "The appearance of
dramatic discontinuity in the Industrial Revolution comes from the
coincidence of productivity growth in England and an unexpected and
unrelated explosion in the English population in the years 1750 to
1870. Britain's rise to world dominance was thus a product more of the
bedroom labours of British workers than of their factory toil."
This is a provocative thesis, and Clark goes out of his
way to attack economic historians associated with rival explanations.
His work will, therefore, not go without challenge. Critics may
identify some inconsistency between his Darwinian explanations of
natural selection, buttressed by statistics on the fertility rate of
upper and professional classes, and the sentence quoted above about the
reproductive efforts of the workers.
Others may argue that his own theory, like those he
debunks, finds it difficult to distinguish precisely the unique
characteristics of late 18th century England along the dimensions he
considers important.
But Clark writes entertainingly, and much of the charm
of the book lies in his eclectic data. He shows that more people in
England were aware of their true age than in other comparable
societies, suggesting a greater consciousness of the significance of
future consumption. He argues that the English had a lower discount
rate than was typical in other apparently comparable societies. (He
notes that American teenagers have a phenomenally high discount rate,
which may explain in part the disappearance of household savings in the
US).
The last section of the book, which is perhaps less
successful than the earlier ones, attempts to explain why economic
growth has not spread so easily to many developing countries. Clark's
main comparison is between England and British India, where he sees
systematic over-manning, which prevents the productivity gains from new
machinery being realised in practice. Development economists will, I
think, regard this as a partial assessment.
And, in a final short paragraph designed to eliminate
such remaining friends in the economic profession as he may have, Clark
argues that "the deluge of economics journal articles, working papers
and books - devoted to technically detailed studies... serves more to
obscure than illuminate... the great engines of economic life in the
sweep of history seem uncoupled from these quotidian economic
concerns". As a result, academic economists are now, he believes,
systematically overpaid. I shall keep A Farewell to Alms beside me at
the next meeting of the London School of Economic's professorial salary
committee.
Howard Davies is director, London School of Economics.
|