"Whereas most of the public, and even many historians, think of the causes of modern economic growth – the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution – as being rooted in material factors, like conquest, colonialism, or coal, Mokyr tirelessly argued that it was rooted in ideas"
I find it fascinating that several decades ago the 'ideas' view of change would have been the view of most of the public, while materialism would have been more common among academics. Whereas now it's the reverse. The result of a partially understood Marxism which has become conventional wisdom.
The "ideas" view of innovation and change has a long history; Mokyr has been a very active participant, but far from the only player. "Dialectical materialism" was once popular in the more Marxist parts of academia, but Marxism has always been a fairly narrow niche in economics.
Joel Mokyr has been extremely inspirational in my research and understanding of science and technology in world history. I couldn't be more thrilled to hear he won the Nobel.
Mokyr’s Lever of Riches is one of the books that changed my understanding of both history and the world. I clearly remember the buzz I got when reading it. A well deserved Nobel imo.
Well written. But in my opinion, his work -- as usual for the time we live in -- still sort of leads to the same place we've been in recent decades. For Mokyr, the institutions are seemingly just cultural, not fiscal or political or other things. And he still seems to basically treats it as some sort of aristocratic phenomena, the artisans, mechanics’ institutes, municipal workshops, etc. that turned ideas into transformative technologies are treated as background instead of as constitutive elements of democracy. He never quite sees the political architecture, local capital structures, scientific lyceums, mutual societies, party machines, and lots more that once made inventive life accessible and self-sustaining. And e doesn’t trace how financial decentralization, local credit, participatory governance, etc. underpinned the transmission of technical knowledge and so his model still naturalizes the very centralization of research, finance, and authority that extinguished the plural innovation ecology he rightly celebrates.
The disturbing thing is that this ground was very comprehensively covered, that coverage was used to design the USA’s system until some point after WW2. Its very, very disturbing when you see how historical knowledge can basically just be all but erased, and over just the course of a decade or two
Sounds fascinating! Which of his books would you recommend as a starting point for a general reader (non economist/historian) interested in the history of innovation?
"Whereas most of the public, and even many historians, think of the causes of modern economic growth – the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution – as being rooted in material factors, like conquest, colonialism, or coal, Mokyr tirelessly argued that it was rooted in ideas"
I had a question about this. Would it not be fair to say that the information systems that allowed for the accumulation, sharing and collaborative development of ideas are themselves material (printing press is a capital good, universities are a byproduct of economic surplus)?
While "freedom" or "progress" are obviously true "ideas", wouldn't "mechanically actionable knowledge" be better categorized with material forces?
I agree with the basic premise that the award is a triumph for history and the importance of ideas.
That being said, I would like to point out that there is no such thing as a “Nobel Prize in Economics”: it is the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The official Nobel site explicitly says “The prize in economic sciences is not a Nobel Prize” (https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/), and members of the Nobel family have strongly objected to the association with their name.
There was a great essay about that interplay between the scholar and the craftsman as it related to penicillin, but now I can't find it. Here's a shorter version.
Mokyr's theory suffers from much the same problem as other theories of progress: it can explain PROXIMAL causes of progress, but not the LONG-TERM causes.
Mokyr's theory does not explain what caused the combination of Enlightened scientists and craftsmen in Britain just before and during the Industrial Revolution.
In other words, what caused the cause?
I believe this essay gives a much more robust answer:
So Mokyr is looking at the RESULTS of previous material progress in England and other Commercial societies that preceded it, not the CAUSE of material progress.
I think material progress began centuries earlier and England built on the contributions of earlier Commercial societies:
So Mokyr gives an excellent description of the proximal causes of the Industrial Revolution, but he starts the story in the middle and bigger long-term causes.
None of the above diminishes the importance of his achievements.
This seems like hair splitting on your part. I think there are fairly convincing thesis on the causes of progress (whatever progress means in this context). It doesn't seem to me to require Mokyr to provide a grand unified theory to explain what led to 1790.
We are talking about two fundamentally different theories…
I never claimed that Mokyr needed a “grand unified theory to explain what led to 1790.”
I think to provide a full explanation, he needs to explain what caused the combination of Enlightened scientists and craftsmen in Britain just before and during the Industrial Revolution. His theory makes it seem like a historical accident that just happened.
In my experience, this is a common problem with theories of material progress.
"Whereas most of the public, and even many historians, think of the causes of modern economic growth – the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution – as being rooted in material factors, like conquest, colonialism, or coal, Mokyr tirelessly argued that it was rooted in ideas"
I find it fascinating that several decades ago the 'ideas' view of change would have been the view of most of the public, while materialism would have been more common among academics. Whereas now it's the reverse. The result of a partially understood Marxism which has become conventional wisdom.
Maybe because those of us “of a certain age” watched “Schoolhouse Rock”…? #MotherNecessity
The "ideas" view of innovation and change has a long history; Mokyr has been a very active participant, but far from the only player. "Dialectical materialism" was once popular in the more Marxist parts of academia, but Marxism has always been a fairly narrow niche in economics.
Joel Mokyr has been extremely inspirational in my research and understanding of science and technology in world history. I couldn't be more thrilled to hear he won the Nobel.
A beautiful appreciation - thanks so much
Mokyr’s Lever of Riches is one of the books that changed my understanding of both history and the world. I clearly remember the buzz I got when reading it. A well deserved Nobel imo.
This underpins (or ought to) the primacy of support for policy and institutional change as the objecive of development aid.
Well written. But in my opinion, his work -- as usual for the time we live in -- still sort of leads to the same place we've been in recent decades. For Mokyr, the institutions are seemingly just cultural, not fiscal or political or other things. And he still seems to basically treats it as some sort of aristocratic phenomena, the artisans, mechanics’ institutes, municipal workshops, etc. that turned ideas into transformative technologies are treated as background instead of as constitutive elements of democracy. He never quite sees the political architecture, local capital structures, scientific lyceums, mutual societies, party machines, and lots more that once made inventive life accessible and self-sustaining. And e doesn’t trace how financial decentralization, local credit, participatory governance, etc. underpinned the transmission of technical knowledge and so his model still naturalizes the very centralization of research, finance, and authority that extinguished the plural innovation ecology he rightly celebrates.
If the explanation were complete, I’d be out of a job! But he did a great deal to advance the field.
The disturbing thing is that this ground was very comprehensively covered, that coverage was used to design the USA’s system until some point after WW2. Its very, very disturbing when you see how historical knowledge can basically just be all but erased, and over just the course of a decade or two
Sounds fascinating! Which of his books would you recommend as a starting point for a general reader (non economist/historian) interested in the history of innovation?
I think either Lever of Riches or Enlightened Economy. Former more focused on invention; latter more a general economic history of the period
Great summary post.
"Whereas most of the public, and even many historians, think of the causes of modern economic growth – the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution – as being rooted in material factors, like conquest, colonialism, or coal, Mokyr tirelessly argued that it was rooted in ideas"
I had a question about this. Would it not be fair to say that the information systems that allowed for the accumulation, sharing and collaborative development of ideas are themselves material (printing press is a capital good, universities are a byproduct of economic surplus)?
While "freedom" or "progress" are obviously true "ideas", wouldn't "mechanically actionable knowledge" be better categorized with material forces?
Yes there’s a sort of mutually reinforcing cycle that goes on, with some inventions - printing press, postal services, etc - helping the others.
I agree with the basic premise that the award is a triumph for history and the importance of ideas.
That being said, I would like to point out that there is no such thing as a “Nobel Prize in Economics”: it is the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The official Nobel site explicitly says “The prize in economic sciences is not a Nobel Prize” (https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/), and members of the Nobel family have strongly objected to the association with their name.
Yes yes yes, but everyone calls it that!
Which is exactly why we need to push back against its incorrect usage.
Thank you for this. I had never heard of Mokyr.
There was a great essay about that interplay between the scholar and the craftsman as it related to penicillin, but now I can't find it. Here's a shorter version.
https://substack.com/@asimovpress/note/c-157360229
Damn, I hope he can predict the economic consequences of AI…!
While I don’t agree with his theories on the cause of progress, I am thrilled that Mokyr earned the Nobel Prize. It is greatly deserved.
What don’t you agree with?
Mokyr's theory suffers from much the same problem as other theories of progress: it can explain PROXIMAL causes of progress, but not the LONG-TERM causes.
Mokyr's theory does not explain what caused the combination of Enlightened scientists and craftsmen in Britain just before and during the Industrial Revolution.
In other words, what caused the cause?
I believe this essay gives a much more robust answer:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-the-industrial-revolution-happened
So Mokyr is looking at the RESULTS of previous material progress in England and other Commercial societies that preceded it, not the CAUSE of material progress.
I think material progress began centuries earlier and England built on the contributions of earlier Commercial societies:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-commercial-citystates-of-northern
So Mokyr gives an excellent description of the proximal causes of the Industrial Revolution, but he starts the story in the middle and bigger long-term causes.
None of the above diminishes the importance of his achievements.
That’s interesting and makes sense. I don’t know enough to agree or disagree.
This seems like hair splitting on your part. I think there are fairly convincing thesis on the causes of progress (whatever progress means in this context). It doesn't seem to me to require Mokyr to provide a grand unified theory to explain what led to 1790.
Hair splitting?
We are talking about two fundamentally different theories…
I never claimed that Mokyr needed a “grand unified theory to explain what led to 1790.”
I think to provide a full explanation, he needs to explain what caused the combination of Enlightened scientists and craftsmen in Britain just before and during the Industrial Revolution. His theory makes it seem like a historical accident that just happened.
In my experience, this is a common problem with theories of material progress.