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.
"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.
"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?
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.
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.
"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.
A beautiful appreciation - thanks so much
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.
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.