What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Economic History of Britain
The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain 1700-1850
This book focuses on the importance of ideological and institutional factors in the rapid development of the British economy during the years between the Glorious Revolution and the Crystal Palace Exhibition. Joel Mokyr shows that we cannot understand the Industrial Revolution without recognizing the importance of the intellectual sea changes of Britain’s Age of Enlightenment. In a vigorous discussion, Mokyr goes beyond the standard explanations that credit geographical factors, the role of markets, politics, and society to show that the beginnings of modern economic growth in Britain depended a great deal on what key players knew and believed, and how those beliefs affected their economic behavior. He argues that Britain led the rest of Europe into the Industrial Revolution because it was there that the optimal intersection of ideas, culture, institutions, and technology existed to make rapid economic growth achievable. His wide-ranging evidence covers sectors of the British economy often neglected, such as the service industries.
550 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
40 people are currently reading
1208 people want to read
About the author
Joel Mokyr
37 books155 followersJoel Mokyr is a Netherlands-born American-Israeli economic historian. He is the Robert H. Strotz Professor of Arts and Sciences and professor of economics and history at Northwestern University, and Sackler Professor at the Eitan Berglas School of Economics at the University of Tel Aviv.
Joel Mokyr conducts research on the economic history of Europe, and specializes in the period 1750-1914. His current research is concerned with the understanding of the economic and intellectual roots of technological progress and the growth of useful knowledge in European societies, as well as the impact that industrialization and economic progress have had on economic welfare. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Econometric Society, and the Cliometric Society as well as the British Academy, the Italian Accademia dei Lincei and the Dutch Royal Academy. He has been the President of the Economic History Association, editor in chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History, and a co-editor of the Journal of Economic History. He is currently co-editor of a book series, the Princeton University Press Economic History of the World. He was the 2006 winner of the biennial Heineken Award for History offered by the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences and the winner of the 2015 Balzan International Prize for economic history. His latest book is A Culture of Growth: Origins of the Modern Economy, to be published by Princeton University Press in 2016. He has supervised over forty doctoral dissertations in the departments of Economics and History.
Joel Mokyr conducts research on the economic history of Europe, and specializes in the period 1750-1914. His current research is concerned with the understanding of the economic and intellectual roots of technological progress and the growth of useful knowledge in European societies, as well as the impact that industrialization and economic progress have had on economic welfare. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Econometric Society, and the Cliometric Society as well as the British Academy, the Italian Accademia dei Lincei and the Dutch Royal Academy. He has been the President of the Economic History Association, editor in chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History, and a co-editor of the Journal of Economic History. He is currently co-editor of a book series, the Princeton University Press Economic History of the World. He was the 2006 winner of the biennial Heineken Award for History offered by the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences and the winner of the 2015 Balzan International Prize for economic history. His latest book is A Culture of Growth: Origins of the Modern Economy, to be published by Princeton University Press in 2016. He has supervised over forty doctoral dissertations in the departments of Economics and History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
May 14, 2022
A sprawling and somewhat awkwardly structured book, filled nonetheless with countless gems. The Enlightened Economy was Joel Mokyr’s first book-length attempt to argue that the Enlightenment was a key cause of the Industrial Revolution, focusing on the period from 1700 to 1850. In a later work, A Culture of Growth, he makes a similar case that beliefs and ideologies can strongly influence economic growth, focusing on the prelude to the Industrial Revolution and the origins of the Enlightenment from 1500 to 1700.
Mokyr starts off by contrasting the views of thinkers like Marx, who believed that ideologies were a product of economic conditions, and those of people like Keynes, who believed that “the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas… soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil”. After all, many intellectuals throughout history have adopted positions that run counter to their own economic interests.
Crucial to Mokyr’s case that the Enlightenment had these “good or evil” effects is his description of the Enlightenment as a movement which aimed not just to promote knowledge and reason, but to use them to achieve practical ends. It was not simply an extension of the Scientific Revolution; indeed, many of the inventions during the Industrial Revolution did not rely heavily, or even at all, on scientific breakthroughs in the early modern era. Rather, it involved theoreticians and practitioners working, bi-directionally, in concert with each other to improve society. The ultimate goal, as the subtitle of Ritchie Robertson’s recent comprehensive treatment of the Enlightenment puts it, was “the pursuit of happiness”.
What were the channels through which the Enlightenment exerted its influence on the economy, according to Mokyr? Its values were certainly not to be found in the fields and shops of everyday Britain in the eighteenth century. Rather, it influenced rulers and policymakers, and above all it had an indelible effect on the thinking of intellectuals, scientists, skilled mechanics, inventors and entrepreneurs. Because this latter group had decided that knowledge was necessary for societal progress, they codified it in books and articles or tacitly passed it on to apprentices and learners. For instance, the French Encyclopedie, perhaps the paradigmatic book of the Enlightenment, was filled with detailed illustrations of technical matters as well as loftier philosophical speculation. The impact of this process was slow and subtle, affecting only a selection of economic sectors, but the benefits eventually spread outward.
This was a historical aberration. From ancient Grece and Rome, to classical India, to the Islamic world during its Golden Age, the loftier intellectual types tended to be well-separated from artisans, farmers and tinkerers. Mokyr cites specific examples of how this was useful, but concedes that there are many inventions which would have occurred without this transformation of the intellectual climate. However, the Enlightenment, with its codification of knowledge, also helped to lower access costs: mechanics, ironmongers and chemists were able to further improve or combine the inventions of their predecessors. As Mokyr puts it:
The Enlightenment also, as mentioned earlier, had an influence on rulers and policymakers, and by extension on the political economy of Britain. As it was concerned with improving the well-being of society as a whole, it was naturally hostile to rent-seeking (the use of political power to redistribute rather than create wealth). As such, economic liberalism and free trade became dominant in the country, with governments repealing everything from the Navigation Acts to the Corn Laws. Dugald Stewart, one of the most effective teachers and popularisers of Smithian doctrine, had among his pupils two future Prime Ministers (Palmerston and John Russell) as well as several senior officials.
To be sure, there were self-interested commercial lobbies who clamoured for mercantilism to be dismantled; opposition to it was not solely driven by ‘enlightened’ motives. But persuasion was key, and the influence of Enlightenment values was widespread and crossed political parties. Both Enlightenment ideology and economic self-interest were probably necessary for the triumph of economic liberalism.
In sum, Mokyr’s case is as follows: technological progress and the rational reform of institutions were both sustained by Enlightenment values, helping to limit any negative feedback from special interest groups. This was particularly the case in Britain, where the Enlightenment was able to find a mor peaceful accommodation with existing power structures. The institution of Parliament worked to balance interests, ensuring that revolution did not spread to the country in 1789 or 1848. Britain of course had unique features such as its system of apprenticeship and its natural resources, and the British Enlightenment, perhaps being more practical and pragmatic, may have enhanced the country’s ability to take advantage of these resources.
There are some limitations to the book. As Mokyr is discussing the realm of ideas, his case is invariably limited by a sparsity of quantitative data. He does deploy figures and statistics to argue that other putative causes of the Industrial Revolution (such as slavery and imperialism) aren’t strong enough to account for the progress that was made, but this is more difficult to do when it comes to drawing a direct line between Enlightenment values and economic growth. However, he draws on important examples to bolster his thesis, and the final two chapters of the book, in which among other things he discusses the influence of the Benthamites on public policy and public health, are superb. Ultimately, his argument that the effects of the Enlightenment were only fully evident after 1850, when scientific progress became more central to economic growth, is persuasive.
Finally, he notes another limitation of his account of the Industrial Revolution, which is that it replaces one unexplained event (the Industrial Revolution) with another (the Enlightenment): “it just pushes the chain of causation one step higher, but it does not provide a complete and satisfactory theory”. For this, Walter Scheidel’s Escape from Rome is indispensable: he would posit that the political fragmentation that occurred in Europe after the Fall of Rome, combined with the continent’s geographical features, help to explain the emergence of the Enlightenment itself.
Overall, this is a very good read, and not just for utilitarians and other supporters of the Enlightenment. Indeed, as Mokyr recounts, even its detractors such as Carlyle could not help but admit that the material comfort that they enjoyed was in significant part a product of the Enlightenment. Whether or not this comfort has been good for humanity, or whether the Enlightenment had deleterious effects which outweigh its impact on the economy, is not the subject of this oddly structured but fact-filled book.
Mokyr starts off by contrasting the views of thinkers like Marx, who believed that ideologies were a product of economic conditions, and those of people like Keynes, who believed that “the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas… soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil”. After all, many intellectuals throughout history have adopted positions that run counter to their own economic interests.
Crucial to Mokyr’s case that the Enlightenment had these “good or evil” effects is his description of the Enlightenment as a movement which aimed not just to promote knowledge and reason, but to use them to achieve practical ends. It was not simply an extension of the Scientific Revolution; indeed, many of the inventions during the Industrial Revolution did not rely heavily, or even at all, on scientific breakthroughs in the early modern era. Rather, it involved theoreticians and practitioners working, bi-directionally, in concert with each other to improve society. The ultimate goal, as the subtitle of Ritchie Robertson’s recent comprehensive treatment of the Enlightenment puts it, was “the pursuit of happiness”.
What were the channels through which the Enlightenment exerted its influence on the economy, according to Mokyr? Its values were certainly not to be found in the fields and shops of everyday Britain in the eighteenth century. Rather, it influenced rulers and policymakers, and above all it had an indelible effect on the thinking of intellectuals, scientists, skilled mechanics, inventors and entrepreneurs. Because this latter group had decided that knowledge was necessary for societal progress, they codified it in books and articles or tacitly passed it on to apprentices and learners. For instance, the French Encyclopedie, perhaps the paradigmatic book of the Enlightenment, was filled with detailed illustrations of technical matters as well as loftier philosophical speculation. The impact of this process was slow and subtle, affecting only a selection of economic sectors, but the benefits eventually spread outward.
This was a historical aberration. From ancient Grece and Rome, to classical India, to the Islamic world during its Golden Age, the loftier intellectual types tended to be well-separated from artisans, farmers and tinkerers. Mokyr cites specific examples of how this was useful, but concedes that there are many inventions which would have occurred without this transformation of the intellectual climate. However, the Enlightenment, with its codification of knowledge, also helped to lower access costs: mechanics, ironmongers and chemists were able to further improve or combine the inventions of their predecessors. As Mokyr puts it:
The Enlightenment was the reason that the Industrial Revolution was the beginning of modern economic growth and not another technological flash in the pan. In previous ages, new techniques, even revolutionary ones, soon crystalised around the dominant designs that emerged and after a while progress fizzled out. Invention before the Industrial Revolution had been an event, an efflorescence, rather than a continuous process.
The Enlightenment also, as mentioned earlier, had an influence on rulers and policymakers, and by extension on the political economy of Britain. As it was concerned with improving the well-being of society as a whole, it was naturally hostile to rent-seeking (the use of political power to redistribute rather than create wealth). As such, economic liberalism and free trade became dominant in the country, with governments repealing everything from the Navigation Acts to the Corn Laws. Dugald Stewart, one of the most effective teachers and popularisers of Smithian doctrine, had among his pupils two future Prime Ministers (Palmerston and John Russell) as well as several senior officials.
To be sure, there were self-interested commercial lobbies who clamoured for mercantilism to be dismantled; opposition to it was not solely driven by ‘enlightened’ motives. But persuasion was key, and the influence of Enlightenment values was widespread and crossed political parties. Both Enlightenment ideology and economic self-interest were probably necessary for the triumph of economic liberalism.
In sum, Mokyr’s case is as follows: technological progress and the rational reform of institutions were both sustained by Enlightenment values, helping to limit any negative feedback from special interest groups. This was particularly the case in Britain, where the Enlightenment was able to find a mor peaceful accommodation with existing power structures. The institution of Parliament worked to balance interests, ensuring that revolution did not spread to the country in 1789 or 1848. Britain of course had unique features such as its system of apprenticeship and its natural resources, and the British Enlightenment, perhaps being more practical and pragmatic, may have enhanced the country’s ability to take advantage of these resources.
There are some limitations to the book. As Mokyr is discussing the realm of ideas, his case is invariably limited by a sparsity of quantitative data. He does deploy figures and statistics to argue that other putative causes of the Industrial Revolution (such as slavery and imperialism) aren’t strong enough to account for the progress that was made, but this is more difficult to do when it comes to drawing a direct line between Enlightenment values and economic growth. However, he draws on important examples to bolster his thesis, and the final two chapters of the book, in which among other things he discusses the influence of the Benthamites on public policy and public health, are superb. Ultimately, his argument that the effects of the Enlightenment were only fully evident after 1850, when scientific progress became more central to economic growth, is persuasive.
Finally, he notes another limitation of his account of the Industrial Revolution, which is that it replaces one unexplained event (the Industrial Revolution) with another (the Enlightenment): “it just pushes the chain of causation one step higher, but it does not provide a complete and satisfactory theory”. For this, Walter Scheidel’s Escape from Rome is indispensable: he would posit that the political fragmentation that occurred in Europe after the Fall of Rome, combined with the continent’s geographical features, help to explain the emergence of the Enlightenment itself.
Overall, this is a very good read, and not just for utilitarians and other supporters of the Enlightenment. Indeed, as Mokyr recounts, even its detractors such as Carlyle could not help but admit that the material comfort that they enjoyed was in significant part a product of the Enlightenment. Whether or not this comfort has been good for humanity, or whether the Enlightenment had deleterious effects which outweigh its impact on the economy, is not the subject of this oddly structured but fact-filled book.
November 1, 2013
Often exciting, almost always frustrating, this sprawling, disorganized and occasionally useful book brings much of what we know about the Industrial Revolution together with an idiosyncratic account of Enlightenment thought.
Mokyr's argument, in miniature, is that a new kind of rhetoric arose in the 18th century, especially in Britain, and it was overwhelmingly concerned with not just logical deductions but improving the actual physical position of man in the world. The Enlightenment wasn't just about the airy-fairy matters of separation of powers and free thought, it was about melting points and separate condensers and, through these, Watt's steam engine. The intellectual godfather of this mundane Enlightenment was Francis Bacon, who said science was "for the glory of the Creator and the relief of Man's estate," and his torch was carried especially to the University of Edinburgh, where Hume distilled the "spirit of the age" into the desire to "carry improvement to every art and science." This supposedly infused the culture.
Mokyr shows that men like Watt and Boulton consulted scientific magnates like Joseph Priestly (who himself invented carbonated water) in their Birmingham "Lunar Club," and that some engineers consulted Edinburgh dons when creating early steam or textile machines, but the evidence on the whole is really thin. Did the thought of Voltaire really have much to do with the creation of the "spinning jenny"? Or, to take it further, doesn't saying just that the "spirit of the age" was to encourage improvements only beg the question of why the spirit changed? This is not the best part of the book.
The best parts are those in which he details the state of the art in thinking and writing on the industrial revolution. In short, the enclosures didn't force the revolution because by 1700 only a 1/4 of the land was open-field anyway and the productivity gains from privatizing it was minimal. Light taxes and easy government didn't cause it because Britain was in fact that most taxed country on earth in the 18th century. The demographic boom was only simultaneous with the revolution and seems to have had little relation to it as well (marriage ages dropped early in the 18th century, but infant and overall mortality stayed high because of movements into urban death traps).
Overall, the book left me rightfully confused and distressed that we still have no explanation for what is perhaps the momentous change in human history, but Mokyr's writing, which seems to have no organization or center or purpose or flow, left me more confused and irritated than was necessary. So I got some good info and historiography out of this, but wouldn't recommend it except for die-hards who need to know everything about this revolution.
Mokyr's argument, in miniature, is that a new kind of rhetoric arose in the 18th century, especially in Britain, and it was overwhelmingly concerned with not just logical deductions but improving the actual physical position of man in the world. The Enlightenment wasn't just about the airy-fairy matters of separation of powers and free thought, it was about melting points and separate condensers and, through these, Watt's steam engine. The intellectual godfather of this mundane Enlightenment was Francis Bacon, who said science was "for the glory of the Creator and the relief of Man's estate," and his torch was carried especially to the University of Edinburgh, where Hume distilled the "spirit of the age" into the desire to "carry improvement to every art and science." This supposedly infused the culture.
Mokyr shows that men like Watt and Boulton consulted scientific magnates like Joseph Priestly (who himself invented carbonated water) in their Birmingham "Lunar Club," and that some engineers consulted Edinburgh dons when creating early steam or textile machines, but the evidence on the whole is really thin. Did the thought of Voltaire really have much to do with the creation of the "spinning jenny"? Or, to take it further, doesn't saying just that the "spirit of the age" was to encourage improvements only beg the question of why the spirit changed? This is not the best part of the book.
The best parts are those in which he details the state of the art in thinking and writing on the industrial revolution. In short, the enclosures didn't force the revolution because by 1700 only a 1/4 of the land was open-field anyway and the productivity gains from privatizing it was minimal. Light taxes and easy government didn't cause it because Britain was in fact that most taxed country on earth in the 18th century. The demographic boom was only simultaneous with the revolution and seems to have had little relation to it as well (marriage ages dropped early in the 18th century, but infant and overall mortality stayed high because of movements into urban death traps).
Overall, the book left me rightfully confused and distressed that we still have no explanation for what is perhaps the momentous change in human history, but Mokyr's writing, which seems to have no organization or center or purpose or flow, left me more confused and irritated than was necessary. So I got some good info and historiography out of this, but wouldn't recommend it except for die-hards who need to know everything about this revolution.
December 30, 2020
It's a remarkable achievement in one sense: the amount of detail per page is unparalleled, and Mokyr is keen to weigh other interpretations. But so much of this information is disconnected from any larger argument, making it a very slow and often-frustrating read.
- Gregory Clark, reviewing in the Journal of Economic Literature, 2012
Imagine repetitions of the above for hundreds of incredibly dense pages and you'll get a good idea of the bulk of this book. Both a triumph and a curse.
My suggestion is to read the first 20% or so, which advances a clearer argument. Treat the remainder as you would an encyclopedia: read only the chapters covering subjects which interest you, and skip sections liberally.
The comprehensiveness of the book is both a triumph, and a curse. For example, on page 352 there is a discussion of methods of capital accounting in the early Industrial Revolution which includes references to the Dowlais Iron Company, Vitruvius the Roman writer, an eighteenth century accounting manual by John Mair, John Smeaton the engineer, Joshua Milne a cotton spinner, and Sidney Pollard the modern historian. . . But at the end of this discussion, informed as we are, it is evident little would have changed in Britain by 1850 had these early entrepreneurs been clearer on depreciation accounting.
- Gregory Clark, reviewing in the Journal of Economic Literature, 2012
Imagine repetitions of the above for hundreds of incredibly dense pages and you'll get a good idea of the bulk of this book. Both a triumph and a curse.
My suggestion is to read the first 20% or so, which advances a clearer argument. Treat the remainder as you would an encyclopedia: read only the chapters covering subjects which interest you, and skip sections liberally.
March 24, 2013
A really interesting reworking of the Economic History of the Industrial Revolution via the ideas of the enlightenment. As a one time economic historian I found it a great update on the current state of research in this area. It is probably too detailed for the general reader but if you have any interest in the origins of industrial society, this is probably the best book on the subject and Joel Mokyr is interesting on the parallels between then and now on the issue of intellectual property and how it is leveraged.
December 24, 2025
I am not surprised that Mokyr received the Nobel Prize for this. One just has to marvel at the man’s ability to detail every aspect of a 150 year period in a country’s history in under 500 pages. The amount of information on every page is staggering.
Mokyr offers an extraordinarily nuanced account—far more subtle than the average invocation of Britain by absolutist free-market types—of the conditions that gave rise to economic prosperity. That is, situating growth not in markets alone, but in the interplay of institutions, ideas, and cultural commitments to useful knowledge. His analysis of the relationship between the European Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution was especially compelling. Economics as taught in school is often detached from philosophy, so it was refreshing to see such an explicit linkage, particularly between Francis Bacon’s vision of knowledge and its relevance to the transition from mercantilism to classical liberalism.
I also found myself recognizing the book’s relevance to contemporary debates in the United States. The parallels between automation and technological change during the Industrial Revolution and the rise of artificial intelligence today are striking. Britain three centuries ago is, of course, a very different society from the modern U.S., but the book still offers a useful roadmap for thinking about the forces that shape societies undergoing massive technological transformation and the ways institutions should handle them.
I finish the book sharing Mokyr’s appreciation for the unprecedented gains in material well-being between 1700 and 1850, yet I am left continually weighing those gains against the costs of inequality and the hollowness of a society oriented toward growth while lacking greater meaning. Human flourishing is a phrase that gets thrown around frequently (including by myself), yet I am increasingly unsure how it ought to be understood. The “Enlightened Economy” undeniably achieved levels of human flourishing never before seen—if flourishing is defined as the expansion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of (largely material) happiness. But I cannot help feeling that human flourishing in the classical Aristotelian–Aquinas sense is equally worth taking seriously, and that, at some level, human beings are driven by the pursuit of goods that transcend material comfort.
Mokyr offers an extraordinarily nuanced account—far more subtle than the average invocation of Britain by absolutist free-market types—of the conditions that gave rise to economic prosperity. That is, situating growth not in markets alone, but in the interplay of institutions, ideas, and cultural commitments to useful knowledge. His analysis of the relationship between the European Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution was especially compelling. Economics as taught in school is often detached from philosophy, so it was refreshing to see such an explicit linkage, particularly between Francis Bacon’s vision of knowledge and its relevance to the transition from mercantilism to classical liberalism.
I also found myself recognizing the book’s relevance to contemporary debates in the United States. The parallels between automation and technological change during the Industrial Revolution and the rise of artificial intelligence today are striking. Britain three centuries ago is, of course, a very different society from the modern U.S., but the book still offers a useful roadmap for thinking about the forces that shape societies undergoing massive technological transformation and the ways institutions should handle them.
I finish the book sharing Mokyr’s appreciation for the unprecedented gains in material well-being between 1700 and 1850, yet I am left continually weighing those gains against the costs of inequality and the hollowness of a society oriented toward growth while lacking greater meaning. Human flourishing is a phrase that gets thrown around frequently (including by myself), yet I am increasingly unsure how it ought to be understood. The “Enlightened Economy” undeniably achieved levels of human flourishing never before seen—if flourishing is defined as the expansion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of (largely material) happiness. But I cannot help feeling that human flourishing in the classical Aristotelian–Aquinas sense is equally worth taking seriously, and that, at some level, human beings are driven by the pursuit of goods that transcend material comfort.
November 13, 2024
Not bad as an overview of the economic and social changes in the period. Mokyr is known for his stress on mutual inspiration for the encouragement of innovation as well as his belief in the centrality of technically-savvy craftsmen in the genesis of the Industrial Revolution, so naturally chapters which focus on these topics are more original and fleshed out. I also found his coverage on business organization, partnerships, and the growth of management (and "human resources") to be seriously insightful.
On the other hand, I found him a bit shy in describing the common mercantilist attitudes and policies of the day (at least in the 18th century). He is generally reluctant to put the emphasis on states, even when, in certain domains (especially security) it seems more essential.
On the other hand, I found him a bit shy in describing the common mercantilist attitudes and policies of the day (at least in the 18th century). He is generally reluctant to put the emphasis on states, even when, in certain domains (especially security) it seems more essential.
January 25, 2020
A provocative thesis about the centrality of Enlightenment ideas in the Industrial Revolution is coupled with an excellent array of evidence to show how free-market capitalism (the enlightened economy) and its failures left unsolved problems ranging from extreme poverty, unemployment, unemployability, to a highly inequitable income distribution. Hmmm...sound familiar? Excellent in some ways, but I had a few questions about his uncritical acceptance of many assumptions and assertions of capitalist theory. However, that might a good thing because it demonstrates the philosophical failures/shortcomings of capitalist theory as well as its real-world failures.
May 5, 2020
Fantastic and complete description of one the most important historical processes of all time, the Industrial Revolution, which Mokyr prefers to call the Enlightenement Revolution.
Separated from a simple technological view of the Revolution (Watt's steam engine) the book delves into the philosophical, demographic, legal, educative, etc. transformation of the time. These transformations shaped much of what are considered the main developmental forces of capitalism and democratic society.
Mainly:
-The Enlightenment phylosophical view of the world, its effect on technology, science and society (specially Bacon's influence).
-The expansion of knowledge, its effects on the development of a skilled work force.
-The legal and political framework for a capitalist country.
Its content is of special interest for today's developing countries.
Separated from a simple technological view of the Revolution (Watt's steam engine) the book delves into the philosophical, demographic, legal, educative, etc. transformation of the time. These transformations shaped much of what are considered the main developmental forces of capitalism and democratic society.
Mainly:
-The Enlightenment phylosophical view of the world, its effect on technology, science and society (specially Bacon's influence).
-The expansion of knowledge, its effects on the development of a skilled work force.
-The legal and political framework for a capitalist country.
Its content is of special interest for today's developing countries.
March 1, 2017
Mokyr provides a wide ranging overview of the early (or first Industrial Revolution) covering topics of the emergence of scientific societies, engineering and mechanical improvements, the changes in service sectors such as medicine, finance, and insurance , changes in family dynamics due to decreased demand for female and child labor, inequality, and standards of living. For the most part, it is a well written account (though, not nearly as well written as Cronon's Nature's Metropolis). Mokyr will breezily reference a particular act of parliament without explanation, so you may want to keep Wikipedia on hand to refresh yourself on what various acts of Parliament and social movements were about. The book is essentially two books: the first third is his thesis about how the Enlightenment caused the Industrial Revolution and the rest is a comprehensive introduction to just about every aspect of the Industrial Revolution (worth reading just for that).
Mokyr's main underwhelming (which is not a bad thing) thesis is that the Enlightenment contributed to the Industrial Revolution and is the main reason that the process of innovation and economic growth did not fizzle out (like so many previous periods of economic growth). The Enlightenment promoted a culture in which useful knowledge (not just theology) was openly shared. This culture of open knowledge (while only affecting a minority of the population) led to mingling among the wealthy and the "middling sort" through coffee shops and scientific societies. I'm not sure he has proved his point. It is an interesting thesis, but one has to explain why "the Enlightenment" did not cause industrial revolutions elsewhere (as it was a Europe-wide phenomenon). Mokyr sees the Enlightenment as one thing, but just comparing the Enlightenment writings of the Scots and the French demonstrate that this was a heterogeneous event (albeit with some broad similarities).
One of the major points of interest is how this revolution barely registered on standard (or even nonstandard) measures of economic well being. This reminded me of Robert Solow's 1987 quote about being able to see the IT revolution everywhere except for the GDP statistics. But given that the technology improvements were localized to specific industries (cotton and mining being two of the main ones), this shouldn't surprise us too much. The main statistic we see a "revolution" is the number of patents being applied for/granted after 1760. There was a rise in life expectancy, heights, wages, etc., from 1800-10 and then a gradual decrease or stagnation in those pieces of data through 1850.
One of my favorite pieces of data from the book is that it took 10-12 days to get from Edinburgh to London in 1750. Just before the passenger train was put into use (1836), that time was down to around 2 days.
Mokyr's main underwhelming (which is not a bad thing) thesis is that the Enlightenment contributed to the Industrial Revolution and is the main reason that the process of innovation and economic growth did not fizzle out (like so many previous periods of economic growth). The Enlightenment promoted a culture in which useful knowledge (not just theology) was openly shared. This culture of open knowledge (while only affecting a minority of the population) led to mingling among the wealthy and the "middling sort" through coffee shops and scientific societies. I'm not sure he has proved his point. It is an interesting thesis, but one has to explain why "the Enlightenment" did not cause industrial revolutions elsewhere (as it was a Europe-wide phenomenon). Mokyr sees the Enlightenment as one thing, but just comparing the Enlightenment writings of the Scots and the French demonstrate that this was a heterogeneous event (albeit with some broad similarities).
One of the major points of interest is how this revolution barely registered on standard (or even nonstandard) measures of economic well being. This reminded me of Robert Solow's 1987 quote about being able to see the IT revolution everywhere except for the GDP statistics. But given that the technology improvements were localized to specific industries (cotton and mining being two of the main ones), this shouldn't surprise us too much. The main statistic we see a "revolution" is the number of patents being applied for/granted after 1760. There was a rise in life expectancy, heights, wages, etc., from 1800-10 and then a gradual decrease or stagnation in those pieces of data through 1850.
One of my favorite pieces of data from the book is that it took 10-12 days to get from Edinburgh to London in 1750. Just before the passenger train was put into use (1836), that time was down to around 2 days.
May 2, 2023
An interesting reinterpretation of the Industrial Revolution. Reviewed traditional interpretations and posed questions like why Britain and why then? Posited the theories that many of the ideas and inventions of the Industrial Revolution began elsewhere in Europe but that the liberal institutions in Britain made it easier for these to be adopted, adapted, improved and popularised (ideas) or mass produced (inventions). Thought provoking but the arguments were a bit repetitive.
August 18, 2020
Comprehensive though sometimes too detailed.
Love the part of the scientific knowledge accumulation part.
Love the part of the scientific knowledge accumulation part.
October 26, 2021
Joel Mokyr exhaustively explores how the Enlightenment influenced and shaped Britain’s Industrial Revolution, with a particular focus on the economy.
December 19, 2025
Excellent read. Interesting points.
February 7, 2015
Interesting Quote:
"[T]he relation between agricultural productivity and the rate of industrialization depends on the openness of the economy. In a closed economy, manufacturing depends on productivity growth in agriculture and its capacity to produce a surplus that will permit the reallocation of resources from farming to industry and to provide a market for manufactured products...Yet in an open economy this is clearly false: food can be imported and paid for by industrial goods. In fact, in an open economy a highly productive agricultural sector signals to the economy that its comparative advantage is in farming...
"In Britain [during the 18th and early 19th centuries], high agricultural productivity notwithstanding, industrialization occurred because manufacturing became even more productive...[I]n an open economy the Industrial Revolution occurred not *because* of but *despite* growth in agricultural productivity."
-Joel Mokyr, The Enlightened Economy: An Economy History of Britain 1700-1850
"[T]he relation between agricultural productivity and the rate of industrialization depends on the openness of the economy. In a closed economy, manufacturing depends on productivity growth in agriculture and its capacity to produce a surplus that will permit the reallocation of resources from farming to industry and to provide a market for manufactured products...Yet in an open economy this is clearly false: food can be imported and paid for by industrial goods. In fact, in an open economy a highly productive agricultural sector signals to the economy that its comparative advantage is in farming...
"In Britain [during the 18th and early 19th centuries], high agricultural productivity notwithstanding, industrialization occurred because manufacturing became even more productive...[I]n an open economy the Industrial Revolution occurred not *because* of but *despite* growth in agricultural productivity."
-Joel Mokyr, The Enlightened Economy: An Economy History of Britain 1700-1850
January 31, 2015
This book sets out to give an economic history of Britain during the industrial revolution. It's main contention being that social ideas and, in particular, the inheritance of the enlightenment, played an important role in the developments. TEE stays close to primary sources, which adds credibility, but makes for a very tiresome read. Just one example: the reader is expected to master a detailed history of technologies used in 18th century weaving. This is a lot to ask, even of the enthusiastic amateur.
January 15, 2016
I still think the Industrial Revolution would've happened without the Enlightenment, but this book is just brilliant in the way that it paints a detailed picture of Britain during the 1700-1850 period.
Want to read
August 17, 2016Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews