Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T21:47:37.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Endogenous Growth or “Big Bang”: Two views of the First Industrial Revolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

David Greasley  and
Les Oxley
David Greasley
Affiliation:
Reader in Economic History, Department of Economic History, 50 George Square, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9JY, Scotland.
Les Oxley
Affiliation:
Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The return of growth theory to center stage in mainstream economics provides opportunities for historians to reconsider the forces shaping longer-term economic development. A key motivation for developing new growth modeling strategies lay in the desire to reestablish contact between theory and the empirics of economic growth. By postulating diminishing returns to capital, the traditional neoclassical paradigm precludes the sustaining of per capita growth in the absence of exogenous technological progress. Since historical records of economic development offer scant evidence for declining per capita growth, disenchantment grew with a theoretical perspective that leaves the crucial part of the empirical record unexplained, prompting a search for alternative modeling strategies.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 935 - 949
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aghion, Phillipe, and Howitt, Peter. “A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction.” Econometrica 60, no. 2 (1992): 323–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barro, Robert J., and Xavier, Sala i Martin. Economic Growth. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Berg, Maxine, and Hudson, Patricia. “Rehabilitating the Industrial Revolution.” Economic History Review XLV, no. 1 (1992): 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brezis, Elise S.Krugman, Paul R., and Tsiddon, Daniel. “Leapfrogging in International Competition: A Theory of Cycles in National Technological Leadership.” American Economic Review 83, no. 5 (1993): 121–19.Google Scholar
Chatfield, Christopher. The Analysis of Tme Series. London: Chapman and Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
Cochrane, John H. “How Big is the Random Walk in GNP?” Journal of Political Economy 96, no. 5 (1988): 893–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crafts, N. F. R. “Exogenous or Endogenous Growth? The Industrial Revolution Reconsidered.” this JOURNAL 55, no. 4 (1995): 745–72.Google Scholar
Crafts, N. F. R., and Harley, C. Knick. “Output Growth and the British Industrial Revolution: A Restatement of the Crafts-Harley View'.” Economic History Review 45, no. 4 (1992): 703–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crafts, N. F. R., Leybourne, S. J., and Mills, T. C.. “The Climacteric in LateVictorian Britain and France: A Reappraisal of the Evidence.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 4, no. 1 (1989): 103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crafts, N. F. R., and Mills, T. C.. “Economic Fluctuations 1851–1913: A Perspective Based on Growth Theory.” In Britain in the World Economy, edited by Broadberry, S. J. and Crafts, N. F. R., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Crafts, N. F. R., and Mills, T. C.. “The Industrial Revolution as a Macroeconomic Epoch: An Alternative View.” Economic History Review 47, no. 4 (1994): 469–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crafts, N. F. R., and Mills, T. C.. “Trends in Real Wages in Britain, 1750–1913.” Explorations in Economic History 31, no. 2 (1994): 176–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, Robert F., and Granger, Clive W. J.. “Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing.” Econometrica 55, no. 5 (1987): 1057–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Lewis T., and Quigley, Neil C.. “What Can Univariate Models Tell Us About Canadian Economic Growth, 1870–1995.” Explorations in Economic History 32, no. 2 (1995): 236–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floud, Roderick C., and McCloskey, Donald N..The Economic History of Britain since 1700, vol. 1: 1700–1860. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Fogel, Robert W. “Economic Growth, Population Theory and Physiology: the Bearing of Long Term Processes on the Making of Economic Policy.” American Economic Review 84, no. 3(1994): 369–95.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J., and Swanson, N. R.. “An Introduction to Stochastic Unit Root Processes.” Mimeo, University of California, 1994.Google Scholar
Greasley, David, and Oxley, Les. “Rehabilitation Sustained: The Industrial Revolution as a Macroeconomic Epoch.” Economic History Review 47, no.4 (1994): 760–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greasley, David, and Oxley, Les. “Balanced Versus Compromise Estimates of UK GDP 1870–1913.” Explorations in Economic History 32, no. 2 (1995): 262–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greasley, David, and Oxley, Les “Technological Epochs and British Industrial Production, 1700–1992.” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 43, no. 3 (1996): 258–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greasley, David, and Oxley, Les. “Explaining the United States Industrial Growth 1860–1991: Endogenous Versus Exogenous Models.” Bulletin of Economic Research 48, no.1 (1996): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greasley, David, and Oxley, Les. “Causality and the First Industrial Revolution.” forthcoming, Industrial and Corporate Change.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M., and Helpman, Elhanan. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, Andrew C., and Jaeger, A.. “Detrending, Stylized facts and the Business Cycle.” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 8 no. 3 (1993): 231–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Waither G.British Industry 1700–1950. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955.Google Scholar
Horrell, Sara. “Home Demand and British Industrialization.” this JOURNAL 56 no. 3 (1996): 561–604.Google Scholar
Komlos, John. “Thinking About the Industrial Revolution.” Journal of European Economic History 18, no. 2 (1989): 191–206.Google Scholar
Landes, David S.The Unbound Prometheus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
McAleer, Mike, and Fisher, Gordon R.. “Testing Separate Regression Models Subject to Specification Error.” Journal of Econometrics 19, no. 2 (1982): 125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, James. “Critical Values for Cointregration Tests.” In Long Run Economic Relationships, edited by Engle, R. F. and Granger, C W. J., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Matthews, Robin C. O., Feinstein, Charles H., and John, C. Odling-Smee. British Economic Growth, 1856–1973. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Mills, T. C., and Crafts, N. F. R.. “Trend Growth in British Industrial Output 1700–1913: A Reappraisal.” Explorations in Economic History 33, no. 3 (1996): 277–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokyr, Joel, and Savin, N. Eugene. “Stagflation in Historical Perspective: The Napoleonic Wars Revisted.” Research in Economic History 1 (1976): 198–251.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J.The Lever of Riches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J.The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective. Boulder: Westview Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. “Technological Change, 1700–1830.” In The Economic History of Britain since 1700, vol. 1: 1700–1860, edited by Roderick, C. Floud and Donald, N. McCloskey, 12–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Newbold, P., and Agiakloglou, C.. “Looking For Evolving Growth Rates and Cycles in British Industrial Production, 1700–1913.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series A, 154, (1991): 341–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, Patrick K., and Engerman, Stanley. “Exports and the Growth of the British Economy from the Glorious Revolution to the Peace of Amiens.” In Slavery and the Rise of the Atlantic System, edited by Solow, Barbara. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Oxley, Les, and Greasley, David. “Vector Autoregression, Cointegration and Causality: Testing for the Causes of the British Industrial Revolution.” Forthcoming Applied Economics.Google Scholar
Pesaran, Hashem M. “On the General problem of Model Selection.” Review of Economic Studies 41, no. 2 (1974): 153–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesaran, M. H., Pierse, Richard G., and Lee, Kevin C.. “Persistence, Cointegration and Aggregation.” Journal of Econometrics 56, no. 1 (1993): 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebelo, Sergio. “Long Run Policy Analysis and Long Run Growth.” Journal of Political Economy 99, no. 3 (1991): 500–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, Paul. “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth.” Journal of Political Economy 94, no. 5 (1986): 1002–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Julian L. “Demographic Causes and Consequences of the Industrial Revolution.” Journal of European Economic History 23, no. 2 (1994): 141–59.Google Scholar
Simon, J. L., and Sullivan, Richard J.. “Population Size, Knowledge Stock and the Determinants of Agricultural Publications and Patents: England 1541–1850.” Explorations in Economic History 26, no. 1 (1989): 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, R. J. “England's Age of Invention: The Acceleration of Patents and Patentable Activity during the Industrial Revolution.” Explorations in Economic History, 26, no. 4 (1989): 424–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoulouhas, Theofanis C. “A New Look at Demographic and Technological Changes: England 1550 to 1839.” Explorations in Economic History 29, no. 2 (1992): 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zivot, Eric, and Andrews, Donald W. K.. “Further Evidence On the Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis.” Journal of Economic and Business Statistics 10, no. 3 (1992): 251–70.Google Scholar