Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:13:55.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Was British Growth So Slow During the Industrial Revolution?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Jeffrey G. Williamson
Jeffrey G. Williamson
Affiliation:
The author is Professor of Economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although it has been labeled the “First Industrial Revolution,” British growth and industrialization was slow between the 1760s and the 1820s. The explanation seems to lie with low capital formation shares in national income, low rates of accumulation, and thus little change in the capital-labor ratio. What accounts for the modest investment rates? Lack of thrift? Weak investment demand? This paper argues that the answer is to be found in the enormous debt issues used, to finance the French Wars.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1984 , pp. 687 - 712
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1984

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

1 Feinstein, Charles, “Capital Formation in Great Britain,” in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe: Volume VII: the Industrial Economies: Capital, Labour, and Enterprise, ed. Mathias, Peter and Postan, Michael (Cambridge, 1978);Google ScholarWrigley, E. A. and Schofield, R. S., The Population History of England, 1541–1871: A Reconstruction (Cambridge, 1981);Google ScholarDeane, Phyllis and Cole, W. A., British Economic Growth, 1688–1959 (Cambridge, 1962);Google ScholarCrafts, N. F. R., “English Economic Growth in the Eighteenth Century: A Re-examination of Deane and Cole's Estimates,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 29 (05 1976), 226–35,CrossRefGoogle Scholar“National Income Estimates and the British Standard of Living Debate: A Reappraisal of 1801–1831,” Explorations in Economic History, 17 (04 1980), 176–88,CrossRefGoogle Scholarand “British Economic Growth, 1700–1831: A Review of the Evidence,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 36 (05 1983), 177–99;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHarley, C. Knick, “British Industrialization Before 1841: Evidence of Slower Growth During the Industrial Revolution,” this Journal, 42 (06 1982), 267–89;Google ScholarLindert, Peter H. and Williamson, Jeffrey G., “Revising England's Social Tables, 1688–1812,” Explorations in Economic History, 19 (10 1982), 385–408,CrossRefGoogle Scholarand “Reinterpreting Britain's Social Tables, 1688–1913,” Explorations in Economic History, 20 (01 1983), 94–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarOn the rate of total factor productivity growth, see Feinstein, “Capital Formation,” p. 86;Google ScholarCrafts, “British Economic Growth,” p. 196;Google Scholar and Crafts, and McCloskey, in The Economic History of Britain Since 1700, Volume 1: 1700–1860, ed. Floud, Roderick and McCloskey, Donald (Cambridge, 1981), chaps. 1 and 6.Google Scholar A recent quantitative assessment of the standard of living can be found in Lindert, and Williamson, , “English Workers' Living Standards During the Industrial Revolution: A New Look,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 36 (02 1983), 1–25.Google Scholar

2 Harley, “British Industrialization Before 1841,” p. 286.Google Scholar

3 p. 276, Divisia Index.

4 Feinstein, “Capital Formation,” Table 3 (col. 10), and pp. 84 and 86. Crafts, “British Economic Growth,” also offers new estimates for aggregate output growth, industrial output growth, and the investment rate. While his revisions may turn out to be superior, Crafts' choice of benchmark dates–1760, 1780, 1801, and 1831–are inconvenient for the analysis in this paper, where wars are at issue and the 1815 or 1821 benchmark is critical.Google Scholar

5 Lindert and Williamson, “English Workers' Living Standards,” Table 5, p. 13.Google Scholar

6 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Tables, 2nd ed. (Baltimore, 1980), p. 372.Google Scholar

7 The classic labor surplus statement, of course, can be found in Lewis, W. Arthur, “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour,” Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 22 (05 1954), 139–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Tables, p. 421;Google ScholarKelley, Allen C. and Williamson, Jeffrey G., Lessons from Japanese Development: An Analytical History (Chicago, 1974), p. 233;Google Scholar and Williamson, , “Inequality, Accumulation and Technological Imbalance: A Growth-Equity Conflict in American History?” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 27 (01 1979), 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 For example, see von Tunzelmann, G. N. in The Economic History of Britain, chap. 8.Google Scholar

10 Ashton, T. S., “The Standard of Life of the Workers in England, 1790–1830,” this Journal, 9 (Supplement 1949), 22–23.Google Scholar

11 Deane, and Cole, (British Economic Growth, p. 276) call it a “modest” increase and in Peter Mathias's wordsGoogle Scholar(“Preface” in Crouzet, François, Capital Formation in the Industrial Revolution [London, 1972], p. viii), the “modesty of rates of capital accumulation” is one profound difference between eighteenth-century England and contemporary Third World economies.Google Scholar

12 Deane and Cole, British Economic Growth, chap. 8, pp. 259–77.Google Scholar

13 Tunzelmann, Von, “The Standard of Living, Investment, and Economic Growth in England and Wales, 1760–1850,” in Technical Change, Employment, and Investment, ed. Jörberg, Lars and Rosenberg, Nathan (Lund, 1982), 209–24.Google Scholar

14 Mokyr, Joel and Savin, N. E., “Stagflation in Historical Perspective: The Napoleonic Wars Revisited,” Research in Economic History, ed. Uselding, Paul, vol. 1 (Greenwich, 1976), 198–259.Google Scholar

15 Feinstein, “Capital Formation,” p. 90.Google Scholar

16 Mathias, Peter and O'Brien, Patrick, “Taxation in Britain and France, 1715–1810,” Journal of European Economic History, 5 (Winter 1976), 616 and 623.Google Scholar

17 McKinnon, Ronald I., Money and Capital in Economic Development (Washington, D.C., 1972).Google Scholar

18 Macpherson, David, Annals of Commerce (London, 1805), vol. 3, p. 686;Google ScholarChalmers, George, An Estimate of the Comparative Strength of Great Britain (London, 1794), p. 186.Google Scholar

19 Mill, John Stuart, Principles of Political Economy, 5th ed. (New York, 1909), vol. 2, p. 481.Google Scholar

20 Cameron, Rondo, “Scotland, 1750–1845,” in Banking in the Early Stages of industrialization, ed. Cameron, (New York, 1967), pp. 81–82.Google Scholar

21 Mill, , Principles, vol. 2, pp. 481 and 483.Google Scholar

22 Mill, , “Observations on the Effects Produced by the Expenditure of Government During the Restriction of Cash Payments,” The Westminster Review, 2 (07 1824), Art. 11, p. 40.Google Scholar

23 Ashton, , An Economic History of England: The 18th Century (London, 1955),Google Scholar and Economic Fluctuations in England, 1700–1800 (Oxford, 1959).Google Scholar

24 Ashton, Economic Fluctuations, p. 65.Google Scholar

25 Feinstein, “Capital Formation,” Table 7, p. 41.Google Scholar

26 Ashton, Economic Fluctuations, pp. 65–66.Google Scholar

27 p. 86.

28 pp. 86–87.

29 Siegal, Jeremy J., “Induced Distortions in Government and Private Saving Statistics,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 61 (02 1979), 83–90;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDewald, William G., “Federal Deficits and Real Interest Rates: Theory and Evidence,” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 68 (01 1983), 20–29;Google ScholarEisner, Robert and Pieper, Paul J., “A New view of the Federal Debt and Budget Deficits,” American Economic Review, 74 (03 1984), 11–29.Google Scholar

30 Williamson, , “Watersheds and Turning Points: Conjectures on the Long Term Impact of Civil War Financing,” this Journal, 34 (09 1974), Table 3, p. 643.Google Scholar

31 Williamson, and DeBever, Leo J., “Savings, Accumulation and Modem Economic Growth: The Contemporary Relevance of Japanese History,” The Journal of Japanese Studies, 4 (Fall 1977), 125–67.Google Scholar

32 Modigliani, Franco launched this literature with his “Long-Run Implications of Alternative Fiscal Policies and the Burden of the National Debt,” Economic Journal, 71 (12 1961), 730–55,CrossRefGoogle Scholarand his tests appear in “The Life Cycle Hypothesis of Savings, the Demand for Wealth and the Supply of Capital,” Social Research, 33 (Summer 1966), 160–217.Google ScholarDavid, Paul A. and Scadding, John L., “Private Savings: Ultrarationality, Aggregation, and ‘Denison's Law’,” Journal of Political Economy, 82, Pt. 1 (03/04 1974), 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Friedman, Benjamin M., “Crowding Out or Crowding In? Economic Consequences of Financing Government Deficits,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3 (1978), 593–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Tobin, James, Essays in Economics: Vol. 1: Macroeconomics (Amsterdam, 1971), p. 91.Google Scholar

35 Barro, Robert J., “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?” Journal of Political Economy, 82 (11/12 1974), 1095–117;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBuchanan, James M., “Barro on the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy, 84 (04 1976), 337–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Ricardo, David, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. Stratfa, P. (Cambridge, 1962), vol. 4, pp. 186–87;Google Scholar see also O'Driscoll, G. P., “The Ricardian Nonequivalence Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy, 85 (02 1977), 207–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Buchanan, “Barro on the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem,” p. 339.Google Scholar

38 Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (New York, 1963), p. 304;Google ScholarPollard, Sidney and Crossley, D. W., The Wealth of Britain, 1085–1966 (London, 1968), p. 207;Google ScholarHartwell, R. M. and Engerman, Stanley, “Models of Immiseration: The Theoretical Basis of Pessimism,” in The Standard of Living in the Industrial Revolution, ed. Taylor, A. J. (London, 1975), pp. 208–9.Google Scholar

39 If this estimate seems large, recall that it covers business reinvestment rates in a precorporate era. The estimate is very close to that favored for America by Kuznets, Simon, Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings, National Bureau of Economic Research, Occasional Paper No. 35 (New York, 1950).Google Scholar

40 The counterfactual assumes that all of the rise would be allocated to domestic accumulation, implying one-for-one crowding-in. It should also be pointed out that I ignore the possibility that the rate of return to capital might have declined in response to the higher rates of accumulation. Unless capital rationing under usury continued to bind capital markets, rates of return would have fallen with more rapid accumulation.

41 Ashton, Economic Fluctuations, Tables 8, p. 187.Google Scholar

42 Colquhoun, Patrick, A Treatise on the Wealth, Power, and Resources of the British Empire (London, 1815), Table 1, p. 47.Google Scholar

43 Mokyr and Savin (“Stagflation in Historical Perspective,” p. 221) feel that these estimates of the mobilization effect are too high. They estimate that those mobilized went from 2 to 5 percent, rather than from 2 to 10 percent as reported in the text. My estimate covers the period 1790–1812, while the Mokyr and Savin figure covers the period 1800–1812. Furthermore, my estimate includes the navy and marines while the Mokyr and Savin estimate does not. I shall stick to my estimate in what follows, but if Mokyr and Savin are correct the impact of war on the standard of living, per capita income, and industrialization is understated in Section IV. the right direction of bias.Google Scholar

44 Williamson, and Lindert, , American Inequality: A Macroeconomic History (New York, 1980), chap. 4.Google Scholar

45 Williamson, , “The Structure of Pay in Britain, 1710–1911,” in Research in Economic History, ed. Uselding, Paul, vol. 7 (Greenwich, 1982).Google Scholar

46 Williamson, , Did British Capitalism Breed Inequality? (London, forthcoming 1984), chap. 12, Table 12.1.Google Scholar

47 Hueckel, Glenn, “War and the British Economy, 1793–1815: A General Equilibrium Analysis,” Explorations in Economic History, 10 (Summer 1973), p. 369;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWilliamson, Did British Capitalism Breed Inequality? Appendix D.Google Scholar

48 Chambers, J. D. and Mingay, G. E., The Agricultural Revolution: 1750–1880 (London, 1966), p.113;Google ScholarJones, E. L., Seasons and Prices: The Role of Weather in English Agricultural History (London, 1964);Google ScholarHueckel, , “War and the British Economy,” pp. 367–68.Google Scholar

49 Olson, Mancur, The Economics of Wartime Shortage (Durham, 1963);Google ScholarMokyr and Savin, “Stagfiation in Historical Perspective,” pp. 223–31.Google Scholar

50 Hueckel, , “War and the British Economy,” p. 389. In “The 1807–1809 Embargo Against Great Britain,” this Journal, 42 (06 1982), 305, Jeffrey Frankel recently estimated that the American embargo raised British raw cotton prices by as much as 72 percent in English markets, and that it served to lower the British terms of trade at home (cotton twist relative to Sea Island cotton) by some 42 percent. Frankel's calculations are much too high to be applied to the Napoleonic Era as a whole. Furthermore, they cannot serve as a very effective proxy for the terms of trade between imported grains and raw materials relative to all manufactures.Google Scholar

51 Hueckel, “War and the British Economy.”Google Scholar

52 Hueckel's “War and the British Economy” was the pioneering application of such methods to the problem, but his approach differs from what follows. For example, there are only two sectors in Hueckel's model—agriculture and manufacturing, no raw material inputs to manufacturing, and no nontradables. The most important difference is that Hueckel did not offer a quantitative assessment of the impact of capital formation.Google Scholar

53 Williamson, Did British Capitalism Breed Inequality? chap. 9.Google Scholar

54 Harley, “British Industrialization Before 1841,” p. 286.Google Scholar

55 Table 5, p. 276.

56 Feinstein, “Capital Formation,” Table 26, p. 86.Google Scholar

57 McCloskey, The Economic History of Britain, p. 108.Google Scholar

58 Maddison, Angus, Economic Progress and Policy in Developing Countries (London, 1970), Table 11.11, p. 53.Google Scholar

59 Abramovitz, Moses and David, Paul A., “Reinterpreting Economic Growth: Parables and Realities,” American Economic Review, 63 (05 1973), Table 1, p. 430;Google ScholarOhkawa, Kazushi and Rosovsky, Henry, Japanese Economic Growth: Trend Acceleration in the Twentieth Century (Stanford, 1973).Google Scholar

60 Deane and Cole, British Economic Growth, p. 276;Google ScholarMathias in Crouzet, Capital Formation, p. viii.Google Scholar