3 ms·
The linked article dismisses Robert Allen's explanations, unfairly. I find Allen's work to be very clearly articulated and convincing. The question many economi
by dkural 3y ago
The linked article dismisses Robert Allen's explanations, unfairly. I find Allen's work to be very clearly articulated and convincing. The question many economic historians ask is, why the British as opposed to the Dutch, or the previously-wealthy states in Italy? etc. The Dutch comparison is especially important, because prior to the Industrial Revolution the Dutch were actually more "advanced" on most metrics.
- anthk 3y agoOr just, well... Spain.
- detourdog 3y agoI don’t understand the idea that the industrial revolution was any more critical than any other leap forward in our understanding. The industrial revolution only existed because of successive progress.
- mcv 3y agoThe Dutch were advanced in lots of ways, but they weren't very industrialised. Flanders would have been more likely. But they weren't in a great position at the time, controlled first by Spain, then Austria, then France; their trade blocked by the Dutch. Netherland was in fact rather late with the industrial revolution, especially the introduction of trains, because there wasn't a real need for them. Netherland already had an extensive transportation network with its rivers and canals, with towed barges transporting goods at reliable speeds.