工业革命,自卫的意外后果?

IF 1.7 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Global History Pub Date : 2021-11-19 DOI:10.1017/S1740022821000371
Leandro Prados de la Escosura
{"title":"工业革命,自卫的意外后果?","authors":"Leandro Prados de la Escosura","doi":"10.1017/S1740022821000371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Patrick O’Brien’s take on the industrial revolution In his new and ambitious essay, ‘Was the British Industrial Revolution a Conjuncture in Global Economic History?’, Patrick O’Brien proposes a deeply revisionist interpretation of the Industrial Revolution. He examines three major ideas deeply rooted in the views of the Industrial Revolution: that it was a significant discontinuity in British economic history, that it represented a defining conjuncture in global economic history after which growth accelerated in a sustained fashion, and that it provided a paradigm of modern economic growth, namely a sustained increase in output per head and per worker accompanied by population growth and structural transformation (Kuznets, 1966). For Patrick O’Brien, the industrialization of a ‘small island located off the coast of western Eurasia’ was neither a discontinuity nor a global conjuncture that deserve to be considered a paradigm model of ‘liberal and neoliberal’ economic development, but largely an unintended consequence of self-defence plus the predation of natural resources and sheer luck. Let us examine firstly the notion of diffusion. The British industrialization was elevated to a paradigm for modern economic growth by authors who saw the diffusion of its best practice techniques of production and institutions as the yardstick for the assessment of the success or failure of subsequent national development (Landes, 1969) and of those who promoted the industrial Revolution as a model of take-off into self-sustained growth (Rostow, 1960). O’Brien rejects the diffusion model categorically as unsuitable ‘for comprehending the industrialization of mainland Europe, the United States and East Asia, let alone as a basis for policy recommendations to countries still struggling to industrialize’. This rejection is rooted in his seminal contribution Economic Growth in Britain and France, 1780–1914: Two Paths to the Twentieth Century (O’Brien and Keyder, 1978), which represented a departure from a long-standing tradition going back to post-Second World War development economists and economic historians. O’Brien’s core argument is that being the first to experience modern economic growth does not necessarily imply the achievement of the ‘best practice’ and that no optimal path for growth can be identified with Britain’s pioneering path and pattern of industrialization. Furthermore, he questions the idea of industrialized Britain’s superiority above other regions of Europe based on more efficient institutions, cultural values, and economic performance. In fact, O’Brien strongly rejects what he labels the Whiggish view, which claims that modern economic growth took place in Britain due to its specific institutions and the set of incentives they provided. In his view, they were not that different from those of its European rivals. O’Brien (2010: 508) had already dismissed Mokyr (2009) and Allen’s (2009a) interpretations of the origins of the Industrial Revolution for their ‘Anglo-centric perception’ of the superior culture and institutions of an elite promoting technological innovation. On the contrary, argues O’Brien, the conditions under which the Industrial Revolution emerged were those of the Ancien Régime, with an ‘unenlightened system of governance’ and ‘Europe’s most egregiously inegalitarian system of property","PeriodicalId":46192,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The industrial revolution, an unintended consequence of self-defence?\",\"authors\":\"Leandro Prados de la Escosura\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1740022821000371\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Patrick O’Brien’s take on the industrial revolution In his new and ambitious essay, ‘Was the British Industrial Revolution a Conjuncture in Global Economic History?’, Patrick O’Brien proposes a deeply revisionist interpretation of the Industrial Revolution. He examines three major ideas deeply rooted in the views of the Industrial Revolution: that it was a significant discontinuity in British economic history, that it represented a defining conjuncture in global economic history after which growth accelerated in a sustained fashion, and that it provided a paradigm of modern economic growth, namely a sustained increase in output per head and per worker accompanied by population growth and structural transformation (Kuznets, 1966). For Patrick O’Brien, the industrialization of a ‘small island located off the coast of western Eurasia’ was neither a discontinuity nor a global conjuncture that deserve to be considered a paradigm model of ‘liberal and neoliberal’ economic development, but largely an unintended consequence of self-defence plus the predation of natural resources and sheer luck. Let us examine firstly the notion of diffusion. The British industrialization was elevated to a paradigm for modern economic growth by authors who saw the diffusion of its best practice techniques of production and institutions as the yardstick for the assessment of the success or failure of subsequent national development (Landes, 1969) and of those who promoted the industrial Revolution as a model of take-off into self-sustained growth (Rostow, 1960). O’Brien rejects the diffusion model categorically as unsuitable ‘for comprehending the industrialization of mainland Europe, the United States and East Asia, let alone as a basis for policy recommendations to countries still struggling to industrialize’. This rejection is rooted in his seminal contribution Economic Growth in Britain and France, 1780–1914: Two Paths to the Twentieth Century (O’Brien and Keyder, 1978), which represented a departure from a long-standing tradition going back to post-Second World War development economists and economic historians. O’Brien’s core argument is that being the first to experience modern economic growth does not necessarily imply the achievement of the ‘best practice’ and that no optimal path for growth can be identified with Britain’s pioneering path and pattern of industrialization. Furthermore, he questions the idea of industrialized Britain’s superiority above other regions of Europe based on more efficient institutions, cultural values, and economic performance. In fact, O’Brien strongly rejects what he labels the Whiggish view, which claims that modern economic growth took place in Britain due to its specific institutions and the set of incentives they provided. In his view, they were not that different from those of its European rivals. O’Brien (2010: 508) had already dismissed Mokyr (2009) and Allen’s (2009a) interpretations of the origins of the Industrial Revolution for their ‘Anglo-centric perception’ of the superior culture and institutions of an elite promoting technological innovation. On the contrary, argues O’Brien, the conditions under which the Industrial Revolution emerged were those of the Ancien Régime, with an ‘unenlightened system of governance’ and ‘Europe’s most egregiously inegalitarian system of property\",\"PeriodicalId\":46192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Global History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Global History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022821000371\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022821000371","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

帕特里克·奥布莱恩对工业革命的看法在他雄心勃勃的新作《英国工业革命是全球经济史上的一个转折点吗?》,帕特里克·奥布莱恩对工业革命提出了深刻的修正主义解释。他考察了深植于工业革命观点中的三个主要观点:工业革命是英国经济史上的一次重大中断;工业革命代表了全球经济史上一个决定性的转折点,此后经济增长以持续的方式加速;工业革命为现代经济增长提供了一个范例,即人均和人均产出的持续增长伴随着人口增长和结构转型(库兹涅茨,1966)。对于帕特里克·奥布莱恩来说,一个“位于欧亚大陆西部海岸外的小岛”的工业化既不是一个不连续性,也不是一个值得被认为是“自由主义和新自由主义”经济发展典范的全球危机,但在很大程度上是自卫加上掠夺自然资源和纯粹运气的意外后果。让我们首先考察一下扩散的概念。英国工业化被一些作者提升为现代经济增长的典范,这些作者将其生产和制度的最佳实践技术的传播视为评估随后国家发展成败的尺度(Landes, 1969),以及那些将工业革命作为起飞进入自我持续增长模式的人(Rostow, 1960)。O ' brien断然拒绝了扩散模型,认为它不适合“理解欧洲大陆、美国和东亚的工业化,更不用说作为向仍在努力实现工业化的国家提供政策建议的基础了”。这种拒绝根植于他的开创性著作《1780-1914年英国和法国的经济增长:通往20世纪的两条道路》(奥布莱恩和凯德,1978年),该书背离了二战后发展经济学家和经济历史学家的长期传统。奥布莱恩的核心论点是,作为第一个经历现代经济增长的国家,并不一定意味着取得了“最佳实践”的成就,英国的开创性工业化道路和模式不能被认为是最优的增长路径。此外,他还质疑工业化的英国基于更高效的制度、文化价值观和经济表现而优于欧洲其他地区的观点。事实上,奥布莱恩强烈反对他所称的辉格派观点。辉格派观点认为,现代经济增长发生在英国,是由于其特定的制度及其提供的一系列激励措施。在他看来,它们与欧洲竞争对手没有太大区别。O’brien(2010: 508)已经否定了Mokyr(2009)和Allen (2009a)对工业革命起源的解释,因为他们对精英推动技术创新的优越文化和制度的“盎格鲁中心观念”。相反,奥布莱恩认为,工业革命出现的条件是旧的r制度,具有“未开化的治理制度”和“欧洲最不平等的财产制度”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The industrial revolution, an unintended consequence of self-defence?
Patrick O’Brien’s take on the industrial revolution In his new and ambitious essay, ‘Was the British Industrial Revolution a Conjuncture in Global Economic History?’, Patrick O’Brien proposes a deeply revisionist interpretation of the Industrial Revolution. He examines three major ideas deeply rooted in the views of the Industrial Revolution: that it was a significant discontinuity in British economic history, that it represented a defining conjuncture in global economic history after which growth accelerated in a sustained fashion, and that it provided a paradigm of modern economic growth, namely a sustained increase in output per head and per worker accompanied by population growth and structural transformation (Kuznets, 1966). For Patrick O’Brien, the industrialization of a ‘small island located off the coast of western Eurasia’ was neither a discontinuity nor a global conjuncture that deserve to be considered a paradigm model of ‘liberal and neoliberal’ economic development, but largely an unintended consequence of self-defence plus the predation of natural resources and sheer luck. Let us examine firstly the notion of diffusion. The British industrialization was elevated to a paradigm for modern economic growth by authors who saw the diffusion of its best practice techniques of production and institutions as the yardstick for the assessment of the success or failure of subsequent national development (Landes, 1969) and of those who promoted the industrial Revolution as a model of take-off into self-sustained growth (Rostow, 1960). O’Brien rejects the diffusion model categorically as unsuitable ‘for comprehending the industrialization of mainland Europe, the United States and East Asia, let alone as a basis for policy recommendations to countries still struggling to industrialize’. This rejection is rooted in his seminal contribution Economic Growth in Britain and France, 1780–1914: Two Paths to the Twentieth Century (O’Brien and Keyder, 1978), which represented a departure from a long-standing tradition going back to post-Second World War development economists and economic historians. O’Brien’s core argument is that being the first to experience modern economic growth does not necessarily imply the achievement of the ‘best practice’ and that no optimal path for growth can be identified with Britain’s pioneering path and pattern of industrialization. Furthermore, he questions the idea of industrialized Britain’s superiority above other regions of Europe based on more efficient institutions, cultural values, and economic performance. In fact, O’Brien strongly rejects what he labels the Whiggish view, which claims that modern economic growth took place in Britain due to its specific institutions and the set of incentives they provided. In his view, they were not that different from those of its European rivals. O’Brien (2010: 508) had already dismissed Mokyr (2009) and Allen’s (2009a) interpretations of the origins of the Industrial Revolution for their ‘Anglo-centric perception’ of the superior culture and institutions of an elite promoting technological innovation. On the contrary, argues O’Brien, the conditions under which the Industrial Revolution emerged were those of the Ancien Régime, with an ‘unenlightened system of governance’ and ‘Europe’s most egregiously inegalitarian system of property
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Journal of Global History addresses the main problems of global change over time, together with the diverse histories of globalization. It also examines counter-currents to globalization, including those that have structured other spatial units. The journal seeks to transcend the dichotomy between "the West and the rest", straddle traditional regional boundaries, relate material to cultural and political history, and overcome thematic fragmentation in historiography. The journal also acts as a forum for interdisciplinary conversations across a wide variety of social and natural sciences. Published for London School of Economics and Political Science
期刊最新文献
Communicating overpopulation to a global audience: Disney’s Family Planning (1968) Towards Development: The Yellow River project and UNRRA’s technical assistance to China, 1944–1947 Empire of Impartiality: Managing Indebtedness to Foreigners in Eighteenth-Century China Contractor states and globalization of the market for naval artillery technology (1500–1750) JGH volume 19 issue 1 Cover and Back matter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1