Live data from Hacker News

A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

economist.com

151–152 of 152 posts

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) there is NO single cause and (2) nothing can be quantified Fortunately causal analysis supports 1 and contradicts 2. With good data, models and algorithms you can _quantify_ the strengths of various causal factors, and confirm or discredit models. Time scales don't matter, complexity can be overcome, and even unobserved causes can be modeled. > This is why subjects like history differ from physics. We should no…

I am afraid your citations don't support your claim. Those works are about using natural experiments and large sample sizes to estimate causes and effects. But that isn't possible for single, large events like "the industrial revolution" because there is only one such event. This is why no one can say "industrial revolutions are 8% caused by geography and 12% caused by social structures" with any actual basis for tha…

I feel like you are arguing against hypotheticals. The actual papers are available[1][2]. The first uses a spatial model, which means there isn't just one "industrial revolution" but dozens, one per city.

> We rationalize these findings using a dynamic spatial model, where slavery investment raises the return to capital accumulation, expanding production in capital-intensive sectors. To establish causality, we use arguably exogenous variation in slave mortality on the passage from Africa to the Indies, driven by weather shocks.

The second paper focuses on labor-capital substitution. In this view, there are again many industrialization locations, but also each tech is a micro-revolution. You can even see the proposed causal DAG in Figure 4.

> To measure technological change, we collect new, granular data on the diffusion of technologies (both labor-saving and not) in industrializing England. To measure the geographical patterns of labor scarcity, we exploit the massive shock to labor supply that resulted from military recruitment during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1793-1815).

Neither paper predicts a boolean "revolution", because thats really an academic construct to describe a shift in practices over time with fuzzy boundaries and definitions. Instead they go after capital formation or adoption of labor saving devices, which seem like reasonable proxies.

    [1]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30451/w30451.pdf
    [2]: https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_900972_smxx.pdf

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. I don't think that's correct. If you are looking for a one-sentence "how did the Industrial Revolution start" summary, I wouldn't use this. My recollection was that things kicked off with the first mechanized mills, locating along streams which used hydraulic or steam power for their energy. EDIT: The book describing this is called Behemoth: The…

The romans had industrial scale water driven mills. But what you need to keep the running, when one emperor falls and another kingdom falters, is a empowered citizen ship with venture capital, that is out of reach of the king, making innovation resilient. For me the industrial revolution started with the "familys" taking hold in the netherlands, england, germany - backing ventures, banking, becoming a powerhouse outs…

> hierarchical anarchy

I have a vague idea what you're trying to describe but this phrase is completely self-contradictory.

Anarchy is the absence of hierarchies. I think you're using "anarchy" in its pejorative sense, roughly meaning "chaos" or "law of the jungle" but using it like this in a discussion about social structures is confusing at best.

Post reply on HN