A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy (The Graz Schumpeter Lectures)

The Economist magazine recently held up “A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy” (2016) by Joel Mokyr as one of the three most outstanding books of all time in explaining the emergence of global capitalism. That’s pretty high praise.Mokyr’s writing is dense and scholarly, but somehow manages to stay lucid and accessible. He looks at early modern Europe (defined as 1500 to 1700) and focuses primarily on attitudes and beliefs that combine to form unique cultures, which he concedes is a “vague and mushy word.” Mokyr defines culture as “a set of beliefs, values, and preferences, capable of affecting behavior, that are socially (not genetically) transmitted and that are shared by some subset of society.” In the period under review, he claims that there was a dramatic shift in attitudes toward Nature, specifically the willingness and ability to harness it to human material needs. “It is the basic argument of this book,” Mokyr writes, “that European culture and institutions were shaped in those centuries to become more conducive to the kind of activities that eventually led to the economic sea changes that created the modern economies.”Perhaps the most important discovery during this period was the basic idea of progress. For much of human history, things changed hardly at all. In the year 1200, for instance, the life and times of your grandparents were likely indistinguishable from your own. Mokyr writes that it wasn’t until 1500-1700 that material progress became something identifiable, possible, desirable, and achievable through a specific policy agenda. Thus was born, Mokyr says, “a culture of practical improvement, a belief in social progress, and the recognition that useful knowledge was the key to their realization.” These beliefs and attitudes were driven forward by a number of highly influential characters that the author calls “cultural entrepreneurs.” The most important were Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and Isaac Newton (1642-1727).Mokyr writes that Bacon was himself a poor scientist with limited mathematical abilities, and he never created any kind of science. His contribution was the simple but profound idea of useful knowledge and sustained technological progress. In short, he argued: “The true and legitimate goal of the sciences is to endow human life with new discovery and resources.” This led to what Mokyr calls the “Baconian program” – the attainment of material progress through propositional and prescriptive knowledge feeding off one another and creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop. “Experimental science was not born with Bacon,” Mokyr writes, “but it was transformed beyond recognition.” Bacon’s legacy was that the secrets of Nature could be unlocked and understood using “concrete and materialistic science based on data and experimentation.” Knowledge, it was increasingly believed, was never final and always should be further corrected and extended. His philosophy was manifested in the creation of the Royal Society in 1660, whose declared purpose, was “to increase useful knowledge, and to build bridges between formal science and the actual practical application of the ‘useful arts’.” Bacon and his followers always recognized that this transformation would take centuries, not decades. And, indeed, the economic implications of Bacon’s ideas would lay dormant for centuries until they eventually erupted in the Industrial Revolution. “Bacon’s heritage,” Mokyr says, “was nothing less than the cultural acceptance of the growth of useful knowledge as a critical ingredient of economic growth.”Isaac Newton’s influence was also vast, but centered on a small and narrow elite of fellow scientists. “His insights,” Mokyr writes, “confirmed the belief in a mechanistic, understandable universe that could and should be manipulated for the material benefit of humankind.” Once nature was made intelligible, it could be controlled, manipulated, and applied to human needs, much as Bacon had advocated. Unlike Bacon, Newton leveraged mathematics extensively as a research tool. “Newton singlehandedly combined the deductive powers of mathematical modeling with Baconian stress on experimental data and observations,” Mokyr writes, “showing that the two were not only capable of coexisting in the same mind but could actually be complementary.” In the process, Newton considerably raised the social standing and prestige of science and natural philosophy. Yet, like Bacon, Newton and his legion of epigones made few concrete technological advances. (Mokyr writes that differential calculus was likely Newton’s most practical invention.) Rather, Newton’s most significant contribution was as a “cultural entrepreneur” who shaped and forwarded a discernable culture of progress. “There were fixed and clear rules by which nature operated,” Mokyr says, “and humankind’s challenge was to discover these knowable rules and take advantage of them.”Mokyr claims that it wasn’t enough to believe in progress; it was equally important to question the wisdom of the past. Francis Bacon, he says, “launched a full-fledged attack on classical wisdom.” Ancient authorities such as Aristotle, Galen, and Ptolemy were rigorously disputed for the first time using observation and experimentation. New discoveries of all kinds weakened the prestige of classical authorities irreparably. By the seventeenth century, the “slavish veneration of classical learning” was slowly fading. Indeed, in one of his many memorable expressions, Mokyr exclaims: “Irreverence is a key to progress.” Contestability, doubt, and skepticism of received wisdom became the hallmarks of the new thinking of early modern Europe and provided the core engine of creativity.Mokyr’s central argument is that early modern Europe’s combination of political fragmentation with cultural unity was the key to its eventual economic success. More specifically, the defining characteristic of the age was the emergence of the so-called Republic of Letters (according to Mokyr, a competitive market for ideas and “‘invisible college’ of internationally connected scholars and intellectuals, based on the implicit understanding that knowledge was a nonrivalrous good to be distributed and shared by the community”) operating in a politically fragmented environment. This political fragmentation afforded many benefits to forward-leaning scholars. First, “Hostility among the European powers led each ruler to protect the gadflies that irritated his or her enemies,” Mokyr says. Second, rulers increasingly had little ability to squash ideas they disagreed with. “Fragmentation, footlooseness, and the proliferation of printing presses meant that it became increasingly difficult for politically powerful incumbents to suppress subversive and heretic new beliefs generated by cultural entrepreneurs.”Mokyr claims that the Republic of Letters was the primary institution behind the explosion of useful knowledge across Western Europe, particularly in the early decades of the period known as the Enlightenment (1680-1720), the final stage in the cultural evolution that eventually led to the Industrial Revolution (1760-1840). Careful measurement, precise formulation, well-designed experiments, empirical testing, and mathematics were all encouraged. “Without the continuous emergence of new techniques based on a better understanding of natural processes,” Mokyr writes, “growth will inexorably grind to a halt.” Moreover, these activities were for the first time considered virtuous, respectable, and most of all socially and economically profitable. The most outstanding scholars of the day (i.e. Erasmus, Paracelsus, Descartes, Newton) achieved “rock star status” and a level of social prestige never before enjoyed by scientists and intellectuals. In addition to fame and admiration, they benefited from the patronage of wealthy supporters and thus a certain degree of independence from the conservative university system. According to Mokyr, the results could not have been more dramatic: “The Republic of Letters that began to emerge in Europe around the time of the great voyages and reached a crescendo in the age of Enlightenment is the most significant institutional development that explains the technology-led quantum leap in economic performance heralded by the Industrial Revolution.”It is important to note that the great engineers and inventors who made the Industrial Revolution were rarely well educated. Even today, education is not closely tied with rapid economic development. Mokyr notes that, “Universities were usually bodies that guarded tradition and the intellectual status quo.” Indeed, he says that universities in early modern Europe were “mostly highly conservative organizations.” And major technological innovations, when they finally did emerge, were rarely the result of systematic and focused research. “When all is said and done,” Mokyr writes, “the technological revolutions that brought the world economic growth and prosperity were not the result of either artisanal ingenuity or scientific method and discovery, but from the confluence of the two.” Mokyr claims that the reach of these ideas was quite limited. He says that only a small percentage of the population in just a handful of nations embraced this new cultural evolution and the associated growth of useful knowledge. The Industrial Revolution was therefore “an elite phenomenon” and “minority affair” carried out by perhaps thousands, but not hundreds of thousands. “Just as the Republic of Letters was an elite phenomenon,” Mokyr writes, “the technological thrust of the Industrial Revolution was the result of the actions of a small and select group.”Finally, Mokyr seeks to address what is known as “Needham’s Question”: “Why did the Chinese society in the eighth century A.D. favour science as compared with Western society, and that of the eighteenth century A.D. inhibit it?” Or to put it more plainly, why did the Industrial Revolution occur in Western Europe and not China? The simple answer is that Chinese intellectual activity was controlled by and transmitted through the central administration of the all-powerful Emperor. In other words, China possessed plenty of talented minds, a rich tradition in science and technology, and something akin to a Republic of Letters, but lacked the political fragmentation that made European pluralism and cultural entrepreneurship possible. There were plenty of reactionary and repressive regimes across Europe, but, Mokyr notes, “the interstate competitiveness constrained their ability to enforce a specific orthodoxy.” The Chinese empire, meanwhile, was run by an elite cadre of civil servants who had to pass a highly competitive and centrally administered test. “For the purposes of continuity and stability,” Mokyr writes, “it functioned well,” but it was a “prescription for stagnation,” for at the center of the system sat an incontestable authority figure. Chinese politics was inherently conservative and bureaucracies everywhere find radical ideas destabilizing. Moreover, Chinese scholars tended to venerate ancient authorities and lacked the deep skepticism that animated their European counterparts. While in Europe, Mokyr says “intellectual sacred cows were increasingly being led to the slaughterhouse of evidence,” in China they remained well fed and comfortably ensconced in the barn. Thus, Mokyr concludes, “Chinese scholars never came to believe that useful knowledge and its capacity to generate material progress through its applications was one of the raisons d’etre of natural philosophy.”In summary, Mokyr concludes: “Nations and their economies grow in large part because they increase their collective knowledge about nature and their environment, and because they are able to direct this knowledge toward productive ends.” But to be effective such innovation cannot be isolated or inconsistent; it must be sustained and self-propelling, and that only occurred in Western Europe. Mokyr says that the Enlightenment was responsible for this scientific and technological progress in the West, and it was the centuries’ long process of intellectual change among the European literate elite beginning around 1500 that led to the Enlightenment (1680-1815). Europe was not better organized nor an inherently more dynamic society, but it experienced changes in core cultural beliefs that significantly altered the way elites acquired and validated knowledge. This new culture valued and promoted pluralism and competition, and encouraged knowledge to be shared and contested in an open marketplace of ideas.

This work presents Mokyer's conclusion that the scientific revolution/Enlightenment led to the industrial revolution. These two are the basis for the ''great divergence'' - the huge production of economic growth after 1800. Mokyr analyses the research of hundreds of other scholars - and even contrary opinions. Thereafter explains the reasons for his conclusions.Writes in the academic style. Clear, but occasionally pedantic. Persuasive. Definite opinions without arrogance.Part I: Evolution, Culture, and Economic HistoryChapter 1: Culture and EconomicsChapter 2: Nature and TechnologyChapter 3: Cultural Evolution and EconomicsChapter 4: Choice-based Cultural EvolutionChapter 5: Biases in Cultural EvolutionPart II: Cultural Entrepreneurs and Economic Change, 1500–1700Chapter 6: Cultural Entrepreneurs and Choice-based Cultural EvolutionChapter 7: Francis Bacon, Cultural EntrepreneurChapter 8: Isaac Newton, Cultural EntrepreneurPart III: Innovation, Competition, and Pluralism in Europe, 1500–1700Chapter 9: Cultural Choice in Action: Human Capital and ReligionChapter 10: Cultural Change and the Growth of Useful Knowledge, 1500–1700Chapter 11: Fragmentation, Competition, and Cultural ChangeChapter 12: Competition and the Republic of LettersPart IV: Prelude to the EnlightenmentChapter 13: Puritanism and British ExceptionalismChapter 14: A Culture of ProgressChapter 15: The Enlightenment and Economic ChangePart V: Cultural Change in the East and WestChapter 16: China and EuropeChapter 17: China and the EnlightenmentEpilogue: Useful Knowledge and Economic Growth''As this book makes clear, the solutions to the historical and the economic riddles coincide. My focus is on the period from 1500 to 1700, during which the cultural foundations of modern growth were laid. These foundations grew out of a set of political and institutional developments and cultural changes that were not intended to produce these results, and their deeply contingent nature is a recurrent theme in these pages.'' (236) Key theme is presented here. The 'cultural changes were not intended to produce these results'. Think Hayek.''The most direct link from culture and beliefs to technology runs through religion. If metaphysical beliefs are such that manipulating and controlling nature invoke a sense of fear or guilt, technological creativity will inevitably be limited in scope and extent. The legends of the ill-fated innovators Prometheus and Daedalus illustrate the deeply ambiguous relationship between the ancient Greeks’ religious beliefs and their attitudes toward technology.'' (456)''If the culture is heavily infused with respect and worship of ancient wisdom so that any intellectual innovation is considered deviant and blasphemous, technological creativity will be similarly constrained. Irreverence is a key to progress. But so, as Lynn White (1978) has pointed out, is anthropocentrism. In his classic work, White stressed the importance of a belief in a creator who has designed a universe for the use of humans, who in exploiting nature would illustrate His wisdom and power.'' (456)Moykr spends many pages on this idea in the chapter on China. Comments on Weber's thesis on the importance of Protestantism and economics. Analyzes the role of Puritans in England.Spends many pages explaining the importance of the ''Republic of Letters''. Fascinating!Many other insights. Serves more as a reference book than essay.More than six hundred references. Extensive index. No photographs.(The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science Paperback – by Peter Harrison; covers same epoch with a different focus. Harrison examines the religious foundation for the scientific revolution. Compliments Moykr's book.)

Joel Mokyr explains clearly to his audience that political fragmentation coupled with an intellectual and cultural unity that existed in Europe, created an integrated market of ideas that was decisive in generating first the Enlightenment, and subsequently the Industrial Revolution. This unity resulted from the legacies of both the former Roman Empire and the Christian Church.This market of ideas was at its strongest in Great Britain. The belief in progress stood out in this country for several reasons:* This belief was more pragmatic than on the European Continent.* Not only the intellectual elite, but also the educated entrepreneurs, literate mechanics, trained engineers, and high-skill artisans, subscribed to this value system.* The British society was working on the same side as the existing regime. They all strove for progress, resulting in the accumulation of incremental, practical advances in science, technology, and institutional reforms.The Industrial Revolution that was born in Great Britain spread quickly to the Continent, with varying degrees of success.This community of ideas that combined pluralism and competition with a coordination mechanism that allowed knowledge to be distributed and shared, and therefore challenged, corrected, and supplemented, did not exist elsewhere.Mr. Mokyr shows with much conviction why China never managed to break out of the Cardwell’s Law until the second half of the twenty century. That country came close to breaking that law with success during the Song dynasty.In summary, the author does an outstanding job in demonstrating that what happened in eighteenth-century Europe, was both exceptional and unique.

Joel Mokyr is an economic historian who's had a great impact on the field and his previous book "Gifts of Athena" did a lot to bring attention to many of the topics explored in this volume. However, it's unclear how "Culture of Growth" grows and develops these ideas in light of the past decade or so of research on the topic, and rather than expanding and trying to connect with more recent work, Mokyr instead turns in on themselves. There are some very interesting aspects of this book and it's very well written and engaging, but throughout it is held back by a narrow vision of the economy.

Worthy, well informed but dull.

Enjoyable and written for popular consumption

Der emeritierte Wirtschaftswissenschaftler Joel Mokyr versucht in diesem Werk erneut seine umstrittene These bezüglich der kulturellen Grundlagen der Industrialisierung bzw. der "modernen Wirtschaft" (besonders in England) zu belegen.Gemäß seiner These war der Einfluss auf die Wirtschaft durch die führenden Theoretiker der sog. "Aufklärung" und deren Vorläufer entscheidend. Dieser Erklärungsansatz ist nicht neu, sondern beruht auf der früher entwickelten Theorie der amerikanischen Wirtschaftshistorikerin Deirdre McCloskey (geb. 1942).Der Autor wählt unter den aktuellen Historikerinnen nur ganz vereinzelte aus dem ihm vertrauten angelsächsischen und israelischen Bereich jene aus, die in seine Argumentation passen. Dabei vertreten die in dieser Thematik renommierten Wissenschaftler fast ausschließlich andere nämlich multifaktorielle Erklärungen.Hinzu kommt, dass Mokyr sich explizit auf die darwinistische Lehre beruft (auf Darwin selbst sowie den modernen Vertreter seiner Lehre Richard Dawkins). Dabei behauptet Mokyr, dass die Selektionsprozesse die R. Dawkins für die Erbinformation (Gene) postuliert, ohne weiteres auf die gesellschaftliche Ebene und damit auf Ideen übertragbar sind. Dieser gedankliche Kurzschluss von Mokyr muss hier in seiner Unhaltbarkeit (bar jeder wissenschaftlichen Grundlage) wohl nicht weiter kommentiert werden.Diesen Mangel an einer Beweisführung kompensiert der Autor durch die Nennung von fast 800 Namen (!) diverser tatsächlicher sowie vermeintlicher Wissenschaftler und "Erneuerer" aus der Zeit der Renaissance sowie des 16 und 17 Jahrhunderts. Aus dem ihm angeblich so wichtigem 18 Jahrhundert geht er auf etwa 25 bis 30 Namen ein.Ohne eine stringente Argumentation werden von Mokyr historische Personen als Wegbereiter der "modernen Wirtschaft" (!) in Anspruch genommen, die 200 bis 300 Jahre vor dem ersten ökonomischen Einsatz von Dampfmaschine, Fabriken, Eisenbahn, Stahl, Dampfschiffen u.ä.m. lebten.Mokyr nennt in dieser Konstruktion u.a.: Giordano Bruno, Tycho Branche, Nikolaus Kopernikus, Jean Calvin, Paracelsus, Martin Luther, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Erasmus von Rotterdam, Francis Bacon und auch Aristoteles und diverse Alchemisten sind auch dabei.Was Mokyr unterschlägt ist die Tatsache, dass mit seiner fraglichen These des Primats der säkularen Ideen für die Auslösung der ökonomischen Revolution in Britannien nicht erklärbar bleibt, weshalb zum Beginn der eigentlichen "industriellen Revolution" ab 1850 gerade Großbritannien wirtschaftlich hinter USA und Deutschland zunehmend zurückfiel.Betrachtet man für den Zeitraum ab 1850 die wissenschaftliche Entwicklung (wie Mokyr das für bis 1850 vorschlägt), dann wird deutlich, dass Großbritannien gerade im Bereich der wirtschaftlich angewandten experimentellen Naturwissenschaften massive Defizite gegenüber den USA, Deutschland und in Teilen auch anderen kontinentalen Staaten aufwies.Statt in seinen Büchern zu präsentieren wie belesen und gebildet der Autor sei, sollte dieser lieber den Anschluss an die aktuellen wirklich wissenschaftlichen Debatten zum Thema halten und sie berücksichtigen.In diesem Machwerk ist das leider eine Fehlanzeige. Doch es gibt zum Glück recht viele hervorragende Werke und Beiträge in Fachzeitschriften zu dieser Thematik gerade aus dem angelsächsischen Bereich.Wer exotische Thesen als Unterhaltung ohne Anspruch auf Erkenntnisgewinn mag (was ich gelegentlich tue), kann hier ruhig zugreifen.Ansonsten nicht empfehlenswert.

An important book and a scholarly tour de force. The changes in world views that took place between 1500 and 1700 in Western Europe paved the way to how transnational elites — the Republic of Letters — viewed tradition and useful, tested knowledge. For many pioneers, the exploration of nature by observation and experiment was holy work to uncover the wisdom of the Creator. To then make this knowledge useful for mankind was an almost compelling consequence. Eventually, the Scientific Enlightenment led to the Industrial Revolution and — by going global — the present-day 'Great Enrichment'. Mokyr tells this chain of events with clarity and in superb detail.It is to be hoped that his message becomes common knowledge, lest irrational beliefs and fake facts lead to a spread of anti-development sentiments and eventually a future 'Great Impoverishment'. After all, the European story has been the great exception throughout human history. Mokyr reminds us that economic growth cannot be taken for granted.