From domestic manufacture to Industrial Revolution: long-run growth and agricultural development

Abstract

This paper investigates the historical process of industrialisation. The allocation of labour between food and non-food activities and the pattern of consumption of domestic versus industrial manufacture are determined endogenously, depending on terms of trade between agricultural and industrial goods. It is demonstrated that growth in the industrial sector's productivity is crucial to the expansion and development of the agricultural sector and thus to the transfer of labour from agriculture to industry and to economic growth. This view contrasts with the traditional perception according to which the agricultural sector leads in the process of industrialisation.

Dualism and cross-country growth regressions

“…(1997), Falkinger and Grossman (2005), Galor, Moav and Vollrath (2005), Mountford (2004, 2006), Galor and Weil (2000), Gemmell and Lloyd (2002), Rogerson (2002, 2002), Graham and Temple (2006), Greenwood and Seshadri (2005), Greenwood and Uysal (2005), Gylfason and Zoega (2004), Hansen and Prescott (2002), Humphries and Knowles (1998), Jeong and Townsend (2005), Kongsamut, Rebelo and Xie (2001), Laitner (2000), Lucas (2004), Ngai and Pissarides (2004), Paci and Pigliaru (1999), Restuccia, Yang, and Zhu (2006), Robertson (1999), Temple (2001Temple ( , 2004, Temple and Voth (1998) and Weisdorf (2006). Some of these papers have a quantitative component; for example, Rogerson (2002, 2004) investigate the role of agriculture and home production in long-run development, using calibrated models.…”

Why Did the Industrial Revolution Start in Britain?

“…The argument of a (urban)-demand-driven agricultural development, which stressed the role of the cities' growth in agricultural progress, has been used by several other scholars to explain why Northwestern Europe was the world's most productive region in agriculture until 1800 (see e.g. de Vries, 1974;Boserup, 1981;Wrigley, 1987Wrigley, , 1988Grantham 1989Grantham , 1999Kussmaul, 1990;Hoffman, 1996;van Zanden, 1999;Allen, 1998Allen, , 2000Allen, and 2008bWeisdorf, 2006;Campbell, 2010) (Kopsidis and Wolf, 2012).…”

Economic behavior of indigenous peoples: the Mexican case

“…During and after the Industrial Revolution, factories paved the way for radical change, enabling employers to dictate how and when work was to be done (Clark 1994). The introduction of factories led to numerous cultural changes, including variations in family roles and also some family traditions (Hareven 1991;Smelser 1959;Weisdorf 2006), as well as changes in the way people worked, such as schedules and hierarchies. The tasks assigned to individuals could be very specific, so factories could take advantage of economies of scale.…”

“…In addition, the lower the level of Z, the greater the flexibility of the society will be, regarding deviations from workshop discipline; an excessively high Z indicates that society has rejected factory discipline, and h À h À Á will have a low value. For instance, high values of Z would be characteristic of societies with broad sectors working on a small scale or in small groups, such as Great Britain before the Industrial Revolution (Clark 1994;Hareven 1991;Smelser 1959;Weisdorf 2006), or in the indigenous communities that apply egalitarian norms and possess a strong Cultural Factor.…”