Journals / Ekonomi-tek / 2021 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

Technology, Growth Theory, and the First Industrial Revolution

Teknoloji, Büyüme Kuramı ve Birinci Sanayi Devrimi

Pages
1–21
Publication Date
2021-01-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The paper concludes with a discussion of three methodological obstacles that prevent immediate progress in this trajectory of inquiry.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the 21st century, growth theorists have ambitiously extended the limits of what need to be understood into preindustrial times without renouncing sound microeconomic foundations, and growth theory has become irreversibly historical.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It then presents an evaluation of Mokyr’s (2002) non-mathematical theory of useful knowledge by identifying the main postulates of this theory that may illuminate Schumpeterian models of the first Industrial Revolution.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The paper concludes with a discussion of three methodological obstacles that prevent immediate progress in this trajectory of inquiry.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Birleştirilmiş Büyüme Kuramı · iktisadi tarih · Schumpeter-gil büyüme

Abstract

In the 21st century, growth theorists have ambitiously extended the limits of what need to be understood into preindustrial times without renouncing sound microeconomic foundations, and growth theory has become irreversibly historical. This paper argues that much progress could be achieved if the frontier of growth theory is extended with a richer understanding of ideas, knowledge, and technology. The paper first defends the strong relevance of second-generation Schumpeterian models to the first Industrial Revolution. It then presents an evaluation of Mokyr’s (2002) non-mathematical theory of useful knowledge by identifying the main postulates of this theory that may illuminate Schumpeterian models of the first Industrial Revolution. The paper concludes with a discussion of three methodological obstacles that prevent immediate progress in this trajectory of inquiry.

Özet

21. yüzyılda büyüme kuramcıları, anlaşılması gerekenlerin sınırlarını iddialı biçimde ve sağlam mikroekonomik temellerden feragat etmeksizin, sanayi-öncesi zamanlara doğru genişlettiler ve büyüme kuramı geri dönülmez biçimde tarihselleşti. Bu makale, eğer büyüme kuramının sınırı, düşünce, bilgi ve teknolojinin daha zengin bir anlayışı ile genişletilirse çok daha fazla ilerlemenin sağlanabileceğini öne sürüyor. Makale, önce, ikinci-nesil Schumpeter-gil modellerin Birinci Sanayi Devrimi için olan uygunluğunu savunuyor. Ardından, Mokyr’ın (2002) matematiksel olmayan faydalı bilgi kuramının bir değerlendirmesini, bu kuramın Birinci Sanayi Devrimi’nin Schumpeter-gil modellerini aydınlatabilecek önermelerini belirleyerek sunuyor. Makale, bu araştırma çizgisindeki hızlı ilerlemenin önüne geçen üç yöntembilimsel engele ilişkin bir tartışmayla son buluyor.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATTAR, M. A. (2021). Technology, Growth Theory, and the First Industrial Revolution. Ekonomi-tek, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 1–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/753653

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Ang J. B. & Madsen J. B. (2011). Can Second-Generation Endogenous Growth Models Explain the Productivity Trends in the Asian Miracle Economies?. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93, 1360–73.
  2. Attar M. A. (2015).
  3. Entrepreneurship, Knowledge, and the Industrial Revolution. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 9, 1–54.
  4. Clark, G. (2014). The Industrial Revolution. In: P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth Vol 2, (pp. 217–262), Amsterdam: Elsevier. Clark, G. (2016). The Industrial Revolution: A Cliometric Perspective. In: C. Diebolt & M. Haupert (Eds.), Handbook of Cliometrics, (pp. 197–235), Heidelberg: Springer. Dasgupta, P, & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521.
  5. De la Croix, D., Doepke, M., & Mokyr, J. (2018).
  6. Clans, Guilds, and Markets: Apprenticeship Institutions and Growth in the Preindustrial Economy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 1–70.
  7. De Meulemeester, J. & Diebolt, C. (2007). How much could economics gain from history: the contribution of cliometrics. Cliometrica, 1, 7–17.
  8. Desmet, K. & Parente, S. L. (2012). The evolution of markets and the revolution of industry: a unified theory of growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 17, 205–234.
  9. Diebolt, C. (2012). The cliometric voice. History of Economic Ideas, 20, 51–64.
  10. Diebolt, C. & Haupert, M. (2016). An Introduction to the Handbook of Cliometrics. In: C. Diebolt & M. Haupert (Eds.), Handbook of Cliometrics, (pp. v–xiv), Heidelberg: Springer. Diebolt, C. & Perrin, F. (2016). Growth theories. In: C. Diebolt & M. Haupert (Eds.), Handbook of Cliometrics, (pp. 175–95), Heidelberg: Springer. Dinopoulos, E. & Thompson, P. 1998, “Schumpeterian Growth without Scale Effects”, Journal of Economic Growth, 3, 313–335.
  11. Durlauf, S. N. & Quah, D. T. (1999). The New Empirics of Economic Growth. In: J. Taylor & M. Woodford (Eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics Vol. 1A, (pp. 235–310), Amsterdam: North-Holland. Dutton, H. I. (1984). The Patent System and Inventive Activity During the Industrial Revolution, 1750–1852, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  12. Foray, D. (2004).
  13. Economics of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  14. Galor, O. (2005). From Stagnation to Growth: Unified Growth Theory. In: P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1A, (pp. 171–293), Amsterdam: Elsevier. Galor, O. 2011,
  15. Unified Growth Theory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  16. Galor, O. & Weil, D. N. (2000).
  17. Population, Technology, and