Excerpt from “The Gap” By Andrew Porter, NY Review of Books, March 1998 (a review of The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes) The result is ''The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,'' a large book, a wealth of information and a striking if stark thesis. Landes argues that the key to national wealth in the modern world has been the Industrial Revolution, ''begun in Britain in the 18th century and emulated around the world. . . . Some countries made an industrial revolution and became rich; and others did not and stayed poor.'' His emphasis on industrialization is less contentious than his reference to the making of that revolution. In asking what made it possible, Landes robustly dismisses many of the explanations that in recent decades have had their 15 minutes of fame. Natural endowments, including landscape, water, soils, minerals or climate, have been more or less important at different times, but they were never sufficient conditions: geography is not destiny. The timing of opportunities for industrial development has brought variations in the paths of individual countries but no insuperable obstacles. The making of an industrial revolution has always been dependent ultimately on a society's prior culture and continuing qualities. Riches, without the appropriate cultural traits, have never been secure or sustainable. The first industrial revolution -- Britain's -- was the product of a society that had developed a sense of national cohesion; a capacity to compete; a respect for, and a concern to impart, empirical and technical knowledge; and a preference for advancement by merit or competence. Its members had the ability not just to acquire but to use money, they respected honesty, and their institutions provided security both for property and for enjoyment of the rewards of labor or enterprise. Other societies were able to follow, catch up with and overtake Britain because they could emulate its achievements. Perhaps they shared the crucial medieval legacy of curiosity, inventiveness and multiple sources of initiative, or derived its equivalent from internal sources. And they were sufficiently disciplined to forego present consumption for future gain. Thus the United States, Germany, Japan and Australia are among the rich. Their preconditioning, dominant values propelled them into the attempt to increase riches; their success, even while calling for defense by incessant adaptation, has generally bred success. … he admires the champion of the Protestant ethic Max Weber, and Karl Wittfogel, the outstanding student of what he calls ''Oriental despotism.'' ''If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference,'' Landes says. In the pursuit of wealth, failure or success are ultimately determined from within, not imposed from outside. write down what his argument is about WHY the IR happens in Great Britain before India/China?
Excerpt from “The Gap” By Andrew Porter, NY Review of Books, March 1998 (a review of The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes)
The result is ''The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,'' a large book, a wealth of information and a striking if stark thesis. Landes argues that the key to national wealth in the modern world has been the Industrial Revolution, ''begun in Britain in the 18th century and emulated around the world. . . . Some countries made an industrial revolution and became rich; and others did not and stayed poor.'' His emphasis on industrialization is less contentious than his reference to the making of that revolution. In asking what made it possible, Landes robustly dismisses many of the explanations that in recent decades have had their 15 minutes of fame. Natural endowments, including landscape, water, soils, minerals or climate, have been more or less important at different times, but they were never sufficient conditions: geography is not destiny. The timing of opportunities for industrial development has brought variations in the paths of individual countries but no insuperable obstacles. The making of an industrial revolution has always been dependent ultimately on a society's prior culture and continuing qualities. Riches, without the appropriate cultural traits, have never been secure or sustainable.
The first industrial revolution -- Britain's -- was the product of a society that had developed a sense of national cohesion; a capacity to compete; a respect for, and a concern to impart, empirical and technical knowledge; and a preference for advancement by merit or competence. Its members had the ability not just to acquire but to use money, they respected honesty, and their institutions provided security both for property and for enjoyment of the rewards of labor or enterprise. Other societies were able to follow, catch up with and overtake Britain because they could emulate its achievements. Perhaps they shared the crucial medieval legacy of curiosity, inventiveness and multiple sources of initiative, or derived its equivalent from internal sources. And they were sufficiently disciplined to forego present consumption for future gain. Thus the United States, Germany, Japan and Australia are among the rich. Their preconditioning, dominant values propelled them into the attempt to increase riches; their success, even while calling for defense by incessant adaptation, has generally bred success.
… he admires the champion of the Protestant ethic Max Weber, and Karl Wittfogel, the outstanding student of what he calls ''Oriental despotism.'' ''If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference,'' Landes says. In the pursuit of wealth, failure or success are ultimately determined from within, not imposed from outside.
write down what his argument is about WHY the IR happens in Great Britain before India/China?
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
