Abstract
Although it has been labeled the “First Industrial Revolution,” British growth and industrialization was slow between the 1760s and the 1820s. The explanation seems to lie with low capital formation shares in national income, low rates of accumulation, and thus little change in the capital-labor ratio. What accounts for the modest investment rates? Lack of thrift? Weak investment demand? This paper argues that the answer is to be found in the enormous debt issues used, to finance the French Wars.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Economics and Econometrics,History
Reference86 articles.
1. Long-Run Implications of Alternative Fiscal Policies and the Burden of the National Debt
2. Mokyr and Savin (“Stagflation in Historical Perspective,” p. 221) feel that these estimates of the mobilization effect are too high. They estimate that those mobilized went from 2 to 5 percent, rather than from 2 to 10 percent as reported in the text. My estimate covers the period 1790–1812, while the Mokyr and Savin figure covers the period 1800–1812. Furthermore, my estimate includes the navy and marines while the Mokyr and Savin estimate does not. I shall stick to my estimate in what follows, but if Mokyr and Savin are correct the impact of war on the standard of living, per capita income, and industrialization is understated in Section IV. the right direction of bias.
3. Inflation-Induced Distortions in Government and Private Saving Statistics
Cited by
145 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献