Was the Atlantic Slave Trade vital for the British Industrial Revolution? (influence, 70s)

[knowledgeiskey]

It looks like the slavery->capitalism debate is back with the publication of Edward Baptist's The Half That Never Been Told along with Beckert's Empire of Cotton. The 1970s debate has resurrected.

These blog posts by a pseudonym debunks their theses.

https://pseudoerasmus.com/2015/11/05/bapredux/


https://pseudoerasmus.com/2015/04/26...key-cotton-ir/

[pseudoerasmus]

There are naive and sophisticated externalists in the debate about the origins of the IR. Baptist is pretty bloody naive. Beckert is less so, but still relies simple-mindedly on antiquated ideas about capital accumulation and overseas demand as drivers of the Industrial Revolution.

But capital accumulation just can't explain the key element in the Industrial Revolution which differentiates it from earlier growth effluorescences -- technological innovation. So sophisticated externalists (such as Kevin O'Rourke) try to link colonial trade and overseas markets to technological innovation, but unfortunately there is little solid evidence on this point and only some theoretical models. Robert Allen's theory of the IR requires a high-wage economy (high wages spur invention of labour-saving machienry). In Allen's story, an important driver of English high wages relative to other Europe is overseas trade.

This more sophisticated externalism is just not explored by Beckert. He does try to ride the Acemoglu bandwagon (calling the Acemoglu, Johnson & Robinson paper on Atlantic trade 'brilliant') and argues trade allowed merchants to influence the political process to favour their interests. But the evidence on that is so far still thin, though Robinson & Pincus are working to generate more evidence.

[knowledgeiskey]

Originally Posted by pseudoerasmus

There are naive and sophisticated externalists in the debate about the origins of the IR. Baptist is pretty bloody naive. Beckert is less so, but still relies simple-mindedly on antiquated ideas about capital accumulation and overseas demand as drivers of the Industrial Revolution.

But capital accumulation just can't explain the key element in the Industrial Revolution which differentiates it from earlier growth effluorescences -- technological innovation. So sophisticated externalists (such as Kevin O'Rourke) try to link colonial trade and overseas markets to technological innovation, but unfortunately there is little solid evidence on this point and only some theoretical models. Robert Allen's theory of the IR requires a high-wage economy (high wages spur invention of labour-saving machienry). In Allen's story, an important driver of English high wages relative to other Europe is overseas trade.

This more sophisticated externalism is just not explored by Beckert. He does try to ride the Acemoglu bandwagon (calling the Acemoglu, Johnson & Robinson paper on Atlantic trade 'brilliant') and argues trade allowed merchants to influence the political process to favour their interests. But the evidence on that is so far still thin, though Robinson & Pincus are working to generate more evidence.

Too bad this won't wink in with most people.