Yes, I also found Professor Mokyr to be helpful with junior researchers. He played a role in me getting my first book published as well.
And the fact that he became an editor, which is a fairly under appreciated role, speaks volumes about him as well. How many Nobel Prize winners volunteer to be editors?
Is it possible, Mr. Magoon, that there are multiple causes for progress, one being the theory advanced by Professor Mokyr? And, can the "mix" of factors vary in character from one period to another and one culture to another? Irrespective of your thoughts on this, thank you for the links. How refreshing that, despite your contrary views, you gracefully celebrated his acknowledgement with a Nobel Prize. If only we could spread that mentality around a little more generously!
Yes, I absolutely agree with multi-causality. I fully embrace it in my work. If there really were only one cause, then we all would have agreed on it a long time ago.
Yes, I do think that the most important cause can vary from one period and culture to another. I tend to think that it is best to go with 4-6 causal variables that explain the most variation across human history and across the globe and then look for interesting exceptions within each case. Industrial Britain is perhaps the most important case of all, and Mokyr does a great job of explaining it in his books.
Enjoy the links. There are plenty more at the same site.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will definitely check out the site now that I know it exists. While I am certainly not a scholar on this subject, I will say that my observations from 91 years on the Planet parallel your observation about multiple variables.
If I remember the book 'The Lever of Riches' correctly, he pointed out that, counter to Milton Freidman, there is a free lunch, and it is technological progress. I think that was a very important political point to make, because it means that technological progress needs to be encouraged by the government.
A lovely and oh so quick appreciation of Joel to mark this success. I wrote earlier today a note to a friend “a win for economic history”. Very nice to see.
A refreshing change from the type of work that the Nobel usually goes to in my view.
I read Lever of Riches recently and liked it a lot, like you said Mokyr made a strong case that innovation was the key factor and I was impressed by the level of knowledge about the technologies themselves. I don't think his discussion on why the rate of innovation was especially high in Britain specifically was as persuasive though.
And just over the weekend I was browsing Amazon and got excited that Mokyr has a new book with Greif and Tabellini coming out in November, "Two Paths to Prosperity". It was a well-deserved award.
Wow this is very aligned with Sarah Paine's argument about the economic and international success of Japan. Educating population and training them to maintain machinery, and develop ideas vs simply accumulating wealth or conquering (she compares it to Imperial Russia due to the events between the 2 powers). So good.
"...editor of Princeton University Press’s book series on the Economic History of the Western World..."
And by coincidence, Princeton have a sale on right now, in which I picked up an interesting looking book on the Royal Society 😉
Enjoy! I believe it’s mostly thanks to Mokyr that that book ended up with PUP (though not in that series).
Yes, I also found Professor Mokyr to be helpful with junior researchers. He played a role in me getting my first book published as well.
And the fact that he became an editor, which is a fairly under appreciated role, speaks volumes about him as well. How many Nobel Prize winners volunteer to be editors?
While I don’t agree with his theories on the cause of progress, I am thrilled that Mokyr earned the Nobel Prize. It is greatly deserved.
For those who are interested, my online library of book summaries on progress has three of Mokyr's best works:
https://techratchet.com/2021/07/21/book-summary-the-gifts-of-athena-historical-origins-of-the-knowledge-economy-by-joel-mokyr/
https://techratchet.com/2021/03/22/book-summary-a-culture-of-growth-by-joel-mokyr/
https://techratchet.com/2020/04/30/book-summary-enlightened-economy-an-economic-history-of-britain-1700-1850-by-joel-mokyr/
Is it possible, Mr. Magoon, that there are multiple causes for progress, one being the theory advanced by Professor Mokyr? And, can the "mix" of factors vary in character from one period to another and one culture to another? Irrespective of your thoughts on this, thank you for the links. How refreshing that, despite your contrary views, you gracefully celebrated his acknowledgement with a Nobel Prize. If only we could spread that mentality around a little more generously!
Yes, I absolutely agree with multi-causality. I fully embrace it in my work. If there really were only one cause, then we all would have agreed on it a long time ago.
Yes, I do think that the most important cause can vary from one period and culture to another. I tend to think that it is best to go with 4-6 causal variables that explain the most variation across human history and across the globe and then look for interesting exceptions within each case. Industrial Britain is perhaps the most important case of all, and Mokyr does a great job of explaining it in his books.
Enjoy the links. There are plenty more at the same site.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will definitely check out the site now that I know it exists. While I am certainly not a scholar on this subject, I will say that my observations from 91 years on the Planet parallel your observation about multiple variables.
I really hope that I am as interested in reading about new topics when I am 91 as you are!
If I remember the book 'The Lever of Riches' correctly, he pointed out that, counter to Milton Freidman, there is a free lunch, and it is technological progress. I think that was a very important political point to make, because it means that technological progress needs to be encouraged by the government.
Great post 🙏
A lovely and oh so quick appreciation of Joel to mark this success. I wrote earlier today a note to a friend “a win for economic history”. Very nice to see.
Congrats to Prof. Mokyr. I loved The Enlightened Economy. I hope some more people will pick it up now.
A refreshing change from the type of work that the Nobel usually goes to in my view.
I read Lever of Riches recently and liked it a lot, like you said Mokyr made a strong case that innovation was the key factor and I was impressed by the level of knowledge about the technologies themselves. I don't think his discussion on why the rate of innovation was especially high in Britain specifically was as persuasive though.
And just over the weekend I was browsing Amazon and got excited that Mokyr has a new book with Greif and Tabellini coming out in November, "Two Paths to Prosperity". It was a well-deserved award.
Wow this is very aligned with Sarah Paine's argument about the economic and international success of Japan. Educating population and training them to maintain machinery, and develop ideas vs simply accumulating wealth or conquering (she compares it to Imperial Russia due to the events between the 2 powers). So good.