Historical perspectives on Asian economic growth and development

The papers featured in this special issue are based on presentations made at the Harvard–Hitotsubashi–Warwick Conference on "Economic Change Around the Indian Ocean in the Very Long Run", held at the University of Warwick in Venice, Palazzo Pesaro Papafava, 22–24 July 2008. The conference was originally conceived with countries around the Indian Ocean in mind, but soon expanded to include East Asia, and this wider geographical coverage is reflected in the papers included here. The conference was organised by Stephen Broadberry (Warwick), Kyoji Fukao (Hitotsubashi), Bishnupriya Gupta (Warwick) and Jeffrey Williamson (Harvard), and generously financed by the University of Warwick, Hitotsubashi University and the Economic History Society. A central aim of the organisers was to bring together researchers seeking to break free from the constraints of both the older Eurocentric and the nationalistic anti-colonialist literatures which have dominated much of the economic history of Asian countries. There was also a desire to encourage work which is quantitative and uses economic analysis, and which can be used to shed historical light on the current economic performance of the region

Vive la différence. Disaggregation of the productivity convergence process

Editada en la Fundación Empresa PúblicaEste trabajo examina el proceso de convergencia en perspectiva histórica a nivel desagregado. Tomando en consideración la producción, la renta y el gasto este trabajo muestra una gran diversidad geográfica y temporal. Cada país se especializó según su ventaja comparativa y la convergencia se produjo tanto a través de cambios en su estructura productiva, como a niveles microeconómicos. Asimismo, variaciones en la proporción de las facturas condujo a una mejor convergencia de la renta sin necesidad de una mayor aproximación de los precios de los factores. El trabajo demuestra también que persistieron importantes diferencias en las preferencias de los consumidores. Así pues, el proceso de convergencia a nivel agregado no condujo necesariamente a la uniformidad de las economías. ¡Vive la differénce!This papaer examines the convergence process at a disaggregated level in a historical context. A trhee-way disaggregation of the national accounts by output, income and expenditure a wealth of diversity, both over time across countríes, i.e. history and geography tnatter. Countries can specialise according to comparative advantage, and convergence at the aggregate level can occur through changes in structure as well as through convergence at the micro level. Similarly, changes in factor proportions may lead to convergence of aggregate incomes without requiring convergence of all factor prices at the micro level. Also, differences in preferences may persist, so that individual components of expenditure do not need to converge in line with aggregate expenditure. Convergence at the aggregate level, then, does not necessarily lead to uniformity. Vive la différence!Publicad

Explaining Anglo-German productivity differences in services since 1870

Germany overtook Britain in comparative productivity levels for the whole economy primarily as a result of trends in services rather than trends in industry. Britain's productivity lead in services before World War II reflected external economies of scale in a highly urbanised economy with an international orientation. Low productivity in Germany reflected the underdevelopment of services in an economy that was slow to move out of agriculture. As German agricultural employment contracted sharply from the 1950s, catching-up occurred in services. This was aided by a sharp increase in human and physical capital accumulation, underpinned by the institutional framework of the postwar settlement

Resolving the Anglo-German industrial productivity puzzle, 1895-1935 : a response to Professor Ritschl

This paper offers a critical appraisal of the claim of Ritschl (2008) to have found a “possible resolution” to what he calls the “Anglo-German industrial productivity puzzle”. To understand the origins of this term, it is necessary to describe some recent developments in comparisons of industrial labour productivity between Britain and Germany. The Anglo-German industrial productivity puzzle really arose as the result of a new industrial production index produced by Ritschl (2004), which differed very substantially from the widely used index of Hoffmann (1965). Broadberry and Burhop (2007) pointed out that if the Ritschl (2004) index is combined with an index of German employment from Hoffmann (1965) and time series of UK output and employment from Feinstein (1972), it implies an implausibly high German labour productivity lead over Britain in 1907, when projected back from a widely accepted Germany/UK labour productivity benchmark for 1935/36

Recent developments in the theory of very long run growth : a historical appraisal

This paper offers a historical appraisal of recent developments in the theory of very long run growth, focusing on two main areas: (1) linkages between wages, population and human capital and (2) interactions between institutions, markets and technology. Historians as well as economists have recently begun to break away from the traditional practice of using different methods to analyse the world before and after the industrial revolution. However, tensions remain between the theoretical and historical literatures, particularly over the unit of analysis (the world or particular countries) and the role of historical contingency

Recent Developments In The Theory Of Very Long Run Growth : A Historical Appraisal

This paper offers a historical appraisal of recent developments in the theory of very long run growth, focusing on three main areas: (1) linkages between wages, population and human capital (2) interactions between institutions, markets and technology and (3) sustaining the process of economic growth once it has started. Historians as well as economists have recently begun to break away from the traditional practice of using different methods to analyse the world before and after the industrial revolution. However, tensions remain between the theoretical and historical literatures, particularly over the unit of analysis (the world or particular countries) and the role of historical contingency

Accounting for the great divergence

This paper “accounts” for the Great Divergence between Europe and Asia in two ways. In the sense of measurement: (1) the traditional view, in which the Great Divergence had late medieval origins and was already well under way during the early modern period, is confirmed (2) However, revisionists are correct to point to regional variation within both continents (3) There was a Little Divergence within Europe, with a reversal of fortunes between the North Sea Area and Mediterranean Europe. (4) There was a Little Divergence within Asia, with Japan overtaking China and India. However, Japan started at a lower level of per capita income than the North Sea Area and grew at a slower rate, so continued to fall behind until after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Any explanation needs to be able to account for the Little Divergences within Europe and Asia as well as the Great Divergence between the two continents. The divergences arose from the differential impact of shocks hitting economies with different structural features. The structural factors include: (1) The large share of pastoral farming in agriculture which helped to put the North Sea Area on the path to high-value-added, capital-intensive, non-human-energy intensive production. (2) Late marriage in the North Sea Area, which lowered fertility and encouraged human capital formation (3) Labour supply, with an industrious revolution helping to explain the Little Divergences within both Asia and Europe (4) Institutions, with the role of the state helping to explain the success of the North Sea Area. The two key shocks were (1) The Black Death, which led to a permanent per capita income gain in the North Sea Area, but not in the rest of Eurasia (2) The new trade routes which opened up from Europe to Asia and the Americas around 1500

Is Anonymity the Missing Link Between Commercial and Industrial Revolution?

The Industrial Revolution is often characterized as the culmination of a process of commercialisation; however, the precise nature of such a link remains unclear. This paper models and analyses one such link: the impact of a higher degree of anonymity of market transactions on relative factor prices. Commercialisation raises wages as impersonal labour market transactions replace personalized customary relations. This leads, in equilibrium, to higher real wages to prevent shirking. To the extent that capital and labor are (imperfect) substitutes, the resulting shift in relative factor prices leads to the adoption of a more capital-intensive production technology which, in turn, results in a faster rate of technological progress via enhanced learning by doing. We provide evidence using European historical data consistent our results.Commercialisation; Industrial Revolution; Anonymity; Efficiency; Wages; Learning by Doing.

Recent developments in the theory of very long run growth: A historical appraisal

This paper offers a historical appraisal of recent developments in the theory of very long run growth, focusing on two main areas: (1) linkages between wages, population and human capital and (2) interactions between institutions, markets and technology. Historians as well as economists have recently begun to break away from the traditional practice of using different methods to analyse the world before and after the industrial revolution. However, tensions remain between the theoretical and historical literatures, particularly over the unit of analysis (the world or particular countries) and the role of historical contingency

Indian GDP, 1600 -1870: Some Preliminary Estimates Comparison with Britain

This paper provides estimates of Indian GDP constructed from the output side for the period 1600-1871, and combines them with population estimates to track changes in living standards. Indian per capita GDP declined steadily. As British living standards increased from the mid-seventeenth century, India fell increasingly behind. Whereas in 1650, Indian per capita GDP was more than 80 per cent of the British level, by 1871 it had fallen to less than 15 per cent. As well as placing the origins of the Great Divergence firmly in the early modern period, these estimates suggest a relatively prosperous India at the height of the Mughal Empire, with living standards well above bare bones subsistenceIndian GDP; Comparison; Britain