IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberhi/0081.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Two Views of the British Industrial Revolution

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Temin

Abstract

There are two views of the British Industrial Revolution in the literature today. The more traditional description, represented by the views of Ashton and Landes, sees the Industrial Revolution as a broad change in the British economy and society. This broad view of the Industrial Revolution has been challenged by Crafts and Harley who see the Industrial Revolution as a much narrower phenomenon, as the result of technical change in a few industries. This paper presents a test of these views using the Ricardian model of international trade with many goods. British trade data are used to implement the test and discriminate between the two views of the Industrial Revolution.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Temin, 1996. "Two Views of the British Industrial Revolution," NBER Historical Working Papers 0081, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberhi:0081
    Note: DAE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/h0081.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dornbusch, Rudiger & Fischer, Stanley & Samuelson, Paul A, 1977. "Comparative Advantage, Trade, and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 823-839, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buss, Adrian, 2013. "Capital controls and international financial stability: a dynamic general equilibrium analysis in incomplete markets," Working Paper Series 1578, European Central Bank.
    2. Pierre M. Picard & Alessandro Tampieri, 2016. "Income Effects and Vertical Differentiation in International Trade," DEM Discussion Paper Series 16-05, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    3. Andrew B. Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jensen & Samuel Kortum, 2003. "Plants and Productivity in International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1268-1290, September.
    4. Andrei A Levchenko & Jing Zhang, 2013. "The Global Labor Market Impact of Emerging Giants: A Quantitative Assessment," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 61(3), pages 479-519, August.
    5. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum & Brent Neiman & John Romalis, 2016. "Trade and the Global Recession," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(11), pages 3401-3438, November.
    6. Metiu, Norbert, 2021. "Anticipation effects of protectionist U.S. trade policies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    7. Giri, Rahul, 2012. "Local costs of distribution, international trade costs and micro evidence on the law of one price," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 82-100.
    8. Andersen, Torben M., 2005. "Product market integration, wage dispersion and unemployment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 379-406, June.
    9. Kondo, Illenin O., 2018. "Trade-induced displacements and local labor market adjustments in the U.S," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 180-202.
    10. Michael Knuchel, 2018. "Comparing estimation methods of trade costs," Aussenwirtschaft, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science, Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economics Research, vol. 69(01), pages 81-106, December.
    11. Gao, Yue & Whalley, John & Ren, Yonglei, 2014. "Decomposing China's export growth into extensive margin, export quality and quantity effects," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 19-26.
    12. William R Kerr, 2018. "Heterogeneous Technology Diffusion and Ricardian Trade Patterns," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 32(1), pages 163-182.
    13. repec:phd:pjdevt:jpd_1990_vol__xvii_no__2-d is not listed on IDEAS
    14. F. Gerard Adams & Byron Gangnes & Yochanan Shachmurove, 2006. "Why is China so Competitive? Measuring and Explaining China's Competitiveness," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 95-122, February.
    15. Dalia Marin & Thierry Verdier, 2008. "Power Inside The Firm and The Market: A General Equilibrium Approach," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(4), pages 752-788, June.
    16. Hamid Beladi & Reza Oladi, 2014. "On Offshoring and Trade Deficit," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 517-523, August.
    17. Sugata Marjit & Hamid Beladi, 2009. "Is Trade In Technology Superior To Trade In Goods?," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 195-200, April.
    18. Ziesemer, Thomas, 1999. "How to Apply Trade Theory to the German Unification? Making sense of 'comparative advantage in nothing'," Research Memorandum 012, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Wen Li Cheng & Jeffrey Sachs & Xiaokai Yang, 2005. "An Inframarginal Analysis Of The Ricardian Model," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: An Inframarginal Approach To Trade Theory, chapter 6, pages 87-107, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Mario Cimoli & Gabriel Porcile, 2014. "Technology, structural change and BOP-constrained growth: a structuralist toolbox," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 38(1), pages 215-237.
    21. Kazunobu Hayakawa & Hiroshi Mukunoki, 2023. "The magnification effect in global value chains," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 141-157, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberhi:0081. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.