The Industrial Revolution is the great event of world history. Before this,
from the Stone Age to 1800, there was no gain in average living conditions.
Now incomes rise steadily.
It is attributed to political stability and free markets in 18th-century
England. But this is the convenient fantasy of modern economists. Medieval
England was much more pro-market than even Thatcherite England – the average
government tax rate then was less than 1 per cent – yet achieved no growth.
Instead, the Industrial Revolution is more plausibly linked to a Darwinian
process of “survival of the richest” that operated from at least 1250.
Capitalist attitudes and economic growth triumphed in England because those
with such attitudes came to predominate in the population by biological
means. The modern English are the descendants of the upper classes of the
preindustrial world, those who prospered economically. The poor disappeared.
This process was most likely cultural, but we cannot exclude the possibility
that the English may even be genetically capitalist.
To see how these processes operated consider the following. The average Briton
in 1788, when the first edition of The Times appeared, ate only as many
calories a day as hunter-gatherers (2,300). The diet was more monotonous.
Life expectancy was only slightly above that of hunter-gatherers (38 years).
Height is a good guide to nutrition and health: men in England averaged 5ft
6in (1.68m), the same as males in the Stone Age. And while foragers satisfy
their material wants with small amounts of work, the modest comforts of the
English in 1800 were purchased only through a life of unrelenting drudgery.
Men then worked 60 hours a week. Male hunter-gatherers typically got by on
the 35-hour week.
Since you have doubtless watched TV adaptations of Jane Austen novels, this
claim will be puzzling. But the abundance enjoyed by Austen’s upper classes
in 1800 was more than counterbalanced by the stinted life of the mass of
people. The vast majority would have been better off if they had transferred
to a hunter-gatherer band.
The English were rich in 1788 compared with most countries. The Japanese, for
example, had an even more limited diet. They could afford only rice, little
meat or alcohol and were consequently shorter: 5ft 3in on average for males.
What trapped preindustrial societies at a subsistence wage was was that the
slow technological advance that created better living conditions simply
resulted in population growth, declining land space per person and a return
to subsistence.
The comparative wealth of England in the years before 1800 was not the result
of superiorities in legal, political or economic systems. The English were
just lucky to be a filthy people who squatted happily above their own
faeces, stored in basement cesspits, in cities such as London. Samuel Pepys
noted in the ten years of his diaries the one bath that his wife took. He
himself never indulged in such frivolity. But the Japanese had a highly
developed sense of cleanliness. They bathed daily, and disposed of human
waste carefully. Consequently Japan’s population grew until there was a
miserable level of material comforts.
If the English in 1800 lived no better than in the Stone Age, why did they
have economic growth unlike earlier societies? In any preindustrial society
the average man only had two surviving children. But Englishmen who were
economically successful, all the way from the Middle Ages to 1800, left four
or five surviving children at their deaths. In contrast, landless labourers
left fewer than two children. Economic success translated powerfully into
reproductive success. The poorest individuals in preindustrial England had
so few surviving children their families were dying out.
Preindustrial England was thus a world of constant downward mobility. Given
the static nature of the preindustrial economy, the superabundant children
of the rich had to, on average, move down the social hierarchy to find work.
Craftsmen’s sons became labourers, merchants’ sons petty traders, large
landowners’ sons smallholders. Attributes that ensured later economic
dynamism – the middle-class values of patience, hard work, ingenuity,
innovativeness, education – were thus spread throughout the population for
generations by biological means.
The population’s adoption of more middle-class preferences changed other
things. From 1200 to 1800 interest rates fell, murder rates declined, work
hours increased, the taste for violence declined, and numeracy and literacy
spread to even the lower reaches of society. By 1800, though the incentives
were no better than before, producers seized opportunities to innovate.
But why did this process advance faster in England than elsewhere? One
advantage of England was how dull most English history is – there are plenty
of villages where nothing of significance happened between 1200 and 1800.
The reproductive success of the rich was not disrupted by invasions, social
upheavals and catastrophes. The second advantage just seems to be an
accident of English demographics. In both preindustrial Japan and China the
rich had more children than the poor, but in a more modest way. Thus there
was not the same cascade of children from the educated classes down the
social scale. The samurai in Japan in the Tokugawa era (1603-1868), for
example, were former warriors given ample hereditary revenues through
positions in the state bureaucracy. Despite their wealth they produced on
average little more than one son per father. Their children were thus mainly
accommodated within the bureaucracy.
What does this mean for the modern world? Societies that went straight from
the hunter-gatherer state to the modern economy may have historically
rooted, cultural disadvantages in competing in a capitalist world. This may
explain the difficulty groups such as Australian Aborigines have had in
successfully incorporating into the capitalist economy. It could even
explain why industrialists in sub-Saharan economies such as Zambia are
importing Chinese workers into mines and factories, despite having to pay
them more than local labour.
Finally, one puzzle of modern affluent societies is that while we have an
abundance of goods, we have a poverty of leisure compared with
hunter-gatherers. Indeed, the higher income a person has, the less leisure
he has. Our poverty of leisure has been blamed on advertisers producing
endless wants. But the true source of our compulsion to work, even when all
conceivable material needs are met, may lie in our ancestors’ passage
through a preindustrial world that rewarded a compulsion to work and
accumulate with reproductive success. We may be prisoners of a history that
makes us unable to enjoy the fruits of our modern economic success.
Gregory Clark is the author of Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History
of the World
Must read the book. Quite a volatile bunch of comments. I have been hunting for commnent on the function of evolution in modern society. It is a critical consideration to begin to understand how we may begin to plan a future with a future. To fall into the pit that evolution is sleeping is to think and talk like a creationist, which may please Bible fundamentalists, but will leave us blind. In seeking the environmental Holy Grail of how we might achieve an ecologically sustainable society living a globally equitable lifestyle, I have come to wonder if evolution is alive and well and working through human populations, that Nature seeks expansion into space just as fish slithered onto land. If this is the case and we dare to follow his white rabbit, then Greg Clark could be opening a rather large can of worms for us all to ponder. Google my article 'Creating A Solar Civilization' for more. The debate marches on and hopefully, our sense of humour and insight will too.
Kim Peart
Tasmania
Kim Peart, Hobart, Tasmania
So the English were more successful because they were, for a long time, happily filthy and exceedingly dull. Ah, the Liberal Arts!
ptilley, Ottawa, Canada
Mr.Clark seems to have forgotten Colonialism, and the attendant plundering, pillaging, killing and general exploitation. All of which helped Great [sic] Britian achieve the living standard currently enjoyed by it's people.
Kautilya, New York , NY
this article somehow reminds me of the obvious connection between the rise of global warming and the vanishing pirates in the carribbean sea.
Max, Heidelberg, Germany
This article throws more into question the extreme folly of subsidising the reproduction of the incapable in society, which is made even worse by the discouragment of the productive from breeding by high taxation.
Alexander, Chichester,
Interesting theory, although it's only slightly removed from a "just-so" story.
A flaw in this theory is this. Why did so many non-Anglo Saxon countries so easily follow England's lead into the industrial revolution? There are plenty of people who suffered very high levels of violence who have easily adapted to the modern era.
It still comes down to a north/south divide.
Michael, VT,
Gregory Clark has totally failed to understand that being “pro-market†is about more than having a low average government tax rate. Of equal if not greater importance is freedom from restrictive practices. Mediaeval England was full of these.
I also cannot agree that there was no growth if, by growth, one means in terms of the expansion of the country’s economy. The truth seems to be rather the reverse over the 220 years after the effective completion of the conquest of England at the time of Domesday Book.
However that degree of economic growth was not accompanied by a matching increase in living standards because it was accompanied by great population growth. During that period the population of England may well have increased from about 1 million to as much as 5 million or even more with inevitable consequences.
Robert Coggins, Devon,
His not being overly concerned with whether the mechanism by which the even fairly better off transmitted these traits more to their much more numerous surviving offspring was genetic or cultural is also intriguing. With these sorts of dramatic differences in surviving offspring over this extended period it could have been either. It could indeed have been passed along either genetically, or culturally by the more affluent parents, and was indeed probably passed along in both ways.
The core finding here which I think will have enduring, even landmark influence, is that it wasn't just the "high priests" and narrow ruling classes of settled agricultural societies who left a lot more surviving offspring that the poor under some long sustained conditions at least, if was also the more affluent yeoman farmers at least in one agricultural economy who did as well and in mass population changing ways. Considering that recent human genetic research by Bruce Lahn and others has show that there was a great deal of genetic change in areas that likely effect the brain in some parts of the world (where agriculture was intensive) but much less than others as recently as some 5-6k years ago makes Mr. Clark’s findings all the more intriguing.
dougjnn, New York,
I don't find Mr. Clark’s thesis very convincing in distinguishing Britain from other parts of Western Europe, and hence explaining why the Industrial Revolution STARTED in England.
However, I was listening to a Science (NY) Times podcast on my iPod yesterday where Nicholas Wade in an interview summarized Mr. Clark’s thesis and discussed it. He emphasized that the IR started in England yes, but then was very quickly, in a matter of a few decades, adopted by many other countries which were characterized by similarly long term agricultural and relatively market oriented economies, such has Germany, France, Italy and so on, and then with some delay, China -- whereas the IR HASN'T been readily or easily adopted in many other parts of the Third World. No he didn't actually give e.g. Africa as an example.
dougjnn, New York, USA
Clark’s hypothesis has one flaw; there is no evidence to support the idea that a gene for capitalism actually exists. Even if it does, there is no evidence that British aristocrats had the gene in greater proportion than the labourer majority. Without this evidence Clark’s proposition - that Britain has a capitalist society because the gene for capitalism found the right conditions to thrive in Britain, whilst in other nations it did not - is nothing more than speculation.
Evolutionary Psychology is an exciting field, but it is vital that we make clear what real evidence we have to back up our ideas. It is scientifically incorrect to claim that trait x or y is genetic when there is no DNA evidence; it is also wrong to claim that the spread of a trait is genetic without a DNA history. I suggest Clark reads a few up-to-date books on how genotype and phenotype traits are spread and how they interact before making claims of (Times reading) British upper middle-lass genetic superiority!
Tim Butterworth, Edinburgh, Scotland
Clark argues that finite wealth and reproduction loosely in proportion to wealth led to a "values cascade" that infiltrated the lower classes. Today it would seem that the proportionality has been reversed - the wealthy choose not to have (larger) families with both partners working, whereas the poor are now (except in Romford) well-supported in raising children. In those circumstances where does Mr' Clark's logic take us? Probably not towards a cafe society?
David, Tamworth, Staffs
Great article, that explains a lot. Now wait for someone to call you racist.
David Harrison, Liverpool,
Of course colonialism and economic protectionism, two features of England until the early 20th century, had nothing to do with the country's success.
Martin, Stevenage, UK
I am astonished that such sloppy (spoof-like?) thinking has made its way into a respectable newspaper. The argument's flaws include:
1) In pre-capitalist societies, the rich people were not the economically productive people. Quite the reverse. Thus being the child of an aristocrat would make you more, not less, productive.
2) That's even if there is any demonstrable 'productive gene' that can be passed down the generations. The writer has simply assumed the existence of it.
3) The richest country in the world is America... which is largely populated by the descendants of poor immigrants. America's success is kind of hard to explain with this model.
4) There is a lot of evidence that English peasants became wealthier between 1200 and 1800. Indeed, this is why English history became so uneventful. Eyewitness reports, famine frequency analysis, England's increasing international importance.... author never engages with this evidence.
I could go on...
Sam, Egham,
I suspect not biology but culture.
French harpsichord makers belonged, like all French artisans, to strictly controlled guilds. French harpsichords all had identical specifications, and may well have all cost the same. In Germany, anyone who wanted to could make harpsichords, and many's the cabinet maker who turned his hand to it. German harpsichords were innovative in design and tuning, high in quality, and had widely varying specifications.
Maybe it's a North/South thing. Maybe it's Catholic/Protestant thing. Maybe it's even a Saxon thing. But from my position of total ignorance, I'd say that this difference in entrepreneurial culture between France and Germany survived right up until the second or third decade of the EEC. Which suggests that this is not an entirely "British" thing, and not a permanent thing.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
Mr. Clark says:
"The population’s adoption of more middle-class preferences changed other things. From 1200 to 1800 interest rates fell, murder rates declined, work hours increased, the taste for violence declined,.."
But now that we subsidize the breeding of the lower classes through the Welfare State, it would seem that the taste for violence
has returned.
JL, Liverpool,
Radical? Yes. Also: bizarre, unconvincing, Anglo-centric and nationalistic. Need I say more?
Martin Baldwin-Edwards, Athens, Greece
Interesting article. Now things seem to have gone into reverse with the weak and useless virtually state sponsored to breed
so as to qualify for free housing and permanent handouts while those of us working but not earning Premiership wages wonder how we would cope if we did.
rich , reading,
Fascinating stuff that I would like to follow up.
Regarding the 'compulsion to work', this is mostly relevant to people who enjoy what they do, and therefore define their lives according to their careers. To this group (and I include all those in the arts) the idea of 'retirement' is anathema, unless it is to ease off a little to follow purely creative aspects of their interest.
However, to those who simply 'do a job', leisure and retirement are hugely desirable - and the sooner the better.
David Jefferis, Brill, UK
Very interesting theories and ideas! A fascinating article. One wonders how Pepys' wife, who allegedly took only one bath in ten years, tolerated her husband... who took none at all! They must have had other means of personal cleansing?
England has surely been the World's Most Influential Nation. No, Rome's empire was smaller...and which nation gave birth, albeit illegitimately, to the USA?
The question is, where does England go from here?
There appears to be many serious social problems: in health, education, illegitimacy and teen pregnancies, alcoholism, immigration, affordable housing, etc., and too few serious, dedicated leaders speaking out and providing good leadership, action and example. If democracy fails, dictatorship may result.
The privileged MUST act and lead...or risk losing their privileges! They must carefully PLAN for Britain's future success in a rapidly changing and highly competitive world...and not leave it up to chance and luck.
Garth Rex, Glendale Heights, USA
English Genes?
I can almost see the future social fabric now......
a highly efficient Ethnic majority of Kebab delivering, Subaru racing, Gangsta 'pop-popin', Asbo breaking, Sharia calling, high street consuming and Goggle box addicted 'Grade A' UK citizens to fill this Island. The future looks bright....... er, Ticket for Heathrow please.... one way.
Jez, Leeds,
Interesting article. The thing that sticks in my mind is the English obsession wiht alcohol. The absence of aclohol is quoted as one of the points of difference between the medieval English and the medieval Japanese diets. Having lived in England for 2 years now I understand that only an English person could think that alochol is that important. Maybe the water in Japan was clean enough to drink?
Tom, London,
I think you may right about the genes because of Britain’s comparatively early unity and political settlement. Put that together with the means and the motivation for industrial development and progress inevitably emerged. One had the 3rd Duke of Bridgwater with a lot of land with mineral resources and the capital to develop, while colonial growth and trading provided added motivation. As you observe, changes proceed collaterally and affect both each other and the future. The trick, as always, is to make the right moves, and now that the standard of living has reached a reasonable level for the poorest, the right moves are not necessarily going to be any easier. It would seem to be rash to think that the attitudes that produced success in an earlier, different configuration will apply today, and I think that is what you are really driving at. But then, I suppose it depends on how you define success and whether your perception of the latter develops along with everything else.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Er....... No, not really.
Sam, London, UK
"Aspiring to the merchant's trade, he began to follow the chapman's way of life, first learning how to gain in small bargains and things of insignificant price; and thence, while yet a youth, his mind advanced little by little to buy and sell and gain from things of greater expense." (Life of St. Godric, 12th c.)
Yes, capitalism is an ancient idea, but was also mistrusted as slightly sinful - Godric ultimately gave up his wealth and developed an unhealthy interest in prayer. What was new in the 19th c. was the acceptance of progress and self-invention as being for the general good, and the abandonment of static, fatalistic ideas about the natural order of things.
You can look for the roots of that idea in other ideas if you like, but don't look to genes; genes don't code for ideas, and "genetically capitalist" is a combination of words comparable to "nomadically creamy" in meaningful content.
Felix, Nottingham,