- Agricultural output in Ireland is assumed to be the same per acre as in Britain. Based on 1866 acreages this makes it 56.0, compared to 123.8 in Britain. Since final UK consumption is 218.5 this makes Irish agricultural exports to Britain 25 m.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Agriculture: British output of 123.8 estimated by scaling up the estimated English output of 96.2 given in Clark (2002, table 2) by the relative farm areas of Britain and England (1.26:1) in 1866.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Agriculture: Output of 38.9 m. and labor, capital, and land shares of 0.38, 0.14 and 0.48 from Clark (2002, table 2).
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Allen, Robert C. 2009. The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- B. For the 1850s Note: Negative entries denote inputs.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- based on value of imports of cotton, flax, indigo and other dyestuffs of 0.19 m (Davis, 1962, 300) and markup estimate (Harley, 1998, table 5, p. 64). Labor and capital shares are assumed 50:50 as in the 1850s.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Carter, Susan B., Scott Sigmund Gartner, Michael R. Haines, Alan L. Olmstead, Richard Sutch, and Gavin Wright, eds. 2006. Historical Statistics of the United States, Earliest Times to the Present: Millennial Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Clark, Gregory and David Jacks. 2007. “Coal and the Industrial Revolution, 1700–1869.†European Review of Economic History 11(1) (April): 39–72.
- Clark, Gregory. 2002. “The Agricultural Revolution? England, 1500–1912.†Working Paper. University of California, Davis.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Clark, Gregory. 2005. “The Condition of the Working-Class in England, 1209–2004†Journal of Political Economy, 113(6) (December): 1307–1340.
- Clark, Gregory. 2007. “What Made Britannia Great? How Much of the Rise of Britain to World Dominance by 1850 does the Industrial Revolution Explain?†In The New Comparative Economic History: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey G. Williamson, ed. Timothy J. Hatton, Kevin H. O’Rourke, and Alan M. Taylor, 33–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Clark, Gregory. 2007b. “The Macroeconomic Aggregates for England, 1209–2004.†Working Paper. University of California, Davis.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Clark, Gregory. 2010. “The Macroeconomic Aggregates for England, 1209–2008.†Research in Economic History, 27, 51-140.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Coal: A physical net output of 65 m tons for Great Britain was estimated from Church (1986, 3, 19). This corresponded to a value of 37.1 based on an average price at final consumption of 0.57. There was a domestic farm input of horses, oats, timber, etc., of 0.8 from Church (1986, 502, 521–2). Labor, capital, and land shares of 0.61, 0.27, and 0.12 are based on Clark and Jacks (2007, table 6, 55).
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Coal: Output of 3.41 m. from Flinn (1984) estimate of output of 6 m. tons and final consumption price of 0.57. Agricultural input of horses, oats, timber, etc., of 0.04 m. from Church (1986, 502, 521– 2). Labor, capital, and land shares of 0.61, 0.27, and 0.12 are based on Clark and Jacks (2007, table 6, 55) as in 1850.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Consumption: Assume North America total consumption expenditure is assumed as 91, given by England consumption times 1. This ratio is based on an assumed North America : England population ratio of 1 based on the various population estimates for the Americas in Mitchell 2003. We assume homothetic identical preferences in England and North America. Total final use: For each sector, consumption plus exports minus imports.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Consumption: We assume the Rest of the World total consumption expenditure is 13,118, given by England’s consumption times 50, minus North America’s consumption. This ratio is based on a world population of 770 million versus England and Wales 7 million and Scotland 1.26 m (Clark, 2007, 139, Mitchell and Deane, 1971, 5). We assume the Rest of the World living standards were approximately 50% of England levels based on Clark 2007, 40–70. We assume consumption weights in the rest of the world are different as follows: cotton textiles 3%, other textiles 3%, iron and steel as England, coal as needed to absorb imports, agriculture 37.5%, tropical raw materials 0%, tropical food 37.5%, and the balance for rest of the economy. This is to reflect the Engel curves which show foodstuffs at higher levels of consumption when incomes are lower. Total final use: For each sector, consumption plus exports minus imports.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Consumption: We assume the rest of the world total consumption expenditure is 13,118.4 m., given by British consumption times 22.75. This ratio is based on an assumed rest of world : British population ratio of 1,240:21.8 and a consumption per person ratio of 40%. This assumes a total world population of 1,300 in the 1850s based on the estimates of Durand (1977), Haub (1995) and McElready and Jones (1978). We assume consumption weights in the rest of the world are: cotton textiles 2%, other textiles 4%, iron and steel 1%, coal 0.1 %, temperate agriculture 37.5%, tropical raw materials 0%, tropical food
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Consumption: We assume total consumption expenditure in North America and the Caribbean was 1101.6, given by British consumption times 1.91. This ratio is based on an assumed North America and the Caribbean: British population ratio of 41.7:21.8 (Mitchell, 2003), and a North American and Caribbean consumption per person equal to that of Britain per person. We assume homothetic identical preferences in Britain and North America and the Caribbean. Total final use: For each sector, consumption plus exports minus imports.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Crafts, N. F. R. 1985. British Economic Growth during the Industrial Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Davis, Ralph. 1979. The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Davis, Ralph. 1979. The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Deane, Phyllis and W. A. Cole. 1967. British Economic Growth, 1688–1959. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Durand, John D. 1977. “Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation,†Population and Development Review 3: 253–96.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Ellison, Thomas. 1858. A Handbook of the Cotton Trade. London: Longman.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Ellison, Thomas. 1968. The Cotton Trade of Great Britain. New York: A. M. Kelley.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Exports from the rest of the world to North America and the Caribbean are assumed to have same composition. The level of exports from the rest of the world to North America and the Caribbean is computed from Irwin’s U.S. Historical Statistics total US imports estimate of $174 million, with $75 million coming from the UK, in 1850 (Irwin, 2006b). A balancing factor of 22.8 m. is added to rest of the economy exports from the rest of the world to North America to assure overall trade balance in both the rest of the world and North America and the Caribbean.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Exports: Exports to North America and the Caribbean, and to the rest of world are from Davis (1962), pp. 302–3. Since Davis only gives data for 1752–4 and 1772–4, the figures for 1772–4 were used. A balancing factor of 2.88 is added to rest of the economy exports to the rest of the world to assure overall trade balance for England.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Findlay, Ronald, and Kevin H. O’Rourke. 2007. Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Flinn, M.W. 1984. The History of the British Coal Industry, vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Geary, Frank and Tom Stark. 2004. “Trends in Real Wages during the Industrial Revolution: a View from Across the Irish Sea.†Economic History Review 57: 362–395.
- Great Britain, 1850s Cotton textiles: Cotton here includes cotton and linen and jute. The value of output is taken as 67.8 m. based on value of imports of cotton, flax, indigo and other dyestuffs of 31.6 m. (Davis 1979, 109, 124–5) and a markup estimate (Harley 1998, table 5, 64). Labor and capital shares in value added are assumed 50:50 based on Harley (1998), and Harley and Crafts (2000), but modifying for the absence in our model of the non-traded sector. The implied value added in “cottons†is 6.3% of total value added.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Habakkuk, H. John, and Phyllis Deane. 1963. “The Take-Off in Britain.†In The Economics of Take-Off into Sustained Growth, ed. W. W. Rostow, 63–82. London: Macmillan.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Harley, C. Knick, and N. F. R. Crafts. 2000. “Simulating the Two Views of the British Industrial Revolution.†Journal of Economic History 60(3): 819–841.
- Harley, C. Knick, and N. F. R. Crafts. 2000. “Simulating the Two Views of the British Industrial Revolution.†Journal of Economic History 60(3): 819–841.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Harley, C. Knick. 1993. “Reassessing the Industrial Revolution: A Macro View,†in Joel Mokyr (ed.), The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective, 171–226. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Harley, C.Knick. 2004. “Trade: Discovery, Mercantilism and Technology.†In The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain, Volume I, Industrialisation, 1700–1860, ed. Roderick Floud and Paul Johnson, 175–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Haub, Carl, 1995, “How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?†Population Today, February, p. 5.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Hyde, Charles K. 1977. Technological change and the British iron industry, 1700–1870. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Imports: Imports are partitioned into those from North America and the Caribbean, and those from the rest of World (including Ireland). For North America and the Caribbean, and the rest of World, the data are from Davis (1979), pp. 109, 124–5 on imports minus re-exports into the UK, and are the average of the years 1854–6. The Davis figures include Ireland. We thus need to allocate these imports between Britain and Ireland.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Imports: Imports from North America and the Caribbean, and the rest of world are from Davis (1962), pp. 300–1. Since Davis only gives data for 1752–4 and 1772–4, the figures for 1772–4 were used. Total final use: This is the sum of production and imports minus intermediate uses for each sector. Final use here means total supply to the market net of intermediate use.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Imports: Imports from the UK are based on Davis’s export data for the UK to the rest of the world for 1854–6, adding in British exports to Ireland. Exports from North America and the Caribbean to the rest of the world are assumed to have same composition as UK imports from this region. The level of exports from US to the rest of the world is estimated from Doug Irwin’s U.S. Historical Statistics exports estimate of $144 million total exports from the US compared to $71 million going to the UK in 1850 (Irwin, 2006a). Exports: Exports to the UK are based on Davis’s import data for the UK from the rest of the world.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Inputs of guano, etc. from UK imports given by Davis (1979) assuming all of this went to British agriculture . Labor, capital, and land shares of 0.41, 0.15, and 0.44 are based on Clark (2002), table 2.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Ireland’s population was 21.6% of UK population, but since we assume Irish income per person was only 0.6 of that in the UK (comparing wages as in Clark (2005), and Geary and Stark (2004)), Irish income was only 14.2% of UK income. We assume the only imports to the UK going to Ireland were tropical foods (tea, coffee, sugar etc.), and allocate these proportionally to income. This gives Ireland 3.2 m. of such imports, compared to British consumption of 19.0 m. Ireland is assumed to export just linen textiles and food to England. We assume linen imports to Britain from Ireland equal British cotton textiles exports from Britain to Ireland. We assume consumption of each good in Ireland is 16.55% of British consumption based on the estimated relative incomes above (and implicitly assuming that preferences are identical and homothetic in Ireland and Britain). That makes Irish cotton textile consumption 4.7 m., and hence linen exports 4.7 m. also.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Iron and steel: The output of 1.57 m. is from Deane and Cole (1967, 221). The coal input of 0.19 m. is calculated from the input : output ratios given in Hyde and coal prices calculated from Clark and Jacks (2007, 67). Labor and capital shares are 67:33 based on Harley and Crafts (2000).
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Iron and steel: This is here taken to include other metals and metal manufactures such as tin, copper, lead and zinc. Employment in these sectors was 5.5% of all employment in England and Wales in 1851. To account for these other metal sectors output was taken as 69.4, 1.5 times the output for iron alone given by Deane and Cole (1967, 225) figure for iron alone. Coal inputs of 11 m. calculated from coal required per ton given in Hyde (1977, 142, 153). Labor and capital shares are 67:33 based on Harley and Crafts (2000). This implies a value added share of 10.1%. The employment share of the metal industries in England and Wales was just 5.5%, but given the high assumed capital/labor ratio this is reasonable.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Irwin, Douglas A. 2006a. “Table Ee533-550 Exports, by Country of Destination: 1790–2001.†In Historical Statistics of the United States, Millennial Edition On Line, edited by Susan B. Carter, Scott Sigmund Gartner, Michael R. Haines, Alan L. Olmstead, Richard Sutch, and Gavin Wright. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5-534–539.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Irwin, Douglas A. 2006b. “Table Ee551-568 Imports, by Country of Origin: 1790–2001.†In Historical Statistics of the United States, Millennial Edition On Line, edited by Susan B. Carter, Scott Sigmund Gartner, Michael R. Haines, Alan L. Olmstead, Richard Sutch, and Gavin Wright. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5-540–545.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- McCloskey, Deirdre N. 2010. Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- McEvedy, Colin and Richard Jones. 1978. Atlas of World Population History, Facts on File, New York, pp. 342–351.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Mitchell, Brian R. 2003. International Historical Statistics: the Americas, 1750–2000. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Mitchell, Brian R. and Phyllis Deane. 1971. Abstract of British Historical Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Mokyr, Joel. 1977. “Demand vs. Supply in the Industrial Revolution.†Journal of Economic History 37(4): 981–1008.
- Mokyr, Joel. 2009. The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain 1700-1850. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Other textiles: Represents wool and silk. The value of outputs 14.88 and intermediate inputs of wool and flax (3.15) are from Deane and Cole, 1967, 196, 210. Raw and thrown silk inputs (0.75) are from Davis (1962), 300. Labor and capital shares are assumed 50:50 based on the 1850s shares.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Other textiles: These are the wool and silk industries. The value of outputs of 60.4 m. and intermediate inputs (15.8 for wool and 6.3 for silk) are from Deane and Cole (1967, 196– 210) and Davis (1979). Labor and capital shares are again taken as 50:50. The implied value added here is 6.6%. That makes the combined value added in all the textile industries 12.9%. The employment share of all textiles in 1851 in England and Wales was 11%, but this is assumed a more capital intensive sector than on average.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Parliamentary Papers. 1852–3. Population Tables II: Ages, Civil Condition, Occupations and Birthplaces. Vol. LXXXVIII, Parts I and II.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Pomeranz, Kenneth. 2000. The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Rest of the economy: Nominal GDP of 95.3 m. from Clark (2001), table 3. Value added based on residual GDP not accounted for by other sectors. Labor and capital shares are 70:30 as in 1850.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Rest of the economy: Total nominal GDP for Britain of 576.6 was calculated by scaling up figure of 503.8 for England and Wales from Clark (2001), table 3, by the ratio of British to English and Welsh populations (21.81:18.83). Value added in the rest of the economy is calculated as a residual between this scaled up figure and the sums of output for the above industries. All tropical raw materials not used as imports in other sectors are assumed to be inputs here. In this sector, which includes large amounts of services, the inputs were assumed to be 70% labor and 30% capital.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Rest of the World, 1850s Production: In each sector, output is total final use minus imports plus intermediate uses. All intermediate input shares are as in Britain, except coal is replaced by wood produced in the agricultural sector. Labor and capital shares are assumed at 70:30 for cotton textiles, other textiles, iron and steel, coal and the rest of the economy, reflecting less mechanization (lower capital shares) than in Britain. The labor, capital and rent shares in agriculture, tropical raw materials and tropical food are set at 40%, 20%, and 40% as in British agriculture. Production plus net imports is set to final consumption.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Sources Cited in the Data Appendix Clark, Gregory. 2001. “The Secret History of the Industrial Revolution.†Working Paper. University of California, Davis.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Stokey, Nancy L. 2001. “A Quantitative Model of the British Industrial Revolution, 1780– 1850.†Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 55: 55–109.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Table 1. Trade flows, 1760s and 1850s ( millions) Source: See text.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Table 3. Counterfactual results, 1850s Notes: BM = Benchmark (the world as it actually was, with trade flows set to their actual levels). No NAM = North American endowments set to 5% of actual. No ROW = rest of world endowments set to 5% of actual. Neither = North American and rest of world endowments set to 5% of actual. TRM = Armington elasticity of substitution between North American and rest of world tropical raw materials. TFOOD = Armington elasticity of substitution between North American and rest of world tropical food.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Table 5. Growth in total factor productivity and endowments, 1760s-1850s (per cent per annum) TFP growth Cotton 2.4 Other textiles 1.1 Iron and steel 1.4 Coal 0.2 Agriculture 0.3 Rest of economy 0.32 Total economy 0.486 Factor endowment growth Labour 1.2 Capital 2.1 Source: see text.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- The employment share of this sector in England and Wales in 1851 was 5.9%, so this figure seems reasonable (Parliamentary Papers, 1852–3).
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- These outputs are again scaled up to Britain by multiplying by the relative farm areas of Britain and England in 1866.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Thomas, Brinley. 1985. “Escaping from Constraints: The Industrial Revolution in a Malthusian Context.†Journal of Interdisciplinary History 15(4): 729–753.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Thomas, Robert P., and Deirdre N. McCloskey. 1981. “Overseas Trade and Empire 1700– 1860.†In The Economic History of Britain since 1700, ed. Roderick Floud and Donald N. McCloskey, 87–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Total final use: Sum of all the above. (Final use here means total supply to the market net of intermediate use.) Exports: Exports to Ireland, North America and the Caribbean, and the rest of World are calculated separately. For North America and the Caribbean, and the rest of World the data is from Davis (1979), p. 101, and is the average of 1854–6. Exports of cotton, iron and steel and coal to Ireland are based on the assumption that Britain produces the entire UK output, and Irish consumption is 0.142 of the UK total. To balance trade between Britain and Ireland we assume Britain exports 10.25 m. of “rest of the economy goods to Ireland.†This makes total British exports to Ireland 29.7 m. A balancing factor of 38.2 is added to rest of the economy exports to the rest of the world to assure overall trade balance in the UK as well as in Britain.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now