Gregory Clark, ,A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World (2007) Princeton...
1
feature which is important to successful implementation of the invention, but which is absent from Bell’s patent application. Inter- estingly, this feature suddenly appeared in Bell’s notebook soon after his return from this eventful day at the US Patent Office in Washington. This led to much soul-searching by the author since the impli- cations of this finding conflicted with what had been accepted as fact by many eminent, academic previous authors, many of whom were specialist historians. Clearly he felt that he needed to inves- tigate matters very thoroughly before putting forward his alterna- tive interpretation with any realistic hope of being given credence. This he does and reports his various findings in some detail throughout the book. For example, the point made about who filed first on the day in question, 14 February 1876, was found by the author to be open to a lot of doubt. In principle, the US Patent Office did not record the time of deposition of patent applications, in part because some were filed directly with the relevant examiner, while others came by hand to a central reception point. However they eventually decided that they could look into and determine which of Bell’s and Gray’s applications arrived first on the day in this particular case, to Gray’s disadvantage. In addition he comments that then, as now, in cases of poten- tial interference between applications filed on the same day, the US Patent Office would normally have been more concerned about who conceived the invention first, but that did not happen here. Another piece of possible evidence arises from the testimonies of the patent examiner involved. At one stage he affirmed that he had shown Gray’s caveat to Bell, but other testimonies of his put a quite different complexion on matters – the differences perhaps accounted for his apparently being an alcoholic. I found this book absorbing and enjoyable, as the author inter- weaves the information he found on the patents and the inven- tions, the personalities of the inventors and their financial backers, and the author’s own path of actions and considerations in his research. The book is well written and you will find yourself balancing in your own mind this new and compelling interpretation with the long accepted view. Recommended reading and good value for money. Michael Blackman E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2008.05.001 A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World, Gregory Clark. Princeton University Press, USA (2007). ISBN: 978- 0-691-12135-2. Patents for invention go back to the 15th century but, given the extremely slow rate of technological change, only became impor- tant and assumed their present form after the Industrial Revolu- tion in the UK, around 1760–1780, and subsequently elsewhere. However, historians have never agreed why this revolution first occurred in the UK at that particular time, rather than in ancient Rome, China, etc. Various explanations have been mooted, e.g. political stability, sophisticated financial institutions, low taxation, the rule of law, cheap coal supplies, etc. However, many other places had these features and no revolution occurred till after the UK – in fact many parts of the world still have not had one de- spite much effort by their governments and interested outsiders such as the World Bank and IMF. Gregory Clark is an economics professor in California and has come up with a novel explanation based largely on a detailed study of the UK genealogical/historical records in the 1200–1800 period. In brief he notes that the UK (like all other pre-industrial revolution societies) were in the so called Malthusian trap, i.e. population in- creased till resources of food, etc. became scarce at which point malnutrition, disease, etc. reduced the population and the cycle re- started. Technological improvement was very slow and sometimes even regressed. In the UK the population tended towards 6 million at which point many were at or below the bread line. In fact the only periods of rapidly rising living standards were in the aftermath of a major catastrophe, e.g. the Black Death 1347–1349, when population fell and the survivors had greater individual shares. However, contrary to popular belief, the UK was a relatively stable society not greatly disrupted by warfare with substantial opportu- nities for upward mobility. Hence, the able and ambitious could rise in class and make money. All the genealogical data shows that gen- erally the more money people made the more surviving children they left and thus, over the generations, an increasing percentage of the population were descended from the more affluent, i.e. those who valued literacy and numeracy, working hard, saving, deferring gratification, not indulging in casual violence, etc. The only dissi- dent wealthy group were the aristocracy whose main business was warfare and whose consequent death rate gave them poor reproductive success. Thus by 1750 the UK was a society having a high proportion with these cultural attributes and, despite the UK government having little concern with industrialisation, education, etc. the people exploited the numerous advantages the UK enjoyed and made the Industrial Revolution. This may seem a rather bizarre explanation well removed from normal economics but there is a wealth of data to support his argu- ments and he does offer plausible explanations for inconvenient facts. For example, one of the most lucrative new UK industries was cotton textile manufacturing, which had achieved world wide dominance by 1850 despite the UK having to import cotton and where wages for fairly unskilled machine minders were far higher than elsewhere. As the UK was eager to sell the latest textile machinery to anyone in the world (and provide technicians, man- agers, etc.) it is surprising that the UK textile industry was not destroyed by overseas competition within a few years. However, it remained dominant till 1914 and was not badly affected till the 1930s. His explanation lies in the culture of the societies who started their own competing industries. As a keen genealogist I was amazed to find this useful applica- tion for genealogical research, and as a historian of science and technology I was fascinated to find a novel explanation for the Industrial Revolution which led to our life’s work in patents. An interesting and thought provoking book. Brian Spear 36 Starling Close, Buckhurst Hill, Essex IG9 5TN, UK E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2008.05.002 Book reviews / World Patent Information 30 (2008) 344–345 345
-
Upload
brian-spear -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Gregory Clark, ,A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World (2007) Princeton...
Book reviews / World Patent Information 30 (2008) 344–345 345
feature which is important to successful implementation of theinvention, but which is absent from Bell’s patent application. Inter-estingly, this feature suddenly appeared in Bell’s notebook soonafter his return from this eventful day at the US Patent Office inWashington.
This led to much soul-searching by the author since the impli-cations of this finding conflicted with what had been accepted asfact by many eminent, academic previous authors, many of whomwere specialist historians. Clearly he felt that he needed to inves-tigate matters very thoroughly before putting forward his alterna-tive interpretation with any realistic hope of being given credence.This he does and reports his various findings in some detailthroughout the book.
For example, the point made about who filed first on the day inquestion, 14 February 1876, was found by the author to be open toa lot of doubt. In principle, the US Patent Office did not record thetime of deposition of patent applications, in part because somewere filed directly with the relevant examiner, while others cameby hand to a central reception point. However they eventuallydecided that they could look into and determine which of Bell’sand Gray’s applications arrived first on the day in this particularcase, to Gray’s disadvantage.
doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2008.05.001
doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2008.05.002
In addition he comments that then, as now, in cases of poten-tial interference between applications filed on the same day, theUS Patent Office would normally have been more concernedabout who conceived the invention first, but that did not happenhere.
Another piece of possible evidence arises from the testimoniesof the patent examiner involved. At one stage he affirmed that hehad shown Gray’s caveat to Bell, but other testimonies of his put aquite different complexion on matters – the differences perhapsaccounted for his apparently being an alcoholic.
I found this book absorbing and enjoyable, as the author inter-weaves the information he found on the patents and the inven-tions, the personalities of the inventors and their financialbackers, and the author’s own path of actions and considerationsin his research.
The book is well written and you will find yourself balancing inyour own mind this new and compelling interpretation with thelong accepted view. Recommended reading and good value formoney.
Michael BlackmanE-mail address: [email protected]
A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World,Gregory Clark. Princeton University Press, USA (2007). ISBN: 978-0-691-12135-2.
Patents for invention go back to the 15th century but, given theextremely slow rate of technological change, only became impor-tant and assumed their present form after the Industrial Revolu-tion in the UK, around 1760–1780, and subsequently elsewhere.However, historians have never agreed why this revolution firstoccurred in the UK at that particular time, rather than in ancientRome, China, etc. Various explanations have been mooted, e.g.political stability, sophisticated financial institutions, low taxation,the rule of law, cheap coal supplies, etc. However, many otherplaces had these features and no revolution occurred till afterthe UK – in fact many parts of the world still have not had one de-spite much effort by their governments and interested outsiderssuch as the World Bank and IMF.
Gregory Clark is an economics professor in California and hascome up with a novel explanation based largely on a detailed studyof the UK genealogical/historical records in the 1200–1800 period.In brief he notes that the UK (like all other pre-industrial revolutionsocieties) were in the so called Malthusian trap, i.e. population in-creased till resources of food, etc. became scarce at which pointmalnutrition, disease, etc. reduced the population and the cycle re-started. Technological improvement was very slow and sometimeseven regressed. In the UK the population tended towards 6 millionat which point many were at or below the bread line. In fact theonly periods of rapidly rising living standards were in the aftermathof a major catastrophe, e.g. the Black Death 1347–1349, whenpopulation fell and the survivors had greater individual shares.However, contrary to popular belief, the UK was a relatively stablesociety not greatly disrupted by warfare with substantial opportu-nities for upward mobility. Hence, the able and ambitious could risein class and make money. All the genealogical data shows that gen-erally the more money people made the more surviving children
they left and thus, over the generations, an increasing percentageof the population were descended from the more affluent, i.e. thosewho valued literacy and numeracy, working hard, saving, deferringgratification, not indulging in casual violence, etc. The only dissi-dent wealthy group were the aristocracy whose main businesswas warfare and whose consequent death rate gave them poorreproductive success. Thus by 1750 the UK was a society having ahigh proportion with these cultural attributes and, despite the UKgovernment having little concern with industrialisation, education,etc. the people exploited the numerous advantages the UK enjoyedand made the Industrial Revolution.
This may seem a rather bizarre explanation well removed fromnormal economics but there is a wealth of data to support his argu-ments and he does offer plausible explanations for inconvenientfacts. For example, one of the most lucrative new UK industrieswas cotton textile manufacturing, which had achieved world widedominance by 1850 despite the UK having to import cotton andwhere wages for fairly unskilled machine minders were far higherthan elsewhere. As the UK was eager to sell the latest textilemachinery to anyone in the world (and provide technicians, man-agers, etc.) it is surprising that the UK textile industry was notdestroyed by overseas competition within a few years. However,it remained dominant till 1914 and was not badly affected tillthe 1930s. His explanation lies in the culture of the societieswho started their own competing industries.
As a keen genealogist I was amazed to find this useful applica-tion for genealogical research, and as a historian of science andtechnology I was fascinated to find a novel explanation for theIndustrial Revolution which led to our life’s work in patents.
An interesting and thought provoking book.
Brian Spear36 Starling Close, Buckhurst Hill,
Essex IG9 5TN, UKE-mail address: [email protected]
