Joel Mokyr

Mokyr posits that the Industrial Revolution was the result of culture and institutions.[11] He argues that the root of modernity is in "the emergence of a belief in the usefulness of progress", and that "it was a turning point when intellectuals started to conceive of knowledge as cumulative".[12]

Mokyr furthermore argues that political fragmentation (the presence of a large number of European states) made it possible for heterodox ideas to thrive, as entrepreneurs, innovators, ideologues, and heretics could easily flee to a neighbouring state in the event that the one state would try to suppress their ideas and activities. This is what set Europe apart from the technologically advanced, large unitary empires such as China and India. China had both a printing press and movable type, and India had similar levels scientific and technological achievement as Europe in 1700, yet the Industrial Revolution would occur in Europe, not China or India. In Europe, political fragmentation was coupled with an "integrated market for ideas" where Europe's intellectuals used the lingua franca of Latin, had a shared intellectual basis in Europe's classical heritage and the pan-European institution of the Republic of Letters.[13]

Mokyr presents his explanations for the Industrial Revolution in the 2016 book A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy. The book has received positive reviews. Deirdre McCloskey described it as a "brilliant book... It’s long, but consistently interesting, even witty. It sustains interest right down to page 337... The book is not beach reading. But you will finish it impressively learned about how we got to where we are in the modern world."[14] In her review, McCloskey furthermore lauded Mokyr as a "Nobel-worthy economic scientist".[14]

In a review published in Nature, Brad DeLong found that while he favored other explanations for the Industrial Revolution, "I would not be greatly surprised if I were wrong, and Mokyr's brief...turned out to be the most broadly correct analysis...A Culture of Growth is certainly making me rethink."[15]

Cambridge economic historian Victoria Bateman wrote, "In pointing to growth-boosting factors that go beyond either the state or the market, Mokyr's book is very welcome. It could also feed into discussions about the scientific community post-Brexit. By reviving the focus on culture it will, however, prove controversial, particularly among economists.[16] However, a fine definitional distinction is to be considered between the ″culture as ideas, socially learned" and ″culture as inheritance transmitted genetically". This Economist article makes the distinction clear.[17] The book has also been reviewed favorably by Diane Coyle,[18] Peer Vries,[19] Mark Koyama,[20] Enrico Spolaore,[21] and The Economist.[22]

Mokyr outlined three reasons why societies resist new technologies:

• Incumbents who fear a threat to their power and economic rents
• Concern about broader social and political repercussions ("unintended ripple effects")
• Risk and loss aversion: new technologies often have "unanticipated and unknowable consequences"

"These three motives often merge and create powerful forces that use political power and persuasion to thwart innovations. As a result, technological progress does not follow a linear and neat trajectory. It is, as social constructionists have been trying to tell us for decades, a profoundly political process."[23]