In my last post I discussed how Christian Welzel’s
book, Freedom
Rising has reinforced me in the view that the story of human
flourishing is all about emancipation. As people obtain more action resources (wealth,
intellectual skills and opportunities to connect with others) they tend to
adopt emancipative values and to engage in collective action to attain more
civic entitlements. Life provides greater opportunities for most people as this
process occurs.
Before proceeding further it may be worth noting that there
is evidence that poor people in low-income countries place value on economic
freedom and the right to express their opinions e.g. the survey evidence by Deepa
Narayan, Lant Pritchett and Soumya Kapoor discussed by William Easterly in The Tyranny of Experts, p 150 (which was
reviewed on this blog a few weeks ago). It is hardly surprising that poor people
do not like governments stealing their property or impeding their endeavours to
earn more income and then telling them to shut up when they complain. Humans
don’t have to become wealthy before they perceive that they have natural rights
that should be respected.
In this post I consider whether or not Freedom
Rising provides a satisfactory explanation of the conditions that got
the ball rolling toward improved civic entitlements by enabling people to
achieve higher material living standards, first in western Europe and then in
many other parts of the world. It is important to have an understanding of
the factors that led to the industrial revolution in order to consider whether
a reversal of those factors could cause the processes of emancipation and human
flourishing to be interrupted.
Professor Welzel identifies an environmental condition, the
cool-water (CW) condition, as the source of the expansion in action resources
associated with the industrial revolution. The CW condition is a combination of
moderately cold climates, rainfall in all seasons, and permanently navigable
waterways. These conditions are important because cool temperatures diminish
infectious diseases, decelerate soil depletion and diminish physical exhaustion
from work; continuity of rainfall improves land productivity and keeps water
sources healthier; and permanently navigable waterways are a lubricant for
economic exchange. Under the CW condition, soil is arable without irrigation,
small farming households can work relatively large sections of land on their
own, there is no need for extended families with many children to provide
labour, and families do not have much need for community support. The CW
condition enables people to have water autonomy – it prevents a central power
from monopolising access to water as a means of controlling people.
The development of
urban markets occurred late in the CW societies, but once urban markets emerged
in the CW societies of western Europe, the CW conditions made those societies
more vibrant by generating “derivative autonomies, such as autonomy in
marketing one’s skills, ideas and produce – the engine of technological
advancement”.
It seems plausible to me that the CW conditions improved the
odds that the industrial revolution would occur in western Europe rather than
in some other part of the world at a comparable stage of technological
development, e.g. China. My problem is that narrowing the source to western
Europe provides, at best, a partial explanation. Why did the industrial
revolution begin in north-western Europe rather than, for example, in
south-western Europe?
If we want to answer that question then it seems to me that
it is useful to look at economic history and, in particular, the works of
people like Joel Mokyr and Deidre McCloskey. I suppose it is predictable that I
might take that view since that is the approach taken in Chapter 7 of my book, Free to Flourish, and in posts on this
blog (for example here and here).
Joel Mokyr has suggested that the industrial revolution
should be referred to as the industrial enlightenment. He argued in The Enlightened Economy that a sustained period of
industrial innovation was made possible because the “legitimisation of
systematic experiments carried over to the realm of technology”.
Deidre McCloskey presented her views about the importance of
value change as follows:
“In particular, three centuries ago in places like Holland
and England the talk and thought about the middle class began to alter.
Ordinary conversation about innovation and markets became more approving. The
high theorists were emboldened to rethink their prejudice against the
bourgeoisie, a prejudice by then millennia old. … In northwestern Europe around
1700 the general opinion shifted in favour of the bourgeoisie and especially in
favour of its marketing and innovating. … People stopped sneering at market
innovativeness and other bourgeois virtues …”.
In Free to Flourish I
concluded my discussion of drivers of opportunity in the following terms:
“This account of the historical drivers of opportunity
underlines the importance of economic freedom in determining the advance of
technology and innovation. Yet, the ongoing expansion of opportunities depends
on much more than just formal rules and economic incentives. It also depends
importantly on beliefs, ideologies and social norms.
One implication is that inter-personal trust and supportive
public attitudes toward commerce need to be recognised as important factors
influencing the growth of opportunities. Another implication is that the
economic freedom necessary for ongoing growth of opportunities cannot be
sustained unless prevailing beliefs, ideologies and norms are supportive.”
The relationship between prevailing values and economic
freedom seems to me to be a topic worth exploring further. It would be
interesting to see to what extent emancipative values are correlated with values
that support economic freedom. Are emancipative values protective of economic
freedom, or is there reason to be concerned that such values are leading to
increased pressure for “entitlements” that threaten economic freedom and hence
the further growth of action resources?
No comments:
Post a Comment