In defense of the Malthusian interpretation of history

Gregory Clark

European Review of Economic History, 2008, vol. 12, issue 2, 175-199

Abstract: The four reviews make the following major criticisms of the book: (1)A Farewell to Alms assumes one important revolution in economic history, the Industrial Revolution. In reality there were two, with the Neolithic Revolution of equal importance (George Grantham).(2)World income levels did rise between the Stone Age and 1800 (Gunnar Persson, Hans-Joachim Voth).(3)The Malthusian model has been shown to be inapplicable to pre-industrial Europe (Grantham, Persson).(4)The claim of ‘survival of the richest’ is just the revival of discredited and dangerous social Darwinism? (Deirdre McCloskey).(5)There was no Darwinian selection for ‘bourgeois characteristics’ in the pre-industrial world of settled, institutionally stable agrarian societies (McCloskey).(6)The recent growth of India and China, and the experience of immigrants to the USA, easily refute the view that survival of the richest had any impact (McCloskey).(7)The ideas of A Farewell to Alms are not new, merely uncredited borrowings from others (McCloskey, Persson, Voth).

Date: 2008
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:ereveh:v:12:y:2008:i:02:p:175-199_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in European Review of Economic History from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().