Rehabilitation sustained: the industrial revolution as a macroeconomic epoch
T he industrial revolution continues to perplex and arouse. At the heart of the recent debates lies the issue of whether or not the industrial revolution was a fundamental historical discontinuity. Revisions by Crafts and Harley both to Deane and Cole's domestic product, and to Hoffmann's industrial output estimates, appear to have weighed heavily against the idea of discontinuity.' Lee's recent survey noted the general dilution of the revolutionary drama, while Mokyr has pondered on the crowding out of the industrial revolution.2 The apparent triumph of gradualism has provoked vigorous counter argument from Berg and Hudson, Hoppit, and Jackson.3 Those critics emphasize the fragility of the output estimates, and the limitations of the growth accounting approach. They complain that they fail to capture the richness and diversity of the industrial revolution. Curiously, the main revisionists have categorically denied that their estimates of slower growth for the period I780-i830 negate the idea of a fundamental discontinuity. Crafts and Harley have explicitly stated that British growth in the century to i850 was historically unique and internationally remarkable. Wrigley's recent essay also observed no inconsistency between the industrial revolution as the major discontinuity in British history and the revised growth estimates.4 Seemingly, the industrial revolution debates have been multi-layered. At a basic level the veracity of the revised estimates is at issue. Beyond this are equally perplexing questions of how the output estimates should be interpreted, and whether the macroeconomic approach has utility. These issues of interpretation are the chief concern of this comment. We focus on and prefer the revised estimates of Crafts and Harley, but also consider those of Hoffmann.