- Taschenbuch: 588 Seiten
- Verlag: University of Chicago Press (30. November 2010)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 0226556743
- ISBN-13: 978-0226556741
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 15,2 x 3,8 x 22,9 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: Schreiben Sie die erste Bewertung
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 204.190 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
- Komplettes Inhaltsverzeichnis ansehen
Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 30. November 2010
|Neu ab||Gebraucht ab|
Wird oft zusammen gekauft
Kunden, die diesen Artikel gekauft haben, kauften auch
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
“The startling perspective McCloskey brings to the history of economics qualifies her as the Max Weber of our times. This is a wonderfully entertaining and stimulating antidote for the reigning view of "Homo Economicus".”—Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
“Over a wide range of nations and times, McCloskey advances the arresting thesis that humble ideas, especially those pertaining to the role of a bourgeois dignity, supply the spark that jumpstarts the rest of the process. Readers will be impressed with the breadth of her knowledge, the clarity of her thought, and the sophistication of this finely wrought book.”—Richard Epstein --Richard Epstein
“Deirdre McCloskey has embarked on a heroic enterprise, the wholesale reconsideration of the modern capitalist economy. The author’s lightness of touch is deeply admirable: competing hypotheses from the Protestant Ethic to technological determinism are rounded up and dispatched in a wonderfully invigorating fashion, and not the least of the many virtues of "Bourgeois Dignity "is the demonstration that serious argument can also be fun.”—Alan Ryan --Alan Ryan
"The startling perspective McCloskey brings to the history of economics qualifies her as the Max Weber of our times. This is a wonderfully entertaining and stimulating antidote for the reigning view of "Homo Economicus"."--Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
"Over a wide range of nations and times, McCloskey advances the arresting thesis that humble ideas, especially those pertaining to the role of a bourgeois dignity, supply the spark that jumpstarts the rest of the process. Readers will be impressed with the breadth of her knowledge, the clarity of her thought, and the sophistication of this finely wrought book."--Richard Epstein --Richard Epstein
"Deirdre McCloskey has embarked on a heroic enterprise, the wholesale reconsideration of the modern capitalist economy. The author's lightness of touch is deeply admirable: competing hypotheses from the Protestant Ethic to technological determinism are rounded up and dispatched in a wonderfully invigorating fashion, and not the least of the many virtues of "Bourgeois Dignity "is the demonstration that serious argument can also be fun."--Alan Ryan --Alan Ryan
Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com
While the ideas and content are excellent, I found the writing painful to read. It could've been written in one-third as many pages without skipping any content whatsoever. After a few hundred pages, it was hard to not start skimming.
I'd love for these ideas to be read by as many people as possible, but I wouldn't want to put anybody through the pain of reading this book. If you have a lot of time and want to read an interesting perspective on economic history, then I recommend buying and at least skimming this book. Otherwise, I'd skip it.
Beside of freedom, Professor McCloskey adds another quite important element which contributes to the ascent of middle class in Western countries before, and later in the East Asia: "dignity". The task of circumscribing its meaning in an effective way is surely difficult and it could be better understood declining the Latin concept of "dignitas" in a bourgeois way. European bourgeoisie won the hostility of kings and princes, resisted against the exploitation from political power but gained also an unprecedented legitimation of its role winning also the "social envy" deeply rooted in rural and pre-capitalist societies.
Indeed, some criticisms are quite right:
- the role of saving and innovation appears underscored, with particular regard of the cumulative effects of both;
- focusing too much in the attempt to show why the industrial revolution didn't happen there and there the author gives the impression to be victim of a confirmation bias;
- trying to isolate the "right" and "exclusive" causes of an unique, irreversible and so fruitful event probably is a too hard task for both history and economics.
But the reader should deserve credit to Professor McCloskey and her work: criticisms should be contextualized. Focusing on "liberty" and "dignity" the author catches a very important combination of elements which enable us a better and deeper understanding of the role the bourgeoisie during the industrial revolution. It's my personal conviction that it is better and more fruitful to incorporate the "core" of the lesson than overemphasizing the imperfections of an ambitious task which stresses unconventional but very interesting thesis.
Even if I don't agree completely with all the ideas exposed in the book, when asserted in a "strongest" form, I hope it could be translated as soon as possible in Italian.
Dr. Silvano Fait
First the author starts the book by explaining what she defines as "The great fact" which is the fact that while for most of history living standards have been stagnated at a very low level, circa 3 dollars a day in per capita terms according to the book while in the last 250 years incomes have exploded by a factor conservatively estimated at 10-20 times. While I agree that modern economic growth was unique in terms of scale I do not think that for the whole of human history economic growth was insignificant. This is demonstrated by the fact that huts escavated by archaeologists in China dated from the neolithic and the bronze age increased in size by a factor of 3-4 (from 7-8 square meters to 25-30 square meters). While the tiny huts of 14th century peasants were actually a great improvement over the huts of Celtic and Germanic tribesmen, or from the huts of early medieval peasants. From a geographical perspective, the living standards in 1st century Roman Italy were much better than those of Northern Europe, in terms of housing the difference is huge: houses dug in Italy were 20-30 times larger than the huts of the celts and germans. The living standards in Europe improved steadily (though, very slowly) from the 8-9th centuries to the 18th century. Seem from the perspective of modern growth, however, it looks quite small in scale and was a very slow process. So the author is correct on the uniqueness of modern economic growth, but I wouldn't stress so much the lack of economic progress in the pre-modern world.
The author does an excellecent job in demolishing the very numerous falacious theories of why the industrial revolution occured. Theories of the industrial revolution range from the idea that people got more greedy, from the concept of primitive accumulation of capital, where centuries of accumulation of "frozen capital" were at once deployed into the great industrial facilies that started the modern era and from the eugenic theories that centuries of genetic selection in England favoured people more adapted for industrialization. McClonskey demolishes all these theories and them proposes her own explanation for the Great Fact: that cultural change was the fundamental cause of the modern era. Before the 18th century innovating entrepreneurs weren't accorded dignity and after the "bourgeois reevaluation" they were.
In that respect I agree with the author, but the exact details seem a bit lacking. After reading the book I had a much better idea of invalid models for the industrial revolution but I still am not fully convinced that it was cultural change in the direction of greater dignity for entrepreneurial activities that played the fundamental role. While the author claims that it wasn't the size of the British or European market that created the industrial revolution by arguing that trade in the Indian ocean was larger in scale and involved larger markets than European pre-industrial markets. That's incorrect. It was estimated that Indian ocean trade involved merchant fleets of gross tonnage ranging from 50,000 to 100,000 tons. For comparison, the whole European merchant fleet by 1780 AD had gross tonnage of 3.8 million tons, at the time when the industrial revolution is said to have begun, dozens of times larger than those of non-European societies. While the last 200 years have been spectacular, one has to remember that in all of human history no previous civilization had reached the degree of complexity attained by Europe at the turn of the 19th century. It was a civilization of over 200 million people (the combined population of Europe and it's American offshots) covering half of the world's landmass, while Chinese and Indian civilizations covered 5% of the world's landmass and had populations of 130 and 160 million respectivelly, in 1700 AD. Britain by 1780 had over 10 million inhabitants and represented the most complex economy of this size in all of human history: Athens and Venice also were complex and prosperous market economies, but their populations numbered only the hundreds of thousands. Large countries were historicaly poor and simple subsistence economies (like pre-modern France and China). So the argument that scale and the size of the markets is not a valid explanation for the Great Fact because other markets in the past were bigger is not valid: not in all of human history there was a market economy comparable in scale to the extended order of European civilization by the time of Napoleon. And scale is important because more people engaged in a market means more ideas which means more innovations which means faster economic progress.
The very fast economic progress of recent decades is also the consequence of the even greater scale of our modern global market economy of billions of individual potential innovators. I conclude that the scale of our modern markets is an important element of our uniquely fast rate of economic progress as more people mean more ideas and more ideas means more innovations which implies in faster economic growth.
Ähnliche Artikel finden