Economic rent has always been a factor in developed economies. Economic rents are a way of enriching oneself without producing anything extra, such as renting out a property, the rent of which is a product of demand and supply more than producing economic value. Open societies do not rely on economic rents for growth. Britain during the late 1600s- mid 1700s had an open internal market within the UK where goods could be sold across the country. Spain and France did not, which enabled landowners to make a lot of money, but not actually contribute to economic growth. Britain was therefore able to win the wars with countries by having a more tax producing economy. Again, the parallels to today jump out. movement of people within the UK is being hampered by high rents/social liquidity, keeping poor people and poor areas poor. Post revolution Britain was much better than the pre-version, where land/rents took nearly 24% of national income, compared to 11% after. Geography still dictates trade. During the high years of British imperialism, (1870) only 25% of exports went to the empire, and by 1900 only to 30%. Europe remained the UK’s most important export market. Obviously, there's a good deal to to take issue with here. For example, in his explanation of the lead up to the industrial revolution, there's no mention of the enclosures or any of the other profound changes to English agriculture which made the rise of capitalism possible. And his treatment of the Empire is cursory and downright shameful.

The UK is, at the same time, both one of the world’s most successful economies and one of Europe’s laggards. The country contains some of Western Europe’s richest areas such as the south east of England, but also some of its poorest such as the north east or Wales. Looking into the past helps understand why. This is an amazing book of economic history, drawing on the best mainstream works and explanations, written by a journalist, so it is engaging and easily understandable. The author further sprinkles it, especially in the earlier chapters, with bits of macroeconomic theory, so it should be comprehensible for most readers.The book has a few themes throughout the narrative - the importance of path dependence, the benefits of specialisation at various points (like the decline of agriculture during the World Wars that allowed Britain to focus on manufacturing and financial support for the Allies) or the impact of political decisions on economic reality (like the allocation of costs in things like the Corn Laws, the influence of the growth of home ownership on interest rate decisions etc). All of these points should be more present in the public debate, not just in Britain. For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the “Settings & Account” section. If you’d like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

I enjoyed this - it’s exactly the sort of readable, concise narrative (interspersed with enough statistics to help assure you it’s rigorous and some good anecdotes) that you’d expect from a BBC and Economist journalist. The author points to vested interests being a powerful force in hampering economic progress. For example, politicians tried to manufacture pre-election booms which led to stop -go episodes. Union power prevented economic progress. Later the trade unions were reformed by Thatcher and this eventually led to an economic revival. Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the “Settings & Account” section. What happens at the end of my trial? With Christmas coming up, a book about economics seemed like suitable seasonal reading... though, having read about some of the haphazard and downright reasonless decision making leaders have made, it's perhaps better suited to Halloween.

The UK is, at the same time, both one of the world's most successful economies and one of Europe's laggards. The country contains some of Western Europe's richest areas such as the south east of England, but also some of its poorest such as the north east or Wales. It's really not much of an exaggeration to describe the UK, in economic terms, as 'Portugal but with Singapore in the bottom corner'. Looking into the past helps understand why.

The book shows how the Industrial Revolution essentially set the UK off on a path which has taken other countries in Europe the best part of c150 years to catch up with and how, more recently, the UK has struggled to work out what economic a coherent economic approach looks like (the Brexit debate is highlighted as typical of this incoherent approach). With the rise of the entrepreneur, the landed gentry became less influential. Despite productivity increases the working class benefited little. The great reform act of 1832 changed the structure of the House of Commons and ended the dominance of the aristocracy. A central theme to the book is how the role and shape of the state has changed and adapted over time - not often for purely ‘ideological’ reasons, but more in response to economic developments and challenges, as well as the need to cope with huge global events (WW1 and WW2 loom large). The book was surprisingly enjoyable given that economics is a notoriously dry subject, even managing to be funny in places and engaging throughout. Historical information and a focus on theory vs. reality made it easy to understand, and meant that case studies were naturally woven into the text. Globalisation ebbs and flows. The world of 1914 was much more globalised in relative terms that the world economy of 1979. Britain was the premier financial centre of the world in the late Victorian world, declined during the war years (1914 – 1970), and them boomed again between 1980 and the 2008.

A terrific achievement, covering clearly but with subtlety everything from the spinning jenny to Covid-19’ In war, do not think that trade did not continue. In 1809-1810 Britain continue to buy grain from France to feed its troops. The money France received helped fund their war, while France also needed clothing from the UK, which helped fund the UK war. French troops where often killed by the British wearing coats made in Northampton and Leeds. While the book mostly feels like an engagingly-written history of one economic event after another, Weldon emphasises a few recurring themes one can take away from economic history. Some of these do definitely stand out in his history, like the importance of political and social context, and how constant economic debate has been over the years. Weldon also emphasises 'path dependency', which he says 'is perhaps best thought of as the idea that the route one took to arrive somewhere is just as important as the destination'. I had more trouble understanding what this means, and how his history bears this out. How could history be anything other than path-dependent? What would a non-path-dependent economy look like, even hypothetically? Centuries of a largely agrarian economy vanished with the Industrial Revolution. Productivity and standards of living rose. The population and production moved from homes in the country to crowded towns. Increased coal production was needed to power mills. Canal traffic rose and railways boomed.

Muddling Through’ is a superb, detailed overview, charting 200 years of British economic history. For a nation immersed in the traditions of entrepreneurial innovation and ambitious start-up companies, it’s surprising how little space economic history seems to occupy in the minds of the general population. Surely all British school children should be given a more detailed idea of how the Capitalist engines of The City of London operate, considering their enormous influence on the economy. 2008 reminds us of how high are the stakes when the global financial system goes wrong. Surely such scandalous collapses would be less likely if the masters of the financial universe were held to account by an educated, informed population… All the major points and figures from the past 200 years are contextualised and explained - the Industrial Revolution, (the repeal of) the Corn Laws, the Attlee reforms and ‘new Jerusalem’, and the Thatcher response (and reversal?) to this. You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many user’s needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here. The Malthus theory states that the world is governed by a brutal logic; human wants are infinite but human means were finite. Put simply, to limit starvation and masses of poor people, the best way to restrict population growth. Feeding the poor would only result in more poorer people. In some way it links in with your theory about housing and governments liking to restrict the population growth and therefore in the short run/their premiership taxation costs. Rapid population decline is not what governments want, as like Spain in the 1930, there are not enough people to harvest the corn.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for 65 € per month.