What drove the precocious industrialisation in Britain was not demand for machines but rather (as Joel Mokyr and his co‐authors have argued) the supply of useful knowledge and the skills needed to put it into practice. They were the force behind early innovation. But they did not act alone. They were reinforced by British institutions, which gave the British economy a century's head start over the rest of Europe and likely too over the rich parts of Asia. The institutions included a uniform fiscal and legal system; an effective means of training apprentices, who had escaped from local guild control; and a parliament that could raise taxes and exercise eminent domain but was at the same time a credible protector of private property. Among other things, these institutions facilitated the transportation of goods such as coal and they were backed up by policies that worked in favour of manufacturing. Together, the institutions and policies generated agglomeration effects that encouraged innovation. The agglomeration effects were more pronounced in western Europe than anywhere else in Eurasia and more developed in Britain than anywhere else.

中文翻译：

---

巨大的分歧：为什么英国首先实现工业化

推动英国早熟工业化的不是对机器的需求，而是（正如 Joel Mokyr 和他的合著者所说）提供有用的知识和将其付诸实践所需的技能。他们是早期创新背后的力量。但他们并不是单独行动的。它们得到了英国机构的加强，这让英国经济在一个世纪以来领先于欧洲其他地区，也很可能领先于亚洲的富裕地区。这些机构包括统一的财政和法律制度；一种有效的培训学徒的方法，这些学徒已经脱离了当地公会的控制；议会可以提高税收和行使征用权，但同时也是私有财产的可靠保护者。除其他事项外，这些机构促进了煤炭等货物的运输，并得到了有利于制造业的政策的支持。这些制度和政策共同产生了鼓励创新的集聚效应。西欧的集聚效应比欧亚大陆的其他任何地方都更加明显，而英国的发展也比其他任何地方都要发达。