ROSTOW : THE CRITIQUE THE ATTACK WAS ‘BROAD, INTENSE [AND] PUBLICISED’ (SUPPLE) IT SURVIVES AS ‘A STRAW MAN FOR

TEACHERS OF ECONMICS AND ECONOMIC HISTORY’ (SUPPLE) !) TH BROAD CRITIQUE ") $) FALSE UNIFORMITY IN STA#ES PRO#RESSION HOW ESSNTIAL WERE THE IDENTIFIED ‘PRECONDITIONS’%

") & $) NE'T LECTURE () )) HOW DOES A COUNTRY MOVE FROM ONE ‘STA#E’ TO ANOTHER% THE ‘TAKE OFF’: *) **) ***) *,) ,) ,*) IS IT: ") $) () A - CHAN#E IN OUTPUT DISTRIBUTION AMON# VARIOUS INDSTRIES% A - CHAN#E IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF INPUTS (LABOUR, CAPITAL)% A MEANS OF DIFFERENTIATIN# BETWEEN ‘TEMPORARY’ OR ‘PERMANENT’ CHAN#ES% WHAT DOES ‘INDUSTRIALISATION TAKIN# HOLD’ MEAN% HOW FAR MUST INDUSTRIALISATION PROCEED BEFORE IT ‘TAKES HOLD’% WHAT IS ‘A DECISIVE BREAK+THROU#H FOR ‘THE FORCES OF MODERNISATION’% WHAT IS ‘A SUBSTANTIAL MANUFACTURIN# SECTOR’% WHAT IS ‘A HI#H RATE OF #ROWTH’% WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘STRUCTURAL CHAN#E’ IN THE ECONOMY’%

LIMESTONE.ROSTOW DOEES NOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS E) THE NATION STATE AND THE ‘RE#ION’ AS THE VEHICLE FOR INDUSTRIALISATION:+ THE POLLARD PERSPECTIVE ON C!. N W #ERMANY 0 ") *) THE SPECIFIC CRITIQUE THE BRITISH CASE WITH RFERENCE TO ‘TAKE+OFF’ !1. COAL (BACKWARD) STEAM POWER EN#INEERIN# LOWERED INPUT COSTS FOR CONSUMIN# INDUSTRIES (FORWARD) THE AMERICAN CASE WITH REFERENCE TO ‘TAKE+OFF’ 6) ROBERT FOL#EL : ‘THE DESTROYER’ TAKE+OFF. S BEL#IUM. !243+61 PROPELLED BY RAILROADS VIA BACKWARD AND FORWARD LINKA#ES BACKWARD 7 CONSTAUCTION PHASE FORWARD 7 COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE .NET INVESTMENT NOT ACHIEVED UNTIL POST+!231 REASONS :+ NEW STATISTICAL/EMPIRICAL WORK POINTIN# TO ") MODEST #ROWTH ACROSS THE TAKE+OFF STA#E NB CRAFTS $) () • • LIMITED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS CLASSIC ‘FACTORY SYSTEM’ ONLY DEVELOPS AFTER !231 WAS COTTON THE ONLY LEADIN# SECTOR IN VIEW OF THE CASE FOR IRON: OUTPUT ROSE 4' !521+!211 LINKA#ES → IRON ORE. EUROPE FOCUSSIN# ON CROSS+ BORDER MOVEMENTS OF CAPITAL/LABOUR & TRANSPORT & TRADE (N E FRANCE.

FO#EL’S CASE FOCUSSES ON BACKWARD LINKA#ES WITH ‘SECONDARY #ROWTH SECTORS’ * 8 SUPPLYIN# INDUSTRIES !) IRON : IRON OUTPUTS ↑ 3'. RAILROADS DEMANDED ‘LESS THAN HALF OF ONE PERCENT OF LUMBER PRODUCTION’ TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT ‘IN !29. !241+61 RAILROAD SHARE OF TOTAL OUTPUT 7 !5.(!1.. THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE OUTPUT OF VEHICLES DRAWN BY ANIMALS WAS STILL ALMOST TWICE AS #REAT AS THE OUTPUT OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE CELEBRATED IRON HORSE’ ‘NAIL IN THE COFFIN’ ‘NAILS RATHER THAN RAILS’:: 3) 4) 9) CONCLUSION ROSTOW’S THESIS IS CONTEPTUALLY FLAWED AND WHEN PUT TO THE TEST HIS ‘FACTS’ ARE WRON# BUT ON THE POSITIVE SIDE !) 0) 3) ROSTOW’S ‘THEORY’ TRI##ERED OFF AN ENORMOUS RESEARCH EFFORT HIS TERMINOLO#Y BECAME EMBEDED IN THE LITERATURE HE ADVANCED ‘KNOWLED#E AND UNDERSTANDIN#’ NE'T LECTURE ROSTOW .!241+91) 0) COAL DIRECT DEMAND BY RAILROADS WAS ‘NE#LI#IBLE’ : EARLY US LOCOS WERE FUELLED BY WOOD: LUMBER !241+!261. #ERSCHENKRON .