1. Discuss concisely the factors that made the "transportation revolution" possible.

The institutional changes brought about by the Glorious Revolution made the
transportation revolution possible. The institutional changes reorganized economic institutions in
favor of entrepreneurs and innovators, in such a way wherein security and efficiency in property
rights were significantly improved, enabling the creation of roads, canals, turnpikes and the like.
This eventually resulted in lower transportation costs, and therefore, the transportation revolution
(Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).
Before 1688, property rights were insecure, because much of the land was held in
equitable estates. Lands could not be mortgaged, leased, or sold by landowners, making it hard
for them to use the lands for business purposes. They were also fearful of the constant threat of
land expropriation by more powerful people. After 1688, property rights were more secure as a
result of the Parliaments, their constituencies, and citizens working hand in hand to simplify and
recognize property rights into hundreds of acts. People then invested their money into turnpikes,
making it possible for producers and individuals to go from one place to another at a cheaper
cost and faster pace (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).
This is illustrated by the case of river Salwerpe wherein in 1662, the Parliament signed an act to
encourage investment to make the river navigable. The Baldwyn family invested money into this
to get the right to charge for using the river to transport goods. And, when the Earl of
Shrewsbury and Lord Coventry tried to transfer the right for themselves, Sir Timothy Baldwyn
was able to petition and the Parliamentary was able to uphold the bill. This showed that
pluralistic institutions could be persuaded by petition, and whenever there was a threat to
property rights, petitions made such individuals more secure. The state was incorporating more
inclusiveness into their institutions, which allowed different groups to pursue interests in a civil
manner. Such inclusiveness, changes in ownership, and the increased opportunities for
individuals to persuade pluralistic institutions are what drove the transportation revolution
(Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

2. Discuss concisely the wool industry's efforts to protect itself from imported textiles.

The wool industry was under the threat of cheaper imports of silks and calicoes from China
and East India. Therefore, the Parliament and their constituencies aimed to protect the local
industry; and, at the same time, to make the local economy flourish, they found ways for
alternative producers and competition to enter the market in a civil manner. In the 1600s,
protectionism was implemented which outlaws the wearing of lighter cloths. The Parliament also
passed laws in 1666 and 1678 to outlaw burials in wool and shroud. Acts were also lobbied to
restrict imports of calicoes and silks in 1695 and 1697. In 1721, the Calicoes Act was also
lobbied to pass, outlawing the reexportation of such items to Europe and other American
colonies. To allow competition, the Parliament allowed laws with their constituencies raising
local textile markets' profits as well as market and entry barriers, so long as the constituencies
did not put out new players from entering the market (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

3. Why was the Manchester act a major victory for the nascent cotton manufacturers?

After 1688, the wool industry sought protectionist policies by presenting bills to court to
restrict the wearing and using of Asian textiles, their major competition; the Calicoe Act was also
passed to restrain people of Great Britain to use any type of garment made of calico. This
empowered their industry, leaving the domestic cotton and linen industry as their next major
competition that they had to trump. Cotton and linen were usually mixed to make fustian which
was a popular cloth in Great Britain. Despite the attempts of the wool industry to clamp down on
linen, they "encountered strong opposition from fustian producers in the burgeoning industrial
centers of Manchester, Lancaster, and Liverpool" (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). Due to the
pluralistic political institutions of the kingdom, the different groups were able to engage in the
policy process in Parliament via voting and petitioning. The cotton and linen manufacturers as
well as wool manufacturers were able to amass signatures for their petitions, but "the outcome of
this conflict was a victory for the new interests against those of the wool industry" (Acemoglu &
Robinson, 2012). In 1763, the Manchester Act was passed by Parliament which agreed that linen
and cotton have been manufactured and used for several years in the kingdom of Great Britain
thus it should not be banned from the kingdom, especially since nothing in the Calicoe Act -
which banned garments made outside Great Britain - extends to that of the domestic cotton and
linen industry. The Manchester Act, therefore, was a significant victory for the cotton
manufacturers, but it also reflected important historical and economic aspects: "it demonstrated
the limits of entry barriers that the pluralistic political institutions of parliamentary England
would permit," and the cotton industry would also bring about great technological innovations
which would eventually play a key role in transforming society by introducing the factory
system, then contributing to the establishment of the Industrial Revolution (Acemoglu &
Robinson, 2012).

References
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity,
and poverty. Crown Publishers.