Intro. [Recording date: July 1st, 2026.]
Russ Roberts: Welcome to July 1st, 2026! Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Ben Southwood, a founding editor of Works in Progress and former head of research at Create Streets, as well as heading Housing at Policy Exchange.
Our discussion revolves around a compelling essay you penned for the Works in Progress Newsletter, which I discovered on Substack. I highly recommend checking it out—your site is quite impressive, and I hear the print edition is equally appealing. The essay is intriguingly titled, “The Secret Cause of the Industrial Revolution: Cue the Exciting Music.”
Ben, delighted to have you on EconTalk.
Ben Southwood: Thanks for having me!
Russ Roberts: Before diving into your essay, could you explain what Works in Progress is all about?
Ben Southwood: A few friends and I came together in 2020—back when I had the luxury of time due to pandemic lockdowns—and decided to start an online magazine. We were inspired by the many brilliant voices we knew that weren’t getting the attention they deserved. Our idea was simple: showcase their work on our platform and enjoy the benefits that would follow.
That concept has evolved into a full-time venture for me. Initially, it was just a fun side project; now, we have a print magazine, thousands of subscribers, and are working toward establishing ourselves as a legitimate media business.
Our tagline is: “New and underrated ideas to improve the world.” We focus on topics like advancements in global health, the development of new drugs, and case studies showing how property rights can drive economic growth. Our aim is always to draw parallels that can offer lessons for growth and progress globally.
Russ Roberts: I must say, the version I encountered on Substack is visually stunning. I regret not subscribing to the print edition; I’m sure its aesthetic is equally impressive.
Ben Southwood: I can’t take credit for that. We have a fantastic art director who does a remarkable job, and we receive a lot of compliments on our design.
Russ Roberts: It truly is beautiful!
Russ Roberts: You open your essay with a bold statement:
Industrial modernity was invented in the English midlands around the end of the eighteenth century, launching an unprecedented global rise in living standards that continues today. The surprising catalyst for this revolution was a lesser-known political upheaval from the century prior, known in English history as the Glorious Revolution. This revolution is often remembered for establishing constitutional monarchy, limiting the monarch’s power in favor of Parliament. However, what is particularly fascinating is how Parliament wielded its newfound authority: by unraveling excessively complex property rights, thus enabling sustained investments in infrastructure and agriculture across England. Unlike most political revolutions, this transformation unfolded largely peacefully and with the consent of those whose rights were being redefined.
What a compelling introduction! You mention, “Today, the Glorious Revolution is remembered for ____.” Please fill in the blank, as many listeners may be unfamiliar with it.
Ben Southwood: Absolutely! I’m going to draw a somewhat stronger parallel than history may justify, but it’s helpful for understanding the Glorious Revolution.
Essentially, the Glorious Revolution represents a pivotal moment in a broader sequence of revolutions and conflicts in Britain and America from the early 1600s to the late 1800s. You can view the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution itself, and the American Civil War as different manifestations of the same underlying struggle.
At its core, this struggle pits the older aristocracies—who derived their wealth from land rents, often gained through conquest—against a rising mercantile elite fueled by trade, technology, and scientific advancements. While this may oversimplify the situation, it’s a useful framework.
During the English Civil War, mercantile interests emerged victorious but sought to establish their own hereditary system. The eventual restoration of King Charles II, son of the executed Charles I, led to tensions, especially as Charles II attempted to pass the throne to his openly Catholic brother, James II. Fearing a return to absolutism, the mercantile elite invited the Protestant William of Orange to invade England. Remarkably, this invasion faced minimal resistance; James II capitulated without significant conflict, leading to the reestablishment of Parliament’s rights.
Russ Roberts: So, the simplified narrative is that out of fear of a Catholic king, influential figures in England preferred to be ruled by a foreigner, albeit one connected by marriage to the royal family.
Ben Southwood: Precisely! The key aspect was that William was a Protestant, which reassured the mercantile elite that their interests would be safeguarded. They believed that if they invited him in as king, he would respect Parliament’s authority in crucial matters.
Russ Roberts: A side question for a non-Brit: why would William agree to this? Imagine him in the Netherlands, receiving a letter asking him to lead troops to England to displace a king. What was his motivation to support Parliament’s agenda over the monarchy?
Ben Southwood: That’s an intriguing question! While I don’t have a definitive answer, it seems that William had ambitions to take control of England, and upon discovering a powerful faction willing to support him, he became more inclined to accept their invitation. The group that reached out to him was known as the Immortal Seven, who outlined the various grievances against James II’s rule.
James was perceived to be steering the country toward absolutism by attempting to exert control over local governments and manipulate elections to favor his supporters.
Russ Roberts: So, this situation isn’t merely about institutional reform; it also involves addressing the perceived threat of a king reverting to a more authoritarian style of governance. But let’s set that aside for now.
Russ Roberts: Consequently, Parliament grew more active and enacted numerous laws. You assert in your essay that Parliament’s changes to property rights had significant implications.
Imagine our discussion as a conversation about the rules of the game. You have institutional rules, social norms, and legislation. Your assertion is that empowering Parliament—which primarily represented the landowning class—led to remarkably positive outcomes.
In contrast, consider a situation like that of Japanese farmers, who benefit from legislative privilege that raises rice prices for everyone else. Here, you argue that these landowners had Parliament enact productive measures rather than exploitative ones. Is that a fair summary?
Ben Southwood: Absolutely! There are two key points to consider. First, some scholars argue that the fundamental aspect of the Industrial Revolution was constraining the monarch’s power. While there’s merit to that perspective, I believe it may be somewhat overstated. In fact, after the Glorious Revolution, the English Parliament and state became even more vigorous than their continental counterparts.
Second, it’s essential to note that Parliament was predominantly composed of landowners. After 1711, one had to own a substantial amount of land to stand for Parliament. Thus, Parliament’s decisions were inherently biased toward landowner interests. Interestingly, rather than merely safeguarding their privileges, Parliament’s actions often resulted in positive reforms.
While they didn’t strip landowners of their holdings, the property rights of the time were notably different from today’s standards. For instance, landowners often faced restrictions that prevented them from effectively managing their holdings.
In the 17th century, landownership didn’t equate to the rights we associate with property today. Tenants had hereditary rights to farm the land, meaning landowners couldn’t easily remove them. Additionally, landowners often lacked the authority to mortgage or sell their estates, leading to inefficiencies.
Russ Roberts: Before we delve deeper, could you elaborate on the concept of common land and its significance?
Ben Southwood: Certainly! Historically, common land was prevalent, but it’s often misunderstood. Many assume that everyone had equal access to it, but typically, only local landowners had rights to graze their animals or utilize the land, based on complex rules.
For instance, landowners would have specific allowances, called ‘stints,’ dictating how many animals they could graze based on their land holdings. The rules governing common land were intricate, with various stipulations that prevented overuse.
Another significant system was the open field system prevalent across much of Europe. This arrangement divided farmland into small strips owned by numerous tenants, creating a collective farming system. While this provided some insurance against localized risks, it also hindered innovation and efficiency.
As people began to seek new agricultural techniques and crops, the limitations of the open field system became apparent. Coordination issues arose when attempting to introduce new methods or crops, leading to stagnation.
Russ Roberts: It’s worth noting that many of these so-called “inefficiencies,” such as strip farming and restrictive land use, served as a form of social safety net in a time when subsistence was precarious. These inefficiencies persisted because they offered security in an uncertain world.
I always understood that primogeniture—the law requiring the oldest son to inherit land—was designed to avoid the inefficiencies of strip farming. The fragmentation of land would reduce productivity, but the social safety net aspect cannot be ignored; it provided stability in a time when starvation was a real threat.
Suddenly, with Parliament’s reforms, productivity surged, capital accumulation began, and the stage was set for the Industrial Revolution. These reforms not only improved agricultural productivity but also allowed for broader investment in technology.
So the question arises: why did Parliament undertake these significant reforms? Your essay provides charts and data illustrating Parliament’s legislative activity during this transformative period. What drove this legislative explosion?
Ben Southwood: Excellent question! To understand this, we must consider Parliament’s historical context. In the 1500s and early 1600s, Parliament was often prorogued, abruptly shut down by the monarch when it became inconvenient. This stifled legislative activity and limited landowners’ ability to address their issues.
When Parliament reconvened following the Glorious Revolution, landowners flooded in with grievances, seeking resolutions to their property rights dilemmas. They were less interested in broad public goods and more focused on untangling their rights issues for personal benefit.
In this climate, Parliament began systematically addressing these property rights issues, allowing landowners to invest, improve their land, and, ultimately, increase productivity. They sought to ensure that the reforms would not disadvantage existing heirs or entitlements, which was crucial for maintaining support among landowners.
Russ Roberts: This situation is reminiscent of the modern political landscape where vested interests often slow progress. Many contemporary debates revolve around how to balance property rights and community interests, especially in urban areas.
As you’ve illustrated, the historical context of the Glorious Revolution offers valuable insights into how legislative reforms can catalyze growth by enabling property rights, facilitating investment, and fostering infrastructure development.
Indeed, the explosion of legislative activity in Parliament led to significant advancements in infrastructure, which were foundational for the Industrial Revolution.
Could you elaborate on the specific types of legislation that Parliament enacted to improve infrastructure, such as toll roads and canals?
Ben Southwood: Certainly! Parliament allowed for the construction of toll roads, navigable canals, and improved river systems. Before these reforms, England’s transportation infrastructure was woefully inadequate, hampering economic activity.
In the 1660s, Parliament began granting statutory authority to local enterprises to build and maintain roads and canals, providing the necessary funding and legal framework to improve transportation. This marked a significant shift in how infrastructure was developed, leading to a network of turnpikes and navigable waterways.
By 1840, Britain had constructed an extensive system of toll roads, far surpassing other European nations in road density and efficiency. This infrastructure revolutionized the movement of goods and people, ultimately facilitating the growth of national markets.
Russ Roberts: The implications of your argument are profound, particularly regarding the interplay between agriculture, legislative reform, and technological innovation. The reforms you describe laid the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution by enhancing agricultural productivity, which in turn facilitated capital accumulation and technological advancements.
However, some may be skeptical of attributing the Industrial Revolution’s success solely to these reforms. What are your thoughts on the broader context of innovation and technological change during this period?
Ben Southwood: I think it’s fair to say that some form of industrialization would have occurred even without these reforms. The continuous drive for innovation, as highlighted by scholars like Joel Mokyr and Anton Howes, played a critical role in shaping this era. However, I also believe the legislative reforms significantly accelerated the process and expanded its benefits.
It’s essential to recognize that while technology is crucial, the supporting infrastructure and institutional framework are equally important in enabling innovation. The historical context illustrates how a conducive environment for investment and development can amplify technological progress.
Russ Roberts: As we conclude, let’s reflect on the modern implications of your analysis. The challenges we face today regarding property rights and urban development parallel the historical struggles of the past. What lessons should we draw from the Glorious Revolution in addressing contemporary issues surrounding property rights and urban planning?
Ben Southwood: One critical takeaway is the need for a multifaceted approach to land reform. While advocacy plays a vital role, history shows that grassroots movements can effectively drive change. The Glorious Revolution exemplified how collective action among landowners led to significant reforms.
Modern movements advocating for increased housing supply and infrastructure development should consider strategies that involve community engagement and local buy-in. Implementing reforms that enable larger-scale developments—like graduated density zoning or land assembly districts—could facilitate more efficient land use and address the pressing housing crisis.
Ultimately, the lessons from history remind us that effective land reform requires a balance of individual property rights with the collective good, ensuring that development benefits the broader community.
Russ Roberts: My guest today has been Ben Southwood. Thank you for sharing your insights on EconTalk.
Ben Southwood: Thank you for having me!
