Technology and Social Change

Lecture 7: Revision for Midterm

Bogdan G. Popescu
bgpopescu@tec.mx

Tecnológico de Monterrey

Learning Outcomes, Skills, and Themes

Introduction

Learning Outcomes of the Course (Reminder)

  • Explain key concepts and theories linking technological change to social, political, and economic development
  • Compare major theoretical perspectives on how technology shapes institutions, inequality, and growth
  • Apply course theories to real-world cases, assessing the social and political consequences of specific technologies
  • Critically evaluate empirical claims about technological change, identifying assumptions, evidence, and limitations
  • Communicate clear, well-structured arguments about technology and development in written exams, oral presentations, and class discussion

1. Explaining Key Concepts and Theories

You should be able to define these concepts and explain why they matter:

  • Institutions (North): the rules that structure economic and political life, and why they persist
  • Inclusive vs. extractive institutions (Acemoglu & Robinson): why some societies reward innovation and others suppress it
  • Fictitious commodification (Polanyi): why treating labor, land, or attention as commodities generates social harm
  • Induced innovation (Allen): why the direction of technological change depends on factor prices, not just ingenuity

2. Comparing Theoretical Perspectives

Each comparison revealed something that a single theory could not:

  • Diamond vs. Acemoglu & Robinson: geography explains where agriculture began, but not why the same geography produced different outcomes. Institutions fill the gap.
  • Rome, Mesopotamia, and Han China (Boix, Allen): three different institutional paths all led to stagnation, showing that extractive institutions block growth regardless of the specific form they take.
  • England vs. the Ottoman Empire (Rubin, Dittmar): the same technology (the printing press) flourished or was suppressed depending on who held political power. Technology does not diffuse on its merits alone.

3. Applying Theories to Real-World Cases

Theory turns puzzling cases into explainable ones:

  • Why did Rome build aqueducts but not water mills? Allen’s factor prices: slavery made labor cheap, so labor-saving machines were not worth building.
  • Why does social media harm teenagers despite connecting billions? Polanyi’s double movement: attention was commodified, harm accumulated, and counter-movements (GDPR, Australia’s ban) followed.
  • Why did cities near Mainz grow faster after 1500? Dittmar used distance from Mainz as an instrument to show the press caused growth, not just that growing cities adopted it.

4. Critically Evaluating Empirical Claims

We learned to ask: does the evidence actually support the claim? For example, we:

  • Identified a causation problem: Dittmar (2011) could not simply compare cities with and without presses, because richer cities may have adopted first. He used distance from Mainz to isolate the causal effect.
  • Spotted a scope condition: Allen’s induced innovation explains Rome (cheap slaves, no mechanization) and Britain (expensive labor, steam engine), but fits less well for China, where abundant labor coexisted with significant state-directed innovation.

4. Critically Evaluating Empirical Claims (cont.)

  • Evaluated competing explanations for the same data: agriculture and modern GDP are correlated (Putterman & Weil, 2010), but both Diamond (geography) and Acemoglu & Robinson (institutions) claim to explain it. The correlation alone cannot distinguish between these theories.

Skills Gained/Enhanced

  • Critical Thinking: evaluate and compare competing theories of technological and social change
  • Analytical Skills: analyze research questions using theoretical arguments and empirical evidence
  • Effective Communication: articulate clear and structured arguments in oral and written form
  • Comparative Perspective: examine political and economic outcomes across different global contexts

Lecture 1: Foundations and Framework

Lecture 1: The Core Causal Chain

The course is built around one framework:

Technology (material change) –> Social Change (new organization) –> Development (long-run outcomes)

Five analytical tools applied in every lecture:

  1. Causation: Does A actually cause B?
  2. Mechanisms: How does A cause B?
  3. Distribution: Who benefits? Who loses?
  4. Path Dependence: How do past choices constrain today?
  5. Institutions: What rules shape technology’s effects?

Lecture 1: The Agricultural Revolution

The Agricultural Revolution (~10,000 BCE) demonstrates the entire toolkit:

  • Causation: agriculture caused stratification
  • Mechanisms: surplus chain + population trap
  • Distribution: clear winners (land controllers, elites) and losers (laborers, women)
  • Path dependence: population growth locked in choices, making it impossible to go back
  • Institutions: property rights, taxation, coercive labor crystallized and persisted

Key authors: Harari (2015), Putterman & Weil (2010)

Lecture 1: Key Concepts

  • Technological determinism: the fallacy that technology autonomously determines outcomes
  • Path dependence: past choices limit future options (e.g., QWERTY)
  • Institutional mediation: same technology, different institutions, different outcomes (e.g., factory automation in Germany vs. USA)

The Agricultural Paradox (Harari): agriculture spread despite making most individual lives harder: more work, worse nutrition, more disease, more inequality.

Lecture 1: Potential Questions

  • Define the five analytical tools introduced in the course and apply each one to the Agricultural Revolution.
  • Was the Agricultural Revolution progress or a demographic trap? Evaluate both interpretations using evidence from at least two cases covered in class.

Lecture 2: Technology and Markets

Lecture 2: Polanyi’s Framework

Karl Polanyi (1944): The Great Transformation provides a general theory of how technology reshapes market-society relations.

Core thesis: Organizing society around self-regulating markets is a utopian project that would destroy the human and natural substance of society.

Three core mechanisms:

  1. Embeddedness / Disembedding: markets escape social constraints
  2. Fictitious Commodification: treating non-commodities (labor, land, money) as commodities
  3. The Double Movement: market expansion triggers protective counter-mobilization

Lecture 2: The Enclosure Movement

The Enclosure Movement (1750s–1850s, England) is a historical test case:

  • First Movement: agricultural technology + Parliamentary acts privatized common lands
  • Land as fictitious commodity: not produced for sale, supply cannot respond to price signals
  • Social harm: mass displacement, proletarianization
  • Second Movement: Poor Laws, Factory Acts, trade unions, welfare state

The Polanyian Cycle: Tech Change –> Market Expansion –> Fictitious Commodification –> Social Harm –> Counter-Movement –> New Equilibrium

Lecture 2: Social Media as Contemporary Case

Social media platforms follow the same Polanyian pattern:

  • First Movement: commodification of attention, social relations, personal identity
  • Fictitious commodity: attention (not produced for sale)
  • Social harm: mental health deterioration, misinformation, privacy erosion
  • Counter-movement: GDPR, Australia’s social media ban for under-16s, platform liability proposals

The same pattern (technology –> commodification –> harm –> institutional response) recurs across centuries with different content but identical structure.

Lecture 2: Potential Questions

  • Using Polanyi’s framework, analyze either the Enclosure Movement or social media platforms. Identify the disembedding mechanism, the fictitious commodity, and the counter-movement.
  • Compare the Enclosure Movement and social media platforms as cases of Polanyian dynamics. What structural pattern do they share, and what differs?

Lecture 3: Ancient Societies and Technology

Lecture 3: Institutions and the Producer-Looter Model

North (1990): Institutions are “humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic, and social interaction.” These include formal rules, informal constraints, and enforcement.

Acemoglu & Robinson (2012): Two institutional archetypes:

  • Inclusive: broad property rights, participation, rewards innovation
  • Extractive: power concentrated, extraction from many to few, suppresses creative destruction

Boix (2015): Agriculture created localized productivity clusters. Two strategies emerge: produce or loot. The state emerges as protection racket or coordination device.

Lecture 3: Allen’s Induced Innovation

Allen (2009): Innovation responds to factor prices, not random genius.

  • High wages + cheap energy –> labor-saving, energy-intensive machines (e.g., Britain: steam engine)
  • Low wages + cheap labor –> labor-intensive methods, no mechanization (e.g., India, China)

Why Rome didn’t mechanize: massive slavery (~30–40% of Italy enslaved) –> very cheap labor –> no incentive for labor-saving machinery. Allen’s logic: same technology is rational in one price context, irrational in another.

Lecture 3: Three Ancient Societies Compared

Dimension Mesopotamia Rome Han China
Core institutions Temple –> Palace Republic –> Empire Bureaucracy
Labor regime Corvee + slavery Massive slavery Peasantry + corvee
Key innovations Writing, irrigation Roads, concrete Paper, iron casting
Why no sustained growth Extractive temple/palace Slavery suppressed wages Abundant labor + institutional barriers

The Needham Question: Why no Chinese Industrial Revolution? Institutional (unified empire, limited competition), factor-price (abundant labor), and geographic (coal location) explanations remain debated.

Lecture 3: Potential Questions

  • Why did Mesopotamia, Rome, and Han China all fail to achieve sustained economic growth despite significant technological achievements? Answer using the Boix-Allen framework.
  • What is Allen’s induced innovation hypothesis? Use it to explain why Rome did not mechanize despite having sophisticated engineering.

Lecture 4: The Agricultural Revolution

Lecture 4: Surplus, Specialization, Hierarchy, Institutions

The core causal chain of the Agricultural Revolution:

Surplus (storage & accumulation) –> Specialization (division of labor) –> Hierarchy (elites emerge) –> Institutions (property rights & political order)

  • Feedback loop: institutions stabilize extraction, reinforcing surplus control
  • Agriculture was not just a dietary shift; it was the first technological revolution that restructured all human social organization

Lecture 4: Comparative Evidence

Agriculture emerged independently at least 7–11 times, with similar consequences:

  • Fertile Crescent (~9,000 BCE): wheat, barley; first cities (Uruk, 40,000+ by 3100 BCE); first writing as accounting for surplus
  • China (~8,000 BCE): rice (south), millet (north); “hydraulic hypothesis” (irrigation demands coordination)
  • Mesoamerica (~7,000 BCE): maize; no draft animals –> human labor substituted; complex states without the wheel

Cross-regional pattern: different crops, different constraints, but surplus –> hierarchy –> state formation in every case.

Lecture 4: Progress vs. Trap

Two competing interpretations:

  • Progress (traditional): more food –> more people –> specialization –> civilization
  • Trap (revisionist): harder work, worse nutrition, more disease, more inequality, and populations could not go back (Harari, Diamond)

Two causal models:

  • Environmental determinism (Diamond): geography –> agriculture timing –> technology spread –> development outcomes
  • Institutional mediation (Acemoglu & Robinson): geography –> institutions (shaped by critical junctures) –> development outcomes

Lecture 4: Synthesis

Synthesis: environment matters for initial conditions; institutions determine long-run outcomes. Path dependence is real but not deterministic.

Lecture 4: Potential Questions

  • Was agriculture humanity’s worst mistake or its greatest achievement? Evaluate both the progress and trap interpretations with evidence from at least two regions.
  • Agriculture emerged independently in the Fertile Crescent, China, and Mesoamerica. Why did all three follow the surplus-to-hierarchy pattern despite having different crops and constraints?

Lecture 5: The Printing Press

Lecture 5: The Technology and Its Disruption

Gutenberg’s movable-type press (~1440): a combinatorial innovation (movable metal type + oil-based ink + screw press + standardized paper).

  • Before the press: months of scribe labor per book; information monopolized by Church and monasteries
  • After the press: high fixed cost but near-zero marginal cost; ~20 million volumes by 1500; prices fell ~80% in 50 years

Literacy feedback loop: lower prices –> more readers –> more demand –> more books –> lower prices

Lecture 5: Social and Political Effects

The press changed who could say what to whom:

  • The Reformation: Luther deliberately wrote in German; cities with presses adopted Protestantism faster; ~6 million pamphlets in German lands (1518–1525)
  • Power shifted: from Church, scribes, and monarchs –> to Protestant reformers, urban merchant class, and vernacular intellectuals

Political economy framework: every technology creates winners and losers, and losers fight back. Adoption is not automatic; it needs institutional tolerance. Diffusion speed depends on the balance of power.

Lecture 5: The Ottoman Blocking Coalition

Why the Ottoman Empire resisted printing for ~290 years:

Three veto players:

  1. Scribal guilds (hattatlar): tens of thousands of calligraphers; livelihood threatened
  2. The ulema (religious scholars): controlled education, law, doctrine; printing bypasses their gatekeeper role
  3. The Sultanate’s patronage logic: depended on ulema for legitimacy, guilds for urban order

Lecture 5: The Ottoman Blocking Coalition (cont.)

The calculus: losers were organized, powerful, and inside the palace. Winners were diffuse and outside it.

Consequence: ~500 titles printed by 1800 (Ottoman) vs. millions (Western Europe); literacy ~2–3% vs. 30–60%.

Lecture 5: Empirical Evidence

Dittmar (2011): Cities that adopted the press early grew ~60% faster (1500–1600). Instrument: distance from Mainz.

Becker & Woessmann (2009): Proximity to Wittenberg –> Protestant adoption –> higher literacy four centuries later (1870s Prussian data). Mechanism: Protestant emphasis on reading scripture.

Rubin (2014): The press predicted Protestant adoption, but only where authorities didn’t block it. Technology is necessary but not sufficient; institutions are the binding constraint.

Lecture 5: Potential Questions

  • Why did the printing press transform Western Europe but not the Ottoman Empire? Answer using the political economy framework from the course.
  • To what extent did the printing press cause long-run economic development? Support your argument with at least two empirical studies covered in class.

The Exam

The Exam: Grading

The exam in relation to grading:

  • Contributions to Class 33%
  • Mid-term 33%
  • Final exam 33%

Contributions to Class (Reminder)

  • Presentation, physical presence, and class participation
  • Submit two questions based on the class readings via Canvas each week
  • Quality of questions matters, not just submission

The Exam: Format

Format

  • Duration: one hour
  • Answer two from six questions

Grading Criteria

Criterion Points
Answering the question 20
Empirical examples 20
Structure 20
Critical analysis 15
Definitions 10
References 10
Clarity of expression 5

Writing a Strong Exam Answer

Signposting

Signposting means using explicit phrases that tell the reader where your argument is going.

Purpose Example phrases
State your thesis “This essay argues that…”, “The central claim is…”
Introduce evidence “Turning to the case of…”, “This can be seen in…”
Present a counterargument “Not everyone agrees…”, “A competing explanation is…”
Respond to the counterargument “However, this overlooks…”, “While this is valid, it does not account for…”
Conclude “To sum up…”, “Taken together, the evidence suggests…”

Signposting makes your structure visible to the reader, which helps on Answering the Question, Structure, and Critical Analysis.

Topic Sentences and Paragraph Structure

Each paragraph should follow a point, evidence, analysis pattern:

  1. Point: open with a topic sentence that states the paragraph’s claim
  2. Evidence: support it with a specific case, author, or data
  3. Analysis: explain why this matters for your argument

Example:

  • Point: “Institutions shaped the direction of innovation, not just its pace.”
  • Evidence: “Allen (2009) shows that Rome’s reliance on slavery suppressed wages, removing the incentive to mechanize.”
  • Analysis: “This means that the same engineering knowledge produced different outcomes depending on the institutional context.”

Connecting Your Ideas

Your essay should read as one connected argument, not a list of separate points. Two techniques help:

1. Link paragraphs by showing how one point leads to the next:

  • Without linking: “Allen shows that slavery suppressed wages in Rome. The Ottoman Empire banned the printing press for 290 years.”
  • With linking: “Allen explains why no one in Rome had reason to mechanize. But the Ottoman case goes further: incumbents deliberately blocked a technology that others were already profiting from.”

2. Engage authors with each other, not just with the reader:

  • Listing (weak): “Allen says X. Rubin says Y. Mokyr says Z.”
  • Engaging (strong): “Allen and Rubin both support the institutional account, but from different angles: Allen focuses on economic incentives, while Rubin highlights political blocking coalitions. Mokyr challenges both by emphasizing the role of ideas.”

Both techniques improve your Structure and Critical Analysis scores.

Example Question and Answer

A Strong Answer

To what extent do institutions, rather than geography, explain why some societies developed sustained economic growth and others did not?

This essay argues that geography matters for initial conditions, but institutions determine long-run outcomes by shaping incentives for innovation and technology diffusion. Geography shaped where agriculture emerged: regions with domesticable crops and animals (Diamond, 1997) gained a head start. But institutions, defined by North (1990) as “humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic, and social interaction,” determined whether that head start became sustained growth. Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) distinguish inclusive institutions, which reward innovation, from extractive ones, which suppress it.

Turning to the evidence, Allen (2009) shows that factor prices, shaped by institutions, determined the direction of innovation. Rome never mechanized because massive slavery suppressed labor costs. Britain, by contrast, had high wages and cheap coal, making labor-saving machinery profitable. This explains why Britain industrialized while Rome did not.

While Allen explains why no one in Rome had reason to mechanize, the Ottoman case shows how incumbents can deliberately block technology. The Ottoman Empire resisted the printing press for 290 years (Rubin, 2014): scribal guilds and the ulema blocked adoption, delaying knowledge diffusion and widening the gap with Western Europe. Allen and Rubin support the institutional account from different angles: Allen focuses on economic incentives, Rubin on political blocking.

Not everyone agrees. Mokyr (2016) argues that Enlightenment ideas and a “culture of growth” enabled sustained innovation, suggesting material incentives alone cannot explain the breakthrough. However, without press freedom and open intellectual networks, those ideas could not have spread, which brings us back to inclusive institutions. Taken together, geography shapes where surplus emerges, but institutions determine what follows: Britain rewarded innovation, while Rome’s slavery and the Ottoman blocking coalition each prevented it.

Note: This is an idealized example. Your answer does not need to be this polished to score well.

A Strong Answer: Annotated

To what extent do institutions, rather than geography, explain why some societies developed sustained economic growth and others did not?

This essay argues that geography matters for initial conditions, but institutions determine long-run outcomes by shaping incentives for innovation and technology diffusion. Geography shaped where agriculture emerged: regions with domesticable crops and animals (Diamond, 1997) gained a head start. But institutions, defined by North (1990) as “humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic, and social interaction,” determined whether that head start became sustained growth. Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) distinguish inclusive institutions, which reward innovation, from extractive ones, which suppress it.

Turning to the evidence, Allen (2009) shows that factor prices, shaped by institutions, determined the direction of innovation. Rome never mechanized because massive slavery suppressed labor costs. Britain, by contrast, had high wages and cheap coal, making labor-saving machinery profitable. This explains why Britain industrialized while Rome did not.

While Allen explains why no one in Rome had reason to mechanize, the Ottoman case shows how incumbents can deliberately block technology. The Ottoman Empire resisted the printing press for 290 years (Rubin, 2014): scribal guilds and the ulema blocked adoption, delaying knowledge diffusion and widening the gap with Western Europe. Allen and Rubin support the institutional account from different angles: Allen focuses on economic incentives, Rubin on political blocking.

Not everyone agrees. Mokyr (2016) argues that Enlightenment ideas and a “culture of growth” enabled sustained innovation, suggesting material incentives alone cannot explain the breakthrough. However, without press freedom and open intellectual networks, those ideas could not have spread, which brings us back to inclusive institutions. Taken together, geography shapes where surplus emerges, but institutions determine what follows: Britain rewarded innovation, while Rome’s slavery and the Ottoman blocking coalition each prevented it.

Color What it shows
Thesis Answering the question (20 pts)
Case evidence Empirical examples (20 pts)
Critical analysis Critical analysis (15 pts)
Definition Definitions (10 pts)
Author (year) References (10 pts)
Signposting Structure (20 pts)

A Weak Answer

To what extent do institutions, rather than geography, explain why some societies developed sustained economic growth and others did not?

Institutions are important for economic growth. Some countries have good institutions and are rich, while other countries have bad institutions and are poor. Geography also plays a role because some places have better climates and resources.

For example, Europe developed faster than Africa because of better institutions. Also, some countries like Britain had an industrial revolution while others did not. This shows that institutions matter.

However, geography is also important. In conclusion, both institutions and geography matter for development, but institutions are probably more important.

Why is this weak? No definitions, no specific references, vague empirical examples, no critical analysis, no counterarguments. It restates the question without demonstrating knowledge of the course material.

Criterion 1: Answering the Question (20 pts)

  • Question: “To what extent do institutions, rather than geography, explain…?”
  • Strong: “Geography matters for initial conditions, but institutions determine long-run outcomes.” This takes a clear, qualified position.
  • Weak: “Both institutions and geography matter, but institutions are probably more important.” Vague; does not commit to a specific argument.

Criterion 2: Empirical Examples (20 pts)

  • Strong: Names Rome (slavery suppressed mechanization), Ottoman Empire (printing blocked), and Britain (high wages drove innovation). These are specific cases that test the theory.
  • Weak: “Europe developed faster than Africa.” A generic claim that does not test the argument.

Good empirical examples do analytical work: they support or challenge an argument, not just illustrate it.

Criterion 3: Structure (20 pts)

  • Strong answer structure:
    1. Thesis answering the question
    2. Definition of institutions (North)
    3. Framework: geography vs. institutions debate
    4. Supporting evidence from multiple cases
    5. Counterargument and response (Mokyr)
    6. Conclusion restating the position
  • Weak answer structure: Repeats the same point three times with no progression

A reader should be able to follow your argument paragraph by paragraph.

Criterion 4: Critical Analysis (15 pts)

  • Strong: Engages with a counterargument (Mokyr’s culture of growth) and then responds to it, showing the limits of the critique. Also compares Rome and Britain to test Allen’s hypothesis.
  • Weak: No comparison, no tension, no challenge to the theory

Critical analysis means engaging with alternative explanations and showing where a theory works and where it breaks down, not just saying “some people disagree.”

Criterion 5: Definitions (10 pts)

  • Strong: Defines institutions precisely using North (1990): “humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic, and social interaction.” Then distinguishes extractive from inclusive (Acemoglu & Robinson).
  • Weak: “Some countries have good institutions and are rich.” Restates the label without defining the concept.

Define the key terms before you analyze them. Show that you know what the theory actually claims.

Criterion 6: References (10 pts)

  • Strong: Cites North (1990), Acemoglu & Robinson (2012), Allen (2009), Rubin (2014). Four distinct sources used to build the argument.
  • Weak: No authors mentioned at all

You do not need exact page numbers, not even years (although it would help), but name the authors and connect their arguments to your answer.

Criterion 7: Clarity of Expression (5 pts)

This criterion rewards clear, understandable writing, not perfect grammar.

  • I am looking for: logical sentences, readable paragraphs, coherent flow
  • I am not penalizing: minor grammatical errors, imperfect phrasing, or spelling mistakes
  • If your argument is clear to the reader, you will receive full marks here

Practice Tool: Essay Coach GPT

I built a GPT to help you practice writing exam essays. It will critique your drafts, score them against the 7 grading criteria, and suggest improvements. It will not write answers for you. Works in English and Spanish.

How to use it:

  1. Go to chatgpt.com/g/g-69c09ff295288191bce3cee70e8f014c-tech-and-social-change-essay-coach
  2. Tell it you are preparing for the midterm
  3. Choose a mode:
    • Guided building (recommended): it walks you through thesis, cases, counterargument, paragraph by paragraph
    • Full draft critique: paste a complete draft and get scored on all 7 criteria
    • Practice question: get a question to work on independently
  4. Revise based on feedback and resubmit

Tip: Set a 20-minute timer before writing. The exam is one hour, two questions, locked browser.

Good Luck!