Nicholas Francis Robert CraftsCBE (9 March 1949 – 6 October 2023) was a British economist who was known for his contributions to economic history, in particular on the Industrial Revolution.[1]
His main fields of interest were the British economy in the last 200 years, European economic growth, historical data on the British economy, the Industrial Revolution and international income distribution, especially with reference to the Human Development Index. He produced a substantial body of papers for academic journals, the British government and international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund.
During the 1980s Crafts argued that during the Industrial Revolution an abnormally high (compared to countries which industrialised later) proportion of the British economy came to be devoted to industry and international trade, and that the British economy always tended to grow slowly. When Britain was overtaken by Germany and the USA - both larger countries - in the late nineteenth century, this was not because of any deceleration of British performance.
From 1987 to 1988 he was Professor of Economic History at the University of Leeds and from 1988 to 1995 he was Professor of Economic History, at the University of Warwick.
Crafts was born on 9 March 1949 in Nottingham, England. He died from sepsis on 6 October 2023, at the age of 74.[4][5]
Crafts and the British Industrial Revolution
Crafts, along with Knick Harley, provided a very influential reinterpretation of the British industrial revolution in the 1980s. They measured the growth rates of various industries, and of the different sectors of the economy, in order to measure the growth of the British economy during the industrial revolution. The found that the overall rate of growth was much lower than had previously been believed, and was heavily concentrated in two industries: cotton and iron.[6] A few historians (though not Crafts himself) used these figures to suggest that it was inappropriate to describe the period as an ‘industrial revolution’. Most, however, argued that although growth rates had been slower and steadier during the industrial revolution than previously imagined, the idea of an ‘industrial revolution’ was still valid.[7][8]