From Krugman's macroeconomic textbook:
It’s one of the classic questions in economic history: Why did Britain, the home of the Industrial Revolution, by far the world’s leading economy for much of the nineteenth century, end up falling behind other nations at the start of a new century? It’s not a tragic story: the British economy continued to grow, and it remained a rich country by international standards. Still, by the early twentieth century it was obvious that British industry was no longer at the cutting edge. Instead, the United States and Germany had come to supplant Britain as the new economic frontier. What happened?
That’s not an easy question to answer. Robert Solow, an MIT economics professor and Nobel laureate who pio- neered the theory of economic growth, once memorably declared that all efforts to explain Britain’s lag end in “a blaze of amateur sociology.” Indeed, among the reasons often given for the lag are such things as the excessive influence of the landed aristocracy, social barriers that prevented talented individuals from the wrong class from rising, and a cult of amateurism that was good enough for people running small family firms but not for the managers of large modern corporations.
I have no a clue what it supposed to mean. Googling didn't help.