Industrial Revolution

gaius valerius said:

At home:

- enclosure: enabled the creation of a large group in society that was dependent on wages for her subsistence
- industrious revolution that preceeded it (J. De Vries)
- political climate
- people with the gutts and money to invest in the endeavour (the continental IR was state-supported, but in England it depended on private investments)
- more stuff

abroad:

- ruthless exploitation of the colonies raw materials (for example India went from the largest exporter of cotton-products to the largest exporter of raw cotton (native industry destroyed))
- rule over the seas and the power to enforce her trade-model (especially in the 19th century (gold standard))

important:

- the IR was NOT THAT REVOLUTIONAIRY (check on some of the latest works by I forget but I could look up), that is to say the IR took a 100 years to get any real effect, that can hardly be seen as revolutionairy. Moreover its effects were at first only limited to (at the time) a few marginal sectors of the economy (cotton).

Click to expand...

Black Dog said:

In short, the technology was secondary to attitudes as far as British industry went

Click to expand...

Lord Nelson said:

1) Lots – they invented it and were both beneficiaries and victims of it.
2) What do you mean by ‘regions’? Regions in GB or in the world. GB regions developed because of logistics – materials, transport, topology and labour etc.
3) Contemporary. Yes in modern terms, England was the first, but the Romans were brilliant 1500 years earlier. I read a compelling argument recently that the Romans were only a few hundred years away from the steam engine (railways in 100AD ??)

Click to expand...

pikeshot1600 said:

you might tie in the concept of Free Trade.

Click to expand...

pikeshot1600 said:

Well...I am not a professional historian nor an economist. I suggest you look at Adam Smith and David Malthus to get a sense of the economic thinking (and the political economy) of IR era Britain. I have no idea of the recent historiography on all that.

Click to expand...

Black Dog said:

OK. Essentially, a change in mindset occurred at the end of the 17th century, although it took a while to get moving. Traditional ideas of how the wealthy should behave were being eroded by a more materialistic outlook. This was spurred on by mercantile activity, especially in the towns, and also by wider events: the restoration, and a move away from the dour puritanism we'd had, to a more hedonistic society. Also, increasingly, (especially later), there was a growing sense of individualism, as land became increasingly enclosed, the wealthy wanted more privacy, and ideas such as "good lordship" and the patriarchal ideas which had prevailed for centuries were the casualties of this increase in self and withdrawal into privacy: it detaches the landowner/landlord from his peasants/workers, and therefore he cares less. Money, once considered vulgar, and of secondary importance to "breeding", was slowly becoming the measure of man. Early industries began to spring up: beer brewing being one of them. As men became removed from the land as enclosure continued, they had no real option to make for the towns, or to stay as day labourers. This swelled the towns and gave a large pool of available labour.

The rise in individualism and hedonism was an important spur in influencing the wealthy and moderately wealthy to make more money. Some, of course, did it out of genuine interest. But the technology essentially solved problems. If the problem was not there first, then the technology would not have arisen. How to move something as delicate as pottery to the large ports and towns? Answer: canals. How to overcome flooding in coal mines? Answer: a pumping engine. How to provide power to looms, rather than rely on lots of manual looms? Answer: waterwheels or steam. Most major inventions stemmed from problems that were already there. If the steam engine had appeared in, say, 1420, few would have a use for it, since the technology they already had sufficed. Most of all, technology allowed transport on a scale undreamed of. Without transport being viable, Adam Smith's "Free market" would never have emerged, since it relies on the notion that traders should choose their markets according to where they can get the best price: shortages in an area will create a demand, which wise producers will provide and get a good price. If over supply happens, prices will fall and a new market should be found. For instance, if you lived in East Anglia, you are hardly likely to get the best price for your barley, as this is where it is grown. But sell it to the brewers of Burton on Trent, (where they do not successfully grow barley), and you'll make a good profit.

Plainly, without transport, this would come to nothing. No wonder there was a "canal mania" in the 18th century, followed by a railway craze. But the need had to be there first, rather than technology emerging from nowhere and for no good reason.

Click to expand...

Scipio said:

I can recommend some reading:

For what Black Dog is discussing - the change in mindset, you want Jan de Vries, he has a concept called the "industrious revolution", in which family productive units chose to use their leisure time to produce for the market in a recognition of delayed gratification.

For the economists' take on the industrial revolution, you want:
Joel Mokyr's article in the Cambridge Economic History of Britain
Pat Hudson's book on "The Regional Perspective" is very enlightening.
Crafts and Dean are both important developmental economists who looked at the industrial revolution, though their views are summarised in many other works, I think Mokyr discusses their estimates.

This should get you started, look in the footnotes for stuff that interests you.

Click to expand...