What were the main factors which enabled 17th and 18th century Britain to become the birthplace of the Scientific and the Industrial Revolution?
- Thread starter baltur2
- Start date
According to Crash Course World History, Britain paid relatively high wages that incentivized the technological development. And the smaller population would create a similar need due to a need to increase an individual's productivity to stat competitive
beat me to it. coal was basically the only abundant resource that the British had, so pretty much the only way they could capitalize on that was by industrializing.
More than just coal (China had lots of coal but didn't industrialise at this time), a combination of factors - almost everywhere was relatively close to the sea which made transport easier, it was a trading nation which provided a motivation to improve production, good financial system, stable government that respected the rule of law, and just luck/coincidence that a lot of scientific developments and innovations happened in Britain around this time, etc.
I cannot overemphasize the financial institutions enough - this and the long history of American ventures meant that Britain had a stout investment culture that encouraged people with money to invest it rather than just sit on the wealth like in, say, China. Couple with the proper instruments and institutions, and industrial ventures could get the startup capital they needed.
Pollitical-economic circumstances, combined with accessible ressources.
The transition from feudalism to capitalism (and with that the transition from the rule of the feudal nobility to the rule of the bourgeoisie) took place relatively early. That, combined with a certain level of the developement of the productive forces and, again, accessible ressources, allowed for a quick aquisition of the neccessary capital by individual capitalists and the neccessary technological innovation for an even faster developement of the productive force (the industrialization).
The transition from feudalism to capitalism (and with that the transition from the rule of the feudal nobility to the rule of the bourgeoisie) took place relatively early. That, combined with a certain level of the developement of the productive forces and, again, accessible ressources, allowed for a quick aquisition of the neccessary capital by individual capitalists and the neccessary technological innovation for an even faster developement of the productive force (the industrialization).
Last edited:
Lots of coal and political and social institutions that engendered a large middle class and a ton of liquidity.
Like the Dutch they had tons of money but they had far more human capital and natural resources.
Like the Dutch they had tons of money but they had far more human capital and natural resources.
Thomas1195
Banned
The British also had more centralized government, more effective and progressive tax system than the Dutch, and did not face huge debt before the tools to tackle them became available.
Britain always had *more* coal, but in the 19th and 20th century, every western european country mined some coal, even if it wasn't enough to meet needs, which were exponentially greater than 18th century coal needs.
So is Britain's advantage so much in total quantity of coal, or the shallowness and ease of getting at the coal it did have?
Saying coal abundance is a boon is sort of like saying coal shortage was a hindrance. But when starting the IR from zero, in say, Italy, or Spain or Russia or Turkey, isn't the demand for coal really low. And would we really say those countries were *short* of coal to the point tech used in 18th century Britain would have been uneconomic, for lack of local coal alone? I doubt it.
Enough coal and probably enough iron for the baby and toddler steps of the IR probably probably exists everywhere. Differences between property rights, labor and credit markets and conditions really have to dwarf the impact of any differences caused by natural mineral endowments.
So is Britain's advantage so much in total quantity of coal, or the shallowness and ease of getting at the coal it did have?
Saying coal abundance is a boon is sort of like saying coal shortage was a hindrance. But when starting the IR from zero, in say, Italy, or Spain or Russia or Turkey, isn't the demand for coal really low. And would we really say those countries were *short* of coal to the point tech used in 18th century Britain would have been uneconomic, for lack of local coal alone? I doubt it.
Enough coal and probably enough iron for the baby and toddler steps of the IR probably probably exists everywhere. Differences between property rights, labor and credit markets and conditions really have to dwarf the impact of any differences caused by natural mineral endowments.
Last edited:
No successful foreign invasions since 1066, only two civil wars to speak of since and the Wars of the Roses killed a bunch of nobility right as gunpowder cannon made them less effective at building power, while the 1650s-1680s thing left the Crown as a source for military pork and pensions and limited further meddling. War! What is it good for? Destroying other people's countries instead of your own. Widespread literacy and 'Show it to me in the Word of God!' protestant habits went hand in hand with the development of the Common Law, which decentralized contract law enough to limit bribing the center. Also, widespread literacy meant the average sturdy bourgeois had some clue what was going on in the country and in their line of work.
(If you just want one weird trick, Northcote Parkinson's history professor thought you could either make bleach or you cannot, and if you can you have an industrial revolution.)
(If you just want one weird trick, Northcote Parkinson's history professor thought you could either make bleach or you cannot, and if you can you have an industrial revolution.)
That's actually incorrect. Roger Mortimer and Isabelle's invasion of England that culminated in the forced abdication and feigned murder of Edward II, was a successful foreign invasion carried out in the early 1300s.
Redsword and you usefully correct my sweeping general statement, but I think of William III's arrival as Lord Churchill's Coup and Roger Mortimer's effort as something similar. Nothing you'd want to put up with, but less of a mess than the Continent suffered.
VVD0D95
Banned
Intrtesting was it Churchill’s coup though given Churchill didn’t commIt until very late in the game
I'm not sure the UK was the birth place of the Scientific Revolution. Sciences advanced in all Europe and wasn't restricted to the UK.
Indeed. On the continent you had luminaries like Leibniz, Euler, du Châtelet. Britain did not have a monopoly on scientific minds.
I still maintain that apart from easy access to coal the British economic structure was their biggest ace in the hole in terms of industrializing.