I am attempting to create a rough story line on how one gets the process of Industrialization going, the needed background for it to happen. The only one I can clearly state is the Second Agricultural Revolution. I need help to make it clear.
Congratulation. You have made a good rebuttal towards Adam Smith.Mercantilism
To be able to flood British markets with raw materials and be able to cheaply export manufactured goods to
undercut Rival Empire, the acquisition of colonies to source raw materials before the rival can.
These are all good points however I do notice that all these factors were also present in the dutch republic as well. I could be wrong, but it would be good anyway to point out what the republic missed here in this list or if there's a point outside the list where there's a difference (lack of coal is not enough of an answer IMO).Agricultural Revolution
UK 75% growth in output, % of population in agriculture reduced by 40%.
Political Stability
By 1697 the fiscal powers of Parliament were largely in place, that gave credibility to both Monarch and
Parliament not to impune upon each others rights.
Financial Institutions
Founding of the Bank of England 1694, that acted as a middleman for both state and personal use, the use of
banknotes as mediums of exchange, the opening of many other banks, to allow the rapid flow of capital.
High Literacy
UK Literacy rate of 53%.
Freedom of Movements
The largest Empire in the world, with the largest merchant fleet, the booming of canal building to transport
food, materials and people across the UK.
Competition
The land area and population advantage of France, meant that Britain had to seek qualitative or expansive ways
to bridge the gap with their longstanding rival.
Technological Revolution
Important inventions like Seed Drill, Atmospheric Steam Engine, Mercury Thermometer, Sextant, Marine chronometer
Spinning Jenny, Spinning Frame, Electric Telegraph, Steamship, Spinning mule, Steel Roller, Threshing machine
Power Loom, Steamboat, Gas Turbine, Canning, Vaccination for smallpox, Fourdrinier Machine, Carding Machine.
Mercantilism
To be able to flood British markets with raw materials and be able to cheaply export manufactured goods to
undercut Rival Empire, the acquisition of colonies to source raw materials before the rival can.
Probably stability. At the end of the 18th century the Dutch republic was a rather unstable and corrupt place. And wealth. At the beginning of the 19th century after the French occupation and with the loss of Belgium the Netherlands was a rather poor place. Oh and the lack of coal and steel resources within the border didn't help either.These are all good points however I do notice that all these factors were also present in the dutch republic as well. I could be wrong, but it would be good anyway to point out what the republic missed here in this list or if there's a point outside the list where there's a difference (lack of coal is not enough of an answer IMO).
Was stability really the factor here? Because in England you can also discern instability f.i. in the form of the ludites. Corruption was certainly not the problem, cause again that was certainly also available in England. The corruption in England however was in favor of the new entrepeneurial class. And that certain corruption in politics is exactly what you need for an industrial take-off. That's how i interpret stability and i see that stability possible in the existing institutions of the Republic (in contrast to f.i. France, where the economical policy was still dependent of the mood of the monarch and this meant that sometimes measures were taken in favor of the citizens, but the next year in favor of the land owning nobility. There was not such a consistent policy as in England or the Republic).Probably stability. At the end of the 18th century the Dutch republic was a rather unstable and corrupt place. And wealth. At the beginning of the 19th century after the French occupation and with the loss of Belgium the Netherlands was a rather poor place. Oh and the lack of coal and steel resources within the border didn't help either.
If the Industrial revolution had happened earlier, in the late 17th century/early 18th century the Dutch Republic probably would have been one pf the focus points. In some ways it was. The innovations using wind power in the Dutch Republic were in many ways a precursor to the industrial revolution.
Now that I thought a bit about it, I think another problem with the Dutch Republic was stagnation. The Dutch Republic was incredibly innovative in the 17th entury. This changed somewhere in the 18th century and the Dutch republic, its economy, its politics, posibly even its culture, stagnated.Was stability really the factor here? Because in England you can also discern instability f.i. in the form of the ludites. Corruption was certainly not the problem, cause again that was certainly also available in England. The corruption in England however was in favor of the new entrepeneurial class. And that certain corruption in politics is exactly what you need for an industrial take-off. That's how i interpret stability and i see that stability possible in the existing institutions of the Republic (in contrast to f.i. France, where the economical policy was still dependent of the mood of the monarch and this meant that sometimes measures were taken in favor of the citizens, but the next year in favor of the land owning nobility. There was not such a consistent policy as in England or the Republic).
The Republic was certainly not poor in the 18th century, there was plenty of capital. However and here's the really big mistery. The dutch capital in the 18th century was mainly invested abroad and not in enterprises in the Republic. Another factor that may be crucial is in play here.
Peet is in my opinion enough of a power source in the early stages. After that the coal from the Ruhr is easier and faster to get than coal was for an average English industrial centre.
These are all good points however I do notice that all these factors were also present in the dutch republic as well. I could be wrong, but it would be good anyway to point out what the republic missed here in this list or if there's a point outside the list where there's a difference (lack of coal is not enough of an answer IMO).
Was stability really the factor here? Because in England you can also discern instability f.i. in the form of the ludites. Corruption was certainly not the problem, cause again that was certainly also available in England. The corruption in England however was in favor of the new entrepeneurial class. And that certain corruption in politics is exactly what you need for an industrial take-off. That's how i interpret stability and i see that stability possible in the existing institutions of the Republic (in contrast to f.i. France, where the economical policy was still dependent of the mood of the monarch and this meant that sometimes measures were taken in favor of the citizens, but the next year in favor of the land owning nobility. There was not such a consistent policy as in England or the Republic).
The Republic was certainly not poor in the 18th century, there was plenty of capital. However and here's the really big mistery. The dutch capital in the 18th century was mainly invested abroad and not in enterprises in the Republic. Another factor that may be crucial is in play here.
Peet is in my opinion enough of a power source in the early stages. After that the coal from the Ruhr is easier and faster to get than coal was for an average English industrial centre.
Belgium was the first country in continental Europe to industrialize, but it started in Britain.I thought the industrial revolution started in Belgium?
Corruption and the overall public finance system in the Dutch Republic favoured the rentier class who held investments in public debt bonds and in foreign ventures. If we butterfly away the Glorious Revolution and have the Tories firmly in charge then such corruption would favour the landed aristocrats.Was stability really the factor here? Because in England you can also discern instability f.i. in the form of the ludites. Corruption was certainly not the problem, cause again that was certainly also available in England. The corruption in England however was in favor of the new entrepeneurial class.
Dutch internal market was too small (unlike in Britain) to provide sustained profitable investment opportunities in domestic industries and protectionist policies abroad damaged their export business. This was further worsen by high wage. Britain also faced rising wage issue at that time, however unlike the Brits, the Dutch did not have or lost (they lost several wars at late 17th and early 18th century) firm grip/control over large and populous colonies to serve as markets to sustain growth (like losing access to Spanish colonies to Britain following Peace of Utrecht for example).The Republic was certainly not poor in the 18th century, there was plenty of capital. However and here's the really big mistery. The dutch capital in the 18th century was mainly invested abroad and not in enterprises in the Republic. Another factor that may be crucial is in play here.