Really? Didn't know that, how interesting. However, 1850 is far behind the rest of Europe and one joint stock company hardly a industrial revolution makes.
You want proof of weak Ottoman governance? Come on Abdul, you're our expert on the Ottomans, you surely know of the string of weak and useless Sultans that the Empire enjoyed just at the time when Europe was enjoying its bevy of enlightend despots. When Russia had
Peter the Great and Prussia had
Frederick the Great. . . .
What do the Ottomans have? There were some reforming spirits like
Selim III or
Mustafa III but they were removed and assassinated by the Janissaries, who, as I'm sure you know, were adverse to any change. When the janissaries were finally blown away in 1826 it was too late-the Ottoman state as still weak and larger Euroean powers were always sniping bits off her borders (namely Russia, Austria, Serbia etc.)
Now, so far I've placed a lot of emphasis on the so-called 'enlightened despots' of the 18th and 19th centuries. Well, you say, they may have been all very well andgood, but above cited Russia was only an industra;l power in the late 19th century, Austria was never one and Prussia only after the unification of Germany, and even then less to the monarchy and more to do with laws suited ot the growth of industry and tariffs.
Well, then we see that the powers that did best out of the industrial revolution-0Britain, France and America all had some form of democracy. Britain's industrial revolution began in the mid to late 18th century and the sequence of events that precipitaed it can be dated back to 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. France, I know, was politically unstable, yet its business grew because none of the rulers were necessarily anti-business. Napoleon described England as a nation of shopkeepers, and he lost the war. His successors did little to harm business, and so it grew rapidly. America, of course, industrialised relatively late, yet its enormous size coupled with its laissez faireeconomic policy and protectionism insured that its industry grew quickly.
We can say, therefore, that these things are needed for industrial growth: good governance, either by a parliament/representitive body (the preferred sort) or a strong ruler. Secondly, strong governance. Parliament, Congress, the National Assembly, the Enlightened Despots all had the rule of law behind them. They commanded the nation and their rules were enforced. Thirdly, a system friendly to business and the availability of credit.
Now, let's look what the Ottoman Empire had.
1 Good, accountable governance.
Well, this one is hard to judge becaues it so depends on my second variable. Some of the Sultans were good, some bad. However, who were they accountable to? They were Caliphs, rulers of Islam, decond no no other ruler, the shadow of God on Earth. They were, however, accountable to the Janissaries. Palace coups were commonplace, and any who didn't treat the janissaries well ended up garrotted.
2 Strong governance.
I've already covered this, but in conclusion. The janissaries and other vested interests virtually stopped any 17th-19th century Sultan from exercising their will, no matter how philantropic or enlightened it was.
3 A government amenable to commerce.
Now Abdul, your argument refutes this and I acknowledge defeat here. It is apparent that there was little inherently hostile in the Ottoman Empire to private enterprise. However, wo ran those enterprises? The Janissaries. It is conspicious that the example you cited was long after the disbandment of the
Janisaries. The Janissaries were allowed to run their own businesses and ran extortion rackets inside Constantinople and out. If any Sultan tried to foster businesses that could rival their own, that Sultan would be swiftly removed. Furthermore, these Janissaries lacked capital. They gained money from their pay and from anythingthey extorted. It could be conceivable that they could come together to form a kind of joint stock company, yet it never happened once. This lack of capital severely hurt entrepreneurship.
Now, you say, the Janisaries didn't control all businesses. Again, you are right. However, if we look once more at the OTL industrial revolution, what sparked it? Capital. Where did capital come from? Banks. Now, there were various banking houses within the Empire, however they were not large enough to really invest in 'modern' manufacturing.
Therefore in conclusion:
The Ottoman Empire did not industrialise because of its chaotic bureaucracy, its weak central authority and the lack f domestic capital. Now, what could be done to fix that?
I would suggest the abolition of the Janissary corp in the early 17th century would be the easiest way. I know it's easy to blame everything on the Janissaries, but it was their meddling in politics that prevented the evolution of a strong, centralised state. Remove the Janissaries and the Ottoman Empier would have made the transition ot a modern, professional army far less painfully and far earlier and a more successful Empire would mean greater chance of an industrial revolution.
I hope that helps.