Postponing Industrialization

[Faeelin]

Chris, I don't have time to write a lengthy reply right now. Instead let me toss this out: What do you think the industrial revolution was?

 

[Faeelin]

Yet, it was the UK where the IR happened, not continental Europe. When Europe did industrialise, they bought their industrial equipment from the UK and began copying British social and economic models to support it.

I think you're really overestimating how much people copied British economic and social models. What did America copy, frex?

The Bank of England, frex, was modelled on Dutch banks.

*Again, when I say 'industrialise', I mean having an industrial revolution all on your own with no example, no plan and no help from outside. Obviously, any country can industrialise if they want to import the equipment and the knowledge from nations that have already industrialised. But my point is that the UK was the only nation in history to have an industrial revolution. In fact, it can be argued that all industrialisation is a direct descendent of that one, single industrial revolution.

Yes; but that single industrial revolution spread across Europe and the Americas in a few decades; are you suggesting that that doesn't imply that conditions were generally ripe for it?

I'm not denying that conditions were most ideal; I'm denying that the conditions were not also present elsewhere.

 

[Faeelin]

Although Faelin's culmination of long-term trends explanation is attractive the figures are indicative, there is dramatic economic and quality of life take off post 1750.

I'm not denying that at all.

What I am denying is that those factors were explicitly the result of conditions unique to Britain, and not more general.

If something similar could have happened elsewhere why did it not?

Because they copied the ideas of Britain too quickly, within a few years.

I mean, the industrial revolution happened in Belgium and the Rhineland/Ruhr during the Napoleonic Wars, just to a lesser extent.

 

[Faeelin]

Yes, the US industrialisation is telling. America established a political, social and economic model that was extremely industrialisation friendly, perhaps, in the long term, a better environment than Britain's. But it crucially still didn't have an industrial revolution separate from Britain's. Just like every other country, it imported the basic infrastructure from the UK.

Even though the US created the conditions in which industry could thrive, it never created the conditions in which industry spontaneously emerged, as in the UK.

Why would it spontaneously emerge? There were extensive ties between America and the UK. It's far easier to import technology.

By the logic that you're using, because the plane was invented in America, Europeans would never have invented one on their own.

 

[Faeelin]

By 'happened' you are referring to the building of factories, the establishment of companies, the reform of the legal enviroment to support them, and the policies of government to protect them and control the population to work in them.

But these things had been going on in Europe for centuries. Corporations, join stock companies, etc. were far older than the 18th century.

But when I say 'happened' I mean the emergence, spontaneously, of factories, of companies, of willing workers and the absence of laws and policies that seriously impeded them.

People had been moving to the cities for centuries to acquire jobs though.

In the first, what is happening is planned. Government and various movers and shakers are working together with a plan in mind, following the example of Britain.

Mmm. I'd agree that there are examples of people modelling their policies based on British actions. The US is a good example of this, particularly under Hamilton.

But these were also preexisting trends in America. Waterpower was extensively used in New England for mills and other manufactories; it's only a logical step to apply it to textiles.

Also, American "support" for industrialization consisted of establishing a central bank (which was later abolished) and some protective tariffs. Neither of these are revolutionary ideas.

Yet the industrialization happened anyway.

 

[Faeelin]

Here's an interesting paper, discussing the industrial revolution as a cumulative, European process:

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/secret2001.pdf

"The Secret History of the Industrial Revolution".

Warning: It's long, and I only had it on hand because I read it a long time ago.

 

[Kit]

Is that view accepted overwhelmingly?
Is their a case that this view comes from focussing too much on certain sectors of the economy?

Consider these examples of distorted perspectives, are we looking for the wrong thing when we look for IRs in non-British societies?

18th C Russia
Often described as backwards, but in fact it had a subsantial amount of industry (by pre-IR standards) However this tended to be rural rather than urban, and so often ignored by historians

Napoleonic Wars Britain
There is still debate about whether the British economy grew or shrunk during this period, depending which sectors you look at - there are no overall figures

Is there a British industrial revolution?

In most places very little changes, for quite a long while, there are changes in certain industries in certain places, should we generalise this to British society?

It is certainly the dominant view amongst economic historians, although as in every case, there are revisionist views. There is certainly work out there contradicting it. But as I said, the UK IR being the only IR is the dominant conclusion.

Regarding Russia in the 18th century. I actually know very little about it specifically, but if their production was mostly rural, I don't think it does count as 'industry' in the sense of an industrial revolution. While total production might have amounted to larger than expected amount (Russia is very large of course) economies of scale would have imposed a strict upper limit on any increase and thus industrialisation would have stopped dead.

And yes, as I said earlier, the IR only really happened specific parts of the UK and at first only effected certain parts of society. But that strengthens my argument that very specific factors had to be in place for the 'spark' to take off. And even in the UK, it only happened in certain places.

 

[Kit]

Chris, I don't have time to write a lengthy reply right now. Instead let me toss this out: What do you think the industrial revolution was?

Firstly, the IR is misleading. It was an evolution.

The industrial revolution started out as a relatively small group of merchants, bankers, businessmen, craftsmen, and scientists all coming together to co-operate in the creation of factories that mass produced goods. They did this from scratch. They had no example to follow. They did it because they realised that the market would allow them to make more money doing it this way than the old way.

The next stage was making the process 'self-sustaining', ie the almost automatic replacement of the craft system of Master, Journeymen and Apprentices, with the factories of the industrial age, and the transport infrastructure (at first canals and then railroads) to take the goods to market. It became self-sustaining because the consumers of the goods were the workers in the factories. The workers could no longer make things themselves or barter with their peers - they had no time! And besides, the things being produced could not be made at home, and were cheaper!

The final stage was the complete reorganisation of society to support industrial producion. The creation of a huge, urban working class. The housewife to support the working man. Early consumer culture. Universal education. The emergence of the professional, middle class. The emergence of true liberal democracy that was controlled by that middle class. Political ideologies and theories that were entirely dependent on an industrial way of life.

That is an industrial r'evolution'.

 

[Kit]

I think you're really overestimating how much people copied British economic and social models. What did America copy, frex?

The Bank of England, frex, was modelled on Dutch banks.

Yes; but that single industrial revolution spread across Europe and the Americas in a few decades; are you suggesting that that doesn't imply that conditions were generally ripe for it?

I'm not denying that conditions were most ideal; I'm denying that the conditions were not also present elsewhere.

Again, there's a difference between conditions that allow for industrial development once the process has begun, and conditions that allow the spark to ingnite.

It is difficult to imagine just what a hugely different, inconceivable, and risky thing industrial production was from what had gone before. It required huge investment, the invention of entirely new machines (machines themselves being something new), a transport network that could supply the raw materials and distribute the goods, the cooperation of government and the law, and most of all the confidence and imagination of a number of men who would cooperate to bring this all about. To any normal person in 18th century it must have seemed madness!

 

[Kit]

But these things had been going on in Europe for centuries. Corporations, join stock companies, etc. were far older than the 18th century.

People had been moving to the cities for centuries to acquire jobs though..

Yes, but none of them resulted in industrial revolutions. Consider, France and Switzerland were probably the most tehnologically and scientifically advanced nations before the industrial revolution. Germany had a better educational system and was fiercly competitive. The Netherlands were much more experienced and sophisticated merchants, traders and financiers.

Yet, no industrial revolution.

It happened in the UK. And not in the parts of the UK that anyone would have expected! Why?

Mmm. I'd agree that there are examples of people modelling their policies based on British actions. The US is a good example of this, particularly under Hamilton.

But these were also preexisting trends in America. Waterpower was extensively used in New England for mills and other manufactories; it's only a logical step to apply it to textiles.

Also, American "support" for industrialization consisted of establishing a central bank (which was later abolished) and some protective tariffs. Neither of these are revolutionary ideas.

Yet the industrialization happened anyway.

The Japanese is a good example to use. They consciously set about a policy of industrialisation. This obviously meant learning all they could about science and technology and buying in as much seed equipment as they could. It also meant copying European financial and business structures. But did you also know that the Japanese sent social observers to the UK? They were doing sociological and anthropological studies before they even knew what they were! The Japanese had concluded that there must be something unique about European culture that allowed industry to flourish, and as Britain was the place it had started, they sent their observers there.

The one thing they concluded that was most important, was the British 'club' system. They identified that it was clubs that allowed bankers, merchants, businessmen, scientists and mastercraftsmen together in social situations. In other countries, even European ones, such opportunities for social interaction between these different groups were much rarer and thus co-operation was rarer. And remember what I posted earlier? It was these peope who started the industrial revolution!

When the Japanese went back, they advised that their government set up similar clubs.

America of course did not have to go so far in changing their own society. In fact, I would say they probably had to do nothing as a matter of government policy, even less than many European countries.

But they still relied on Britain to industrialise! They relied on investment from the UK (over 70% of funding for the railroads in the US came from the UK), they relied on the technical expertise and training and books that came from the UK, and they relied on importing the basic infrastructure to set up the first factories (although probably to a lesser extent than in Europe - they couldn't afford as much and it was more expensive to ship across the Atlantic anyway - Americans would have to do more reinventing of the wheel).

But most of all, Americans relied on the idea of industrialisation.

Without it, why on earth would they have bothered to set about creating the risky, expensive, and socially disruptive force of industry? Why would it even have occurred to them, when it was so difficult, required so much energy, and they would have no idea why they were doing it or what benefits it would bring. It would have been completely illogical!

Remember, the early industries were not so amazingly efficient or productive that it would have been obvious what the benefis were. It wasn't until at least 40 or so years into the industrial revolution in the UK that most other countries started to sit up and take notice at exactly what had been created and how powerful it had made Britain.

 

[Kit]

This is a fascinating debate, and in fact it's such a central issue of AH, considering the effects of the industrial revolution on world history, I'm surprised we didn't have it long ago (on the old board perhaps?).
Both Faeelin and kitjed make very good and convincing points. And I agree with both of you guys: the IR was the result of a very precise set of conditions (economic, political, societal, technological) being met in one place at one moment in time, Britain at the turn of the 19th century. But I tend to think that, if they hadn't been met then, there's at least a reasonable chance that they would have at some later time in another European country, with fairly similar long-term consequences, including probably the advent of the US as an economic powerhouse a century or so later (because once the "recipe" of industrialization had been perfected by trial and error in whatever European country, it would then be applied on a much larger scale in the New World). Of course it may have been decades later, or even longer.


So if we just butterfly away Britain's acquired taste for tea, the IR is no longer possible? Yet another way China influenced European history...

A final piece of evidence.

Britain became the 'workshop of the world' in the 19th century. The UK became rich beyond the dreams of averice by producing goods through industrial processes.

But what were the goods?

There were a lot of finished consumer goods of course. Pots and pans, crockery, textiles etc.

But that producing those wasn't what made the UK so rich.

What made the UK fabulously wealthy was producing and selling copies of their own capital prodcution equipment to Europe and America. Fact. Europe and America didn't have industrial revolutions of their own. They bought them from the UK.

But to return to the question of how rare were those social, cultural, economic and political factors that lead the UK to its own IR. Were they completely unique and unrepeatable? Or would they have been duplicated elsewhere eventually.

On that, I don't know, and I don't think anyone can. I woud lean towards the view that the IR was, for many decades, until it became self-sustaining, a bit of an uphill struggle. It wasn't a 'natural' process. It didn't come easy. It was difficult! And I think that the human race would have been damned lucky if another country had undergone it.

It might be useful to imagine a world without the IR. As if the UK had never existed. How would the 18th century have progressed into the 19th and 20th and 21st without an IR? They'd had the Enlightenment. The scientific revolution was underway. Productivity rises in agriculture were beneifiting the popultioin. Isolated improvements in medicine, astronomy, mathematics, clockwork, architecture and civil engineering were taking place and woud be continuing.

So, what sort of world would we be living in now if all those trends had continued as far as they could go without leading to an industrial revolution.

 

[Faeelin]

The industrial revolution started out as a relatively small group of merchants, bankers, businessmen, craftsmen, and scientists all coming together to co-operate in the creation of factories that mass produced goods. They did this from scratch. They had no example to follow. They did it because they realised that the market would allow them to make more money doing it this way than the old way.

Ah, but again, manufactories like this have been around for a long time. I'm thinking of the textile workers of the medieval ages, in particular.

The next stage was making the process 'self-sustaining', ie the almost automatic replacement of the craft system of Master, Journeymen and Apprentices, with the factories of the industrial age, and the transport infrastructure (at first canals and then railroads) to take the goods to market.

But canals and roads were built across Europe and North America in this period; the French built one linking the Atlantic and Mediterranean in the 1680s, IIRC.

It became self-sustaining because the consumers of the goods were the workers in the factories. The workers could no longer make things themselves or barter with their peers - they had no time! And besides, the things being produced could not be made at home, and were cheaper!

This is just a market economy, isn't it?

The final stage was the complete reorganisation of society to support industrial producion. The creation of a huge, urban working class. The housewife to support the working man. Early consumer culture. Universal education. The emergence of the professional, middle class. The emergence of true liberal democracy that was controlled by that middle class. Political ideologies and theories that were entirely dependent on an industrial way of life.

Again, these things aren't unique to the British Isles. I'd argue that the British took longer to develop a true liberal democracy, for instance, than America.
Nor is the Consumer culture, or universal education. I'd bet that New Englanders were better educated, to use another american example, than Britons in this period, on average.

 

[Kit]

Ah, but again, manufactories like this have been around for a long time. I'm thinking of the textile workers of the medieval ages, in particular.

Yes, but they were isolated examples. They didn't sustain an industrial revolution. The fact that they existed without causing one actually helps prove my point.

But canals and roads were built across Europe and North America in this period; the French built one linking the Atlantic and Mediterranean in the 1680s, IIRC.

There was some building of canals and roads, but not a hugely significant amount. Again, isolated examples. (And the USA actually had a really backwards road system for much of the 19thC)

This is just a market economy, isn't it?

No! This was probably the fundamental difference between an industrial society and an agrarian one, and it was the single most important factor in making the industrial revolution self-sustaining.

Before this, the vast majority of people ate, housed, clothed, worked and entertained themselves with goods that they made themselves, bartered for with neighbours who had also made it themselves, or very rarely bought from hand-crafted non-industrial workshops.

After the IR, people bought the necesseties of life from a selection of goods that had been mass produced. Using money from their jobs in factories that were producing the same goods they were buying.

Again, these things aren't unique to the British Isles. I'd argue that the British took longer to develop a true liberal democracy, for instance, than America.
Nor is the Consumer culture, or universal education. I'd bet that New Englanders were better educated, to use another american example, than Britons in this period, on average.

No, they aren't unique. But they are examples of how the IR shaped society around its requirements. They're effects, not causes.

 

[Faeelin]

It is difficult to imagine just what a hugely different, inconceivable, and risky thing industrial production was from what had gone before. It required huge investment, the invention of entirely new machines (machines themselves being something new), a transport network that could supply the raw materials and distribute the goods, the cooperation of government and the law, and most of all the confidence and imagination of a number of men who would cooperate to bring this all about. To any normal person in 18th century it must have seemed madness!

Why would it have seemed like madness? These are things that Europeans had been doing for centuries, on a gradually increasing scale.

New machines? Check. Better transport networks? Check. Rule of law? Check.

Britain was the first place in Europe where everything came together.

 

[Faeelin]

Yes, but none of them resulted in industrial revolutions. Consider, France and Switzerland were probably the most tehnologically and scientifically advanced nations before the industrial revolution. Germany had a better educational system and was fiercly competitive. The Netherlands were much more experienced and sophisticated merchants, traders and financiers.

Yet, no industrial revolution.

It happened in the UK. And not in the parts of the UK that anyone would have expected! Why?

For one thing, the Dutch lands weren't full of coal and iron, the way the British Isles were. If they had gotten Flanders and Wallonia during the Dutch revolt....




]wipyr\But they still relied on Britain to industrialise! They relied on investment from the UK (over 70% of funding for the railroads in the US came from the UK), they relied on the technical expertise and training and books that came from the UK, and they relied on importing the basic infrastructure to set up the first factories (although probably to a lesser extent than in Europe - they couldn't afford as much and it was more expensive to ship across the Atlantic anyway - Americans would have to do more reinventing of the wheel).
[/quote]

Again, why would Americans do anything else? This is like today. America does not produce cheap manufactured goods the way China does, because it's more profitable to focus on something else.

Without it, why on earth would they have bothered to set about creating the risky, expensive, and socially disruptive force of industry? Why would it even have occurred to them, when it was so difficult, required so much energy, and they would have no idea why they were doing it or what benefits it would bring. It would have been completely illogical!

See, I don't get this. Why would it be illogical to invest money in manufacturing? People had been doing this for centuries.

The industries were more productive than they had been earlier, but that's about it.

 

[Faeelin]

Yes, but they were isolated examples. They didn't sustain an industrial revolution. The fact that they existed without causing one actually helps prove my point.

I've gotta disagree completely. They were the lead up to the industrial revolution. These were the predecessors to the manufactories and industries of the industrial revolution.

There was some building of canals and roads, but not a hugely significant amount. Again, isolated examples. (And the USA actually had a really backwards road system for much of the 19thC)

1) There was probably less than there was in the UK, but the rate that canals and roads were built was increasing from the middle of the 17th century on, across Europe.

2) Roads are poor for moving trade goods; canals are much better, as are water ways, and the US did build these.

No! This was probably the fundamental difference between an industrial society and an agrarian one, and it was the single most important factor in making the industrial revolution self-sustaining.

Before this, the vast majority of people ate, housed, clothed, worked and entertained themselves with goods that they made themselves, bartered for with neighbours who had also made it themselves, or very rarely bought from hand-crafted non-industrial workshops.

Mmm. I think you're undersestimating the extent that Europe and North America were on a moneyed economy. It was rare for house wives in Massachussetts to make their own clothing in the late 17th century, way before you claim the industrial revolution began.

And the great textile industries of Flanders date back to the middle ages. They were certainly selling cloth to some one.

 

[DuQuense]

What is being asked is the Question,
?IF there had been no Ir in England, Whould whe be arguing over Napolean's policies for Industrialization, and how they were exported to the world. or about how Bismarks unification of Germany sparked a IR, and ?why didn't it happen earier in England? for example.

That the IR fire started in England and swept the world, stopped any other potential fires.

 

[LordKalvan]

What is being asked is the Question,
?IF there had been no Ir in England, Whould whe be arguing over Napolean's policies for Industrialization, and how they were exported to the world. or about how Bismarks unification of Germany sparked a IR, and ?why didn't it happen earier in England? for example.

That the IR fire started in England and swept the world, stopped any other potential fires.

That is the point. IMHO, if for whatever reason (my best bet would be a reactionary government - the POD might be with Charles II) the IR does not happen in UK, next best place might be New England (I would expect an ever stronger migration of non-conformists, free thinkers, merchant venturers who want to get out of the stagnant British pond).

Place of pride for an alternative IR might go to the Wallonia-Saar region, if we postulate a victorious Napoleon.

 

[Kit]

I think what it comes down to is that you see the Industrial Revolution as a logical, inevitable outcome of gradual technological improvement. And that once you reach a certain stage of development, you automatically start producing things in factories.

But the evidence doesn't support that.

The Industrial Revolution was a huge break with the production methods of the past. It required that production processes become industrial in every sector of the production. It meant entire populations becoming used to new ways of living (the difference between living on a farm or small village, and working in an industrial city was huge). It required hugely risky early investment and the cooperation of groups of people who on the face of it had little in common.

For many reasons, everything came together in the UK at the right time, and the IR happened.

But if we go with your ideas on industrial development, logic would dictate that the IR should have happened on continental Europe some decades ealier. Logic would also dictate that once Europe and America heard that the British were making lots of money by producing things in factories with steam power, they would have started funneling funds to their own craftsmen and merchants to create their own factories. But they didn't! They waited a few decades until the IR was well under way in the UK, and then bought copies of British production equipment.

In short, the industrial revolution changed things. It changed things more than any other factor in human history, (expcept agriculture perhaps).

But people do not engage in that sort of change lightly. In fact it requires some very speicial circumstances to push them. Take the introduction of agriculture! It didn't happen as soon as, in evolutionary terms, we became 'human'. We were hunter-gatherers for thousands of years when we could have been farmers.

The same with the IR. Yes, it is possible that given continuing technological and scientific development in Europe and America, that industrial production might have started up and, crucially, took off and spread to every aspect of the economy. But it is not likely! It is not inevitable.

 

[Faeelin]

every[/I] sector of the production. It meant entire populations becoming used to new ways of living (the difference between living on a farm or small village, and working in an industrial city was huge). It required hugely risky early investment and the cooperation of groups of people who on the face of it had little in common.

I agree with you that these things were required. What I disagree is that they were unique to Britain.

But if we go with your ideas on industrial development, logic would dictate that the IR should have happened on continental Europe some decades ealier. Logic would also dictate that once Europe and America heard that the British were making lots of money by producing things in factories with steam power, they would have started funneling funds to their own craftsmen and merchants to create their own factories. But they didn't!

Wait. first you claimed that they copied Britain, and now you claim they didn't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that industrialization isn't necessarily the wises way to spend your money. For the Dutch, who were trading across the world and investing across Europe, that was more profitable than building factories.

But people do not engage in that sort of change lightly. In fact it requires some very speicial circumstances to push them. Take the introduction of agriculture! It didn't happen as soon as, in evolutionary terms, we became 'human'. We were hunter-gatherers for thousands of years when we could have been farmers.

Nitpick: This doesn't square with the view of the development of agriculture at all. For a readable work on it, check out Jared Diamond's, Guns, Germs, and Steel.

He provides convincing evidence that agriculture arose almost by accident, but as the ineveitable result of human activities. This is how I would view the IR.

The same with the IR. Yes, it is possible that given continuing technological and scientific development in Europe and America, that industrial production might have started up and, crucially, took off and spread to every aspect of the economy. But it is not likely! It is not inevitable.[/QUOTE]


Hmm. Here's a challenge. Construct a Europe with increasing agriculture production, a well developed moneyed economy with banks, investment, corporations, new technologies, and a booming population.

Now describe what those things are used for, in a world without an industrial revolution.