- This topic has 4 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
Why did England have such a head start on industrializing versus the continent which industrialized later? Was English industrialization a response to the financial pressures of the Napoleonic wars or was it simply a response to the opening of new markets that Britain?s control of the seas gave them? I have heard both arguments and am not sure which to believe. I tend to think that the commercial opportunities theory rings truer. England had far from an absolutist government in the early 19th century but did have a large class of shrewd merchants. Napoleon did not call them a nation of shopkeepers for nothing.
England was blessed with all the right things to make the IR go… the following is basically what a 10th grade text that I used in my class has to say (my paraphrasing per my lecture notes, the nickle version):1. Labor supply: Large numbers of available workers; folks displaced by the second Ag-revolution (mechanization forced small farmers our and reduced help needed to farm). 2. Nat. resources; rich in iron ore and coal. Other resources available in trade with colonies.3. Capital: Money and good ready for investment. Rich folks wanted to make money not by working but by investment (other guys do the work)... many of these were rich traders with connections.4. Entrepreneurs: Some had the capital and ideas, others just the ideas and a good pitch but all had the a huge impact as they got things done.5. Transportation: They lived on an island... had a maritime tradition... first fishing, then trade, then military navy. Also harbors and rivers that added to the mix.Markets: The colonies; grew and created more trade and more markets.6. Gov't support: Promoted and protected business as a policy....
But many of those factors, if not all also applied to many countries on the continent. Are all those factors necessary or just some combination of them that reaches a critical mass? I am simply not satisfied with the textbook answer because it seems somehow contrived to me, much like the WWI origin theory that is presented in schools.
Critical mass idea for my part. Much of history is “right place at right time” scenario.BTW which WWI origin at you speaking of?
The war by timetable theory that says that Germany gave Hungary the Green light and that once Russia mobilized Germany had to respond and was forced to invade France because of the French treaty with Russia etc.As to industrialization, I tend to think that England had more incentive to increase production because of their commercial interests. they had to innovate to maintain their monetary edeg and through that maintain their naval superiority.
The war by timetable theory that says that Germany gave Hungary the Green light and that once Russia mobilized germany had to respond and was forced to invade France because of the French treaty with russia etc.
My read has always been that every country was so far into the others' business (and behind backs) with nationalism, alliances, imperial motives, and militarism as a political tool, the assassination was just the sparke in the powder magazine. Thatt and the family feud angle... all related (inbred perhaps?) to Queen Victoria.
As to industrialization...
I can go with this... it fits well within the items I listed.
Further, I have maintained that Industrialization got is start in France during the Revolution when they were trying to maximize production in the face of isolation during the wars of the First and Second Coalition. However, it was England that really made industrialization work for the reasons I have stated above.
That they were an island made commercialization and maximizing commercial potential very important for them. It is also one of the reasons they expended so much energy on controlling the seas. The sea was literally their lifeline, especially after the population explosion of the 18th century.
Island or not, let's remind that according to Philippe Raxhon who wrote about the period after 1830: “It was not propaganda but a reality the Walloon (Belgium) regions were becoming the second industrial power all over the world after England.”Belgium is not an island nor in France. So why? Perhaps because the coal-mines, the blast furnaces, the iron and zinc factories, the wool industry, the glass industry, the weapons industry were concentrated.
I am of the opinion that the rest of Western Europe industrialized at least partly in response to their loss of market share to British mass produced products. They had no choice but to modernize or to lose economically. Very similar to the way the Chinese currently dominate in industrial production. The western world is in for a shock when they finally realize that a service economy is not sustainable in the long-term, especially given the level of social spending the west engages in.
Still no explanation for the English industrial revolution.Although I much agree with Wally about these favourable conditions in England.
Perhaps if we add the advances that were a result of the second Agricultural Revolution (Englishmen Jethro Tull: seed drill and horse plow; also Chas. Townsend: soil additive and winter fodder) then we can understand. England could economically and efficiently increase their food production. This fact lead to many changes in how their laborforce was deployed.--greated use of labor saving devices was only available to the more affluent landowners so they did better than the little guys and eventually bought many of the smaller land owners out----over time the Eclosure Movement made it impossible for those not owning land to farm much if at all----only a limited number of the unskillled or semi-skilled farm workers could find jobs with the large landowners since more work was being done with machines (took less people to farm)----more good food was available at a reduced price; people eat better, are healthier, live longer, have more and healthier kids, population increases dramatically----the unemployed (see above) are forced to move off the land to look for work; jobs are available for unskilled or semi-skilled types in the cities in the growing industies; the rest as we say is history--I guess the success of the Second Agricultural Revolution in England (particularly) providing the large and ready labor for was the catalyst. In my mind the IR won't ever really get going as long as most of the population is tied up feeding the population. After all we didn't see the rise of civilizations until after the 1st Ag Rev.
