The Industrial Revolution in England
Roadmap
What’s the Industrial Revolution? IR & technological progress Results Causes The IR: a discontinuity? Testing the two views on the IR
What was the IR?
The IR in England is one of history's great mysteries. The events are widely known but their interpretations are hotly contested.
First historical instance of the breakthrough from an agrarian, handicraft economy to one dominated by industry and machine manufacture
The IR and Technological Progress
The heart of the IR was an interrelated succession of technological changes: Use of mechanical devices for human skills Use of inanimate power, in particular steam,
instead of human and animal strength Improvement in getting and working of raw
materials -metallurgy and chemical industries. New forms of industrial organization
Related to changes in equipment and processes.
Factory was a system of production. New breed of worker following the demands of the
clock.
Technological changes
Steam engine (power technology)
Metallurgy (iron and steel)
Textiles Spinning Weaving
Textiles - inventions
Spinning
Weaving
Causes Institutions: free trade, elimination of
regulations and medieval obstacles. Agricultural change: increase in
agricultural productivity due to technological change.
Demographic growth: growth of population in the 18th century increased the market.
Technological advance Foreign trade: bigger market due to the
colonies.
Results
Production of iron and textiles
Innovation
Efficiency
Results – Pig Iron ProductionPig Iron Production
in tons
677,417
1,248,7811,396,400
1,215,350
1,999,608
2,701,000
45524415068250
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
1720 1788 1796 1806 1823 1830 1839 1840 1843 1847 1853
Results - TextilesImports of Raw Cotton
1000 of lbs.
693,7061,214,790
2,009,000
3,874,000
6,136,000
10,005,000
183,86155,721320,166
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
1771-1780
1781-1790
1791-1800
1801-1810
1811-1820
1821-1830
1831-1840
1841-1850
1851-1860
Results - InnovationNumber of Patents
17,596
22,027
31,921
4,654
2,713297 512 675 936 1,113 1,545
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
1771-1780
1781-1790
1791-1800
1801-1810
1811-1820
1821-1830
1831-1840
1841-1850
1851-1860
1861-1870
1871-1880
Results - Efficiency Sudden appearance of a more rapid and sustained
rate of efficiency advance than previously seen. Textiles were the flagship industry of the IR
Spinning: Old technology: 50,000 hours to spin 100 lbs of cotton. With the mule only 300 hours in 1790s
efficiency in converting raw cotton into cloth increased fourteenfold from 1760s to 1860s (2.4% per year). 1760s: 18 man-hours to transform a pound of cotton
into cloth 1860s: 1.5 man-hours
The IR in England: a discontinuity? Two views on the IR in England:
Traditional view: Discontinuity (Toynbee, Ashton and Landes): IR as a broad change in the British economy
and society. Modern view: gradual
the IR as a result of technical change in only a few industries (Crafts and Harley).
the IR as the result of evolutionary development that affected other European economies almost as much as England. It was the product of the gradual process of settled agrarian societies toward a more rational, economically oriented mindset (Clark).
So, it’s gradual, but how much? GDP per capita growth:
Deane and Cole: 1780s-1860s: GDP per capita increased by about 2.5 times
Crafts and Harley: 1760-1860, output per worker doubled.
Clark: GDP per person grew 28% between 1700s and 1830s.
Productivity: Crafts and Harley: 0.58% Clark: 0.39%
Productivity growth by Clark
Testing the Two views Use of the Ricardian model of international trade to
test the nature of the IR (Temin) Expected results:
Traditional view: Britain should have been exporting other manufactures
(other than cotton textiles and iron bars). Comparative advantage in manufacturing.
Modern view: Britain should have been importing the same goods in
the early 19th century. Comparative advantage in cotton and iron. Other manufactures not exported because Britain
lacked a comparative advantage in manufacturing in general.
Testing the Two Views -continued
The traditional view of the IR is more accurate than the new, restricted image.
Other British manufactures were not inefficient and stagnant, or at least they were not all stagnant.
The spirit that motivated cotton manufactures extended also to activities as varies as hardware and haberdashery, arms, and apparel.