Economic, political and cultural factors combine to promote industrialisation By the later eighteenth century, the British economy was well placed to experience a major economic and structural transformation as the pioneer industrialising nation. Foreign traders secured rapidly expanding overseas markets for her manufactures. The home market was buoyant because of population growth, high levels of urbanisation, the expansion of wage earning and rising incomes of the middle classes in particular. The stimulus of demand led to a search for more efficient ways of producing goods with technological and organisational innovations. Agriculture was expanding and changing so that the growing population could be fed without commensurate increase in the |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Image awaiting copyright) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Penry
Williams, South Wales Industrial Landscape c. 1825. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agricultural workforce. The country also had a stable political regime established after the restoration of a limited monarchy in the later seventeenth century. This stability was very important in encouraging enterprise and risk taking whilst legal and financial institutions were in place which protected property and encouraged investment. Compared with the European continent, Britain also had relatively light taxation, which impinged mainly on consumers (via taxes on goods) rather than on business and enterprise. Finally, the country had dominant cultural and religious beliefs which stressed hard work, respectability, thrift and industry. These had been encouraged by the English reformation in the sixteenth century, a relatively tolerant attitude to religious minorities from the late seventeenth century, and also by the growth of vigorous non conformist groups in the eighteenth century.The number of Quakers, Methodists and Unitarians among the most dynamic businessmen of the period was more than proportional to their overall strength. Thus a mix of economic, political and cultural factors which occurred together, underpinned British exceptionalism. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The slow and patchy pace of change However, as we shall see, the economic and social changes of the industrial revolution were more patchy and less complete than was once thought and than the word 'revolution' might suggest. The growth of real output, including industrial output, remained slow (not reaching 3% per year until the 1830s) and national income grew even more slowly. The productivity of labour, capital and land (total factor productivity), at national level, remained below 1% per annum until after 1830. (Productivity refers to the value of outputs which are produced by a given level of inputs). Many regions and sectors of the economy changed very slowly and many historians argue that the transformation of the period is better described as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Image awaiting copyright) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Penry
Williams, Cyfarthfa Ironworks Interior at Night, 1825 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stress upon the gradual nature of change during the industrial revolution was started by Sir John Clapham who wrote a three volume Economic History of Modern Britain (1926-38). He stressed that '…no single industry had passed through a complete technological revolution before 1830. The country abounded with ancient types of industrial organisation and transitional types of every variety'. The steam engine was not generally introduced until after 1830 and typical firm size even in the cotton and iron sectors was small. In recent years gradualism has become the dominant interpretation emphasised by those such as N. F. R. Crafts who have produced new (very low) growth rate figures and by a multitude of researchers who have concentrated upon industrial and other changes in the century or so before 1750. Crafts and Harley have gone so far as to suggest that the revolutionising textile sector, particularly cotton, was responsible for most of the productivity increases in the economy before 1850 and that the sector floated in a sea of tradition until industrialisation began to occur on a broader front after the 1840s. Certainly the origins of the industrial revolution should be sought much earlier than the later eighteenth century and industrialisation was only beginning to get into its stride by 1830. Being the pioneer industrialiser probably slowed things down. Countries industrialising later could avoid costly mistakes with inefficient new methods. It can also be argued that Britain got locked into a pattern of growth and trade which relied on shipping and overseas investment as much as modern industry and which proved inflexible and problematic when her competitors challenged her industrial leadership at the end of the nineteenth-century. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
'Britain underwent the pain of structural change but without the reward of rapid income growth… Technical change came slowly and patchily, with spectacular changes in textiles disguising the backwardness of many other sectors. Thus although an extraordinary proportion of workers entered industry, Britain did not get as much for them as it should have done… Britain therefore emerged from the industrial revolution only half-heartedly transformed. Once set on this path and committed to the staple industries of cotton, coal, iron, and steel, it found either an increase in speed or a change in direction difficult to achieve. Britain sensibly pursued its comparative advantage in these industries and in foreign investment, but became locked into them, unable to adapt to the new demands of the world economy after the First World War.' Roderick Floud summarising Crafts' view of the industrial revolution in Times Literary Supplement, 19 July 1985, p. 794 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||