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 Production Pig Iron Production in tons 3,000,000 2,701,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,999,608 1,500,000 1,396,400 1,248,781 1,215,350 1,000,000 677,417 500,000 25 68 150 244 455 0 1720 1788 1796 1806 1823 1830 1839 1840 1843 1847 1853 Results - Textiles Imports of Raw Cotton 1000 of lbs. 12,000,000 10,000,000 10,005,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 6,136,000 4,000,000 3,874,000 2,000,000 2,009,000 320,166 1,214,790 55,721 183,861 693,706 0 1771- 1781- 1791- 1801- 1811- 1821- 1831- 1841- 1851- 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 Results - Innovation Number of Patents 35,000 31,921 30,000 25,000 22,027 20,000 17,596 15,000 10,000 4,654 5,000 297 936 1,113 1,545 512 675 2,713 0 1771- 1781- 1791- 1801- 1811- 1821- 1831- 1841- 1851- 1861- 1871- 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 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.
Pages to are hidden for
"The Industrial Revolution in England"Please download to view full document