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.