FREE ESSAY ON THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

The Industrial Revolution
It has, been variously called the Western Miracle (Rosenberg and Birdzell 42) and the
European Miracle, (Jones) but it is commonly known as the Industrial Revolution.
Subsequent to the Middle Ages, populations in Western Europe began developing technology
that enhanced their ability to generate products and which led to significantly higher
standards of living than populations elsewhere on the planet. It should be noted that
this does not suggest that the quality of life was better for the Europeans, only that
even the poorest European was materially better off than his counterpart in India or
China. This research examines why the Industrial Revolution took place in Europe, and why
it did not occur elsewhere, specifically Asia.
Analysts who have taken on the question of why the industrial revolution occurred in
Europe have proposed several theories, each of which, alone, fails to adequately explain
the phenomenon. Some have attributed the industrialization to imperialism, but some
economically successful countries grew prosperous before imperialism and some, such as
Norway and Switzerland, avoided imperialism altogether. Possession of natural resources
has also been put forth as a possible answer. Unfortunately, natural resources do not
become economic assets until the knowledge and means of using them (technology) becomes
available. In addition, Japan, with far fewer natural resources than Mexico and the
Soviet Union, for example, has become a highly successful economic entity. City-states
which were successful during the early stages of the industrial revolution, such as
Venice, also suggest limitations to the physical resources idea (Rosenberg and Birdzell
42-43).
While the above theories cannot account for the industrial revolution of Europe alone,
they can be combined and, with other components, used to produce a workable theory as to
why the miracle occurred in Europe and not the Orient or India.
In 1500, Europe was third in population in the world, behind China and India.
Proportionately, Europe progressed at a higher rate than either China or India during the
period 1650-1850. It is estimated that the real wage tended to be higher than that of the
Orient and India during the thirteenth century and possibly even during the twelfth
(Jones 3). What these figures indicate is that although Europe may not have been as
populous as the Orient or India, it was more successful at taking care of the people it
did support.
Asia lagged behind Europe in mechanical engineering. Large civil engineering and luxury
court projects provided abundance that appeared monumental and grand, but such projects
were enjoyed by a small elite. It is estimated that at the start of the fourteenth
century, the combined peoples of France, Germany and Britain supported 15 percent of the
population through peasant work (meaning that 85 percent of the population were
peasants). As late as the 1880s, however, 2 percent of the population of China consumed
more than 24 percent of the national product, a statistic which indicates the high level
of poverty endured by the very poor (Jones 4).
The Europeans also tended to not maximize human capital. Marriages were delayed, with
some never marrying at all, and childbirth took place at later ages. In India and the
orient, there was a decided emphasis on having numerous children, marrying off daughters
as soon as they were physically able, and favoring sons over daughters. Some attribute
this difference to the Europeans' natural resources which permitted them to consume
livestock products and use draft animals. In order to keep this standard of living, they
produced fewer children, which would have competed with the animals for the scarce food
resources (Jones 14-15).
The lack of an extended family also contributed to later marriages and fewer children
among the Europeans. When all goods and lands were passed to a single heir, it was not
uncommon for that heir to wait until the inheritance before marrying. Other sons would go
out to make their fortune before they would marry. The Europeans even went so far as to
legislate marriages as early as the eighteenth century. Those seeking to marry had to
obtain approval from the local authorities, who effectively withheld it from poorer
inhabitants.
Lacking a large human capital stock on which to draw for labor, the Europeans turned to
domesticated animals to produce much of the labor for them. With fewer children to
provide for, more could be invested in producing strong animals, and in educating the
human labor force as well, who, with spare time provided by not working the fields, could
turn to other endeavors, such as woodworking. Europeans enjoyed better clothing, more
varied food, more furniture and more household utensils than did their counterparts in
China and India.
There is another reason that Asians were more likely to attempt to maximize their human
capital: effective disaster recovery. During 1556 and 1759, an Asian was 30 times more
likely to die in a major earthquake than was a European (Jones 27). Such regular
disasters meant that the human capital stock was regularly depleted. In addition, there
is evidence that parasites were much more common in Asia than in the colder European
countries, leading to additional depletion of the human capital stock. Floods regularly
occur along the Yellow River in China and the Yangtze resulting in famine from lost crops
in subsequent years, not to mention lost animal and human stock as a direct result of the
flood. Drought is also more severe in Asia than in Europe, with severe effects on the
crops, often water-intensive, such as rice (Jones 28).
Recovery from natural disasters in Asia was also a long and drawn out process when
compared to that of the Europeans. One harvest failure could cause serious problems; two
spaced closely together were catastrophic. One lost crop during a decade would require a
reserve of 10 percent of the net output, a level which Western producers are reluctant to
carry even today. Without those reserves, the devastation was nearly complete among the
Asians as expert workers and working animals died. By keeping a large population from
which to start, recovery could take place somewhat faster when capital stocks were
depleted from disasters.
The Europeans, conversely, had adopted another tack. Since they had not maximized human
capital, but instead had additional livestock and materials, they were better able to
recover from disasters. Brick became a common building material in Poland in the
fifteenth century , and its use spread across Europe over the next several hundred years,
thus protecting the Europeans from the ravages of fire, and helping to protect them from
their own wars. Since buildings represented a large share of fixed capital, the savings
was a large one (Jones 34).
But these differences alone do not account for the industrial revolution. Europe was
apparently in a better position to take advantage of the knowledge that began to rapidly
accumulate as a result of the renaissance (much of it from Asian and Islamic cultures).
Western science organized a better attack on the secrets of nature, and used greater
resources in that endeavor, than did other cultures, according to some analysts
(Rosenberg and Birdzell 43).
Introduced in the late-15th century, the printing press enabled scientists engaged in
widely divergent activities to continue to pursue those activities in a decentralized
manner while keeping up with far-flung colleagues' progress. Prince Henry of Portugal
brought together scientists and laboratories and a library as early as the first half of
the fifteenth century, but such institutions became common only during the nineteenth
century.
The single most important contribution of western science is that it linked science and
technology by way of the scientific method, requiring systematic experimentation.
Technology until the industrial revolution was largely the result of craftsmen developing
their own technologies within their own fields of endeavor. Scientists, required to test
their theories in the real world, became linked to that world. As a result, technology
and science became linked (Rosenberg and Birdzell 48).
European cities and transportation systems also gave the western societies distinct
advantages over their eastern neighbors when discussion is focused on the industrial
revolution. London is a prime example.
In 1540, England boasted a population of approximately 3 million, and was a relatively
developed country; most of its wealth was concentrated in so-called shires. London, even
then, was the focus of growth. It was the leading center of economic activity, and
dominated the rest of the nation. More than 160 trades and crafts were active in the city
at that time, in approximately the following proportions: 25 percent in clothing; 10
percent in leather (shoemaking, cobbling, glovemaking); 10 percent in metal working; 5.6
percent in the professions; and, 4 percent as officials and administrators (Barker 45).
London was well connected even then with the rest of England and Wales. The Thames
provided good water communication upstream, and, via the open sea, along the coast and
with Europe. There was a good waterway system in the country long before rivers came to
be improved, and well before the introduction of the Canal Age (Barker 45).
Main highways radiated from London and as early as 1637, carriers advertised regular
freight service by road between London and York, London and Manchester and London and
Exeter. Four-wheel wagons, which could carry several tons, two-wheel carts and packhorse
trains were all in use. London was uniquely placed to take advantage of receiving heavy
bulky goods by water, or lighter, more valuable goods by land, and then distribute those
to the rest of the country (Barker 45).
By 1550, London dominated the trade of English cloth, which accounted for as much as 80
percent of all overseas trade at the time (Barker 45). Good internal communications as
well as joint ventures ensured that London would survive after the collapse of the
Antwerp market. It should be noted that the cloth which London exported was not actually
produced in the city. Instead, the cloth was made in the shires, where underemployed
peasants had begun making the cloth as part of the cottage industry which was happening
throughout England. Peasants were underemployed because they used draft animals instead
of human capital, leaving them the time to take up the manufacture of cloth, for example.
The provinces were able to meet the London demand, and the demand increased with the
provinces' ability to produce. Thus was born an industrial growth relationship between
the provinces and London that maximized growth during the sixteenth century (47).
At the same time, those areas which were agriculturally rich and oversupplied in human
capital were able to release some of that capital to the city to undertake job
opportunities. London grew to 200,000 in 1600, and more than doubled that, to 490,000 by
1700 (Barker 47). The immigration meant that there were now family as well as commercial
links between London and the provinces. This proved useful when promoting goods and
services, and when providing charity.
While London had nearly a half million inhabitants in 1700, the next largest city,
Norwich, had only 30,000 in that same year. Bristol boasted a mere 20,000, and Glasgow,
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham had only 10,000. This indicates the importance that
London had on the country as a whole. The docks of London processed 80 percent of the
imports, 69 percent of the exports, and 86 percent of re-exports such as tobacco and
spices (Barker 47). These goods and imports generated additional business in London
itself and elsewhere in the country.
While Europe as a whole enjoyed significant advantage over Asia when it came to the
industrial revolution, so England enjoyed advantage over the rest of Europe. Britain was
able to develop relatively unchallenged from the rest of the outside world. But the
European continent, lacking strong natural borders, provided an arena for differing
ideas, interests and disputes, settled generally through devastating wars.
The Thirty-Years' War (1618-1648) in particular had political and economic repercussions
that lasted into the nineteenth century. It began as a religious conflict, but soon
became a struggle for the preservation of the German Empire. In the areas where the
actual fighting took place, 60 to 70 percent of the population was eradicated. The total
German population fell from 16 million to ten or 11 million (Mayer 73). Hunger and
epidemics were rampant. At the war's end, economic relations and trade had broken down.
Industrial production had ceased, and agriculture had collapsed. Enormous public debt,
armies of beggars and demobilized soldiers impeded the rebuilding of the economy.
England was at a distinct advantage in that it also controlled its own customs throughout
the country. In the eight kilometer stretch from Bingen to Koblenz in 1781, there were
five customs stations. Duties had to be paid 28 times between Palatinate to Rotterdam.
England was economically unified since at least 1707 when the turnpikes between Scotland
and England were dismantled. Guild regulations were lifted in England a full century
before they were lifted in France (in 1789), and they did not fall in Germany until well
into the nineteenth century (Mayer 75).
The industrial revolution, then, occurred in the west because of inherently different
social structures. There was more emphasis on the nuclear family, and less on the
extended family. marriages were delayed, and fewer children were born in the west.
Disasters took a higher toll in the east than in the west, and the climate was friendlier
to the human capital stock of the west than the east. Fewer floods and earthquakes
eliminated the need for much surplus population.
England in particular benefitted from the industrial revolution in no small part because
of its isolation from the rest of Europe. England was able to avoid the skirmishes and
devastating wars that disabled European countries. England also had a strong commercial
hub in London, which provided ready access to markets for both import and export, and
which was at the center of a strong land transportation system.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Barker, Theo. "London and the Industrial Revolution. History Today 39 (Feb. 1989):
45-51.
Jones, E.L. The European Miracle. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995.
Mayer, Otto G. Veglen's Imperial Germany Revisited. Tacoma, WA: Sligo Publishers, 1995 
Rosenberg, Nathan and L.E. Birdzell. Science, Technology and the Western Miracle.
Scientific American 263 (Nov. 1990): 42-54.
Scott, Ottoes B. A Tale of Two Revolutions. New York, NY: Warner Books, 1996.