5 ms·

The industrial revolution: Fire and brimstone; why it started in Britain

28 points by mblakele 16y ago

rue 16y ago
Missing Spoiler Alert: should you be inclined to read the book (this is a book review, not a full-fledged article) rather than a trivial summary, do not read past the first paragraphs. I am disinclined to agree with the assertion and certainly not to the exclusion of other factors - though I suspect and hope the article glosses over the relative importances thereof whereas the book may treat them a bit more sanely. It is an interesting hypothesis, nonetheless, and certainly makes me want to read the book for the full analysis.
rubashov 16y ago
> his book, in the end, plumps for intellectual property as the biggest single spur "A Farewell to Alms" goes into great detail that very few people involved in the industrial revolution got wealthy. It's a story of inventors and industrialists coming away with extremely modest financial gains, despite huge accomplishment, over and over. Greater fortunes were made in completely low tech and un-revolutionized businesses like pottery. The idea that the industrial revolution was a matter of legal frameworks and financial motivations is not particular plausible in light of the financial facts. The people who drove the industrial revolution never much profited. "A Farewell to Alms" argues the industrial revolution happened in Britain because to a degree unique to Britain, the most productive and responsible people had the most children for several generations. It is documented in great detail how this was the true. Through eugenic forces, the British worker and the British engineer had become driven enough to create the industrial revolution.
- gaius 16y ago
  The pottery might not have been hi-tech, but mass producing it meant a radical change in the way it had hitherto been produced. It's like we say Dell is (or was) an innovative company. How, when they just made generic PCs? Well, their innovation was not in the technology, but in the techniques they used to manage their supply chain and inventory.
  - rubashov 16y ago
    > a radical change in the way it had hitherto been produced No, it was made the same way.
    - gaius 16y ago
      That's just not true. You can read about it here: http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-pottery-museum/information-sheets/the-industrial-revolution-and-the-pottery-industry.en;jsessionid=at3RWdnlrmke http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-po... The innovation was not about something other than clay fired in a kiln; it was making the process scale from "a potter" to a factory.
- eru 16y ago
  Also the British imported early capitalism and improvements in agriculture from the Dutch. Without the improvements in agriculture, around 80% of the population had to work the fields, just to feed everyone.
- mblakele 16y ago
  Perhaps the spur was a carrot that could never be reached, rather than actual gains?
forinti 16y ago
I've just read most of "Kicking Away The Ladder" (2002, Ha-Joon Chang) and this work makes it clear that Henry VII started the whole textile business in the XVI century. He had lived in the Netherlands, saw the wealth that it created, and put in motion policies geared towards building an industry in Britain (restricting exports and hiring dutch craftsmen). His successors continued his work and in the XVIII century this industry accounted for half of Britain's export revenue. This book is quite interesting; it argues that those economic policies that rich countries now sell to developing nations (through the Washington Consensus, for instance) were actually only put in place after they had become developed. These policies include IP rights, opening up of markets, less government intervention (that's laughable), etc.
- Gormo 16y ago
  Looking at IP alone might lead to confusion of causation and correlation. What factors led to the ability to create effective IP policies in the first place? Consider the broader context: in the early modern era, England was arguably the stablest and most evenly-governed country in the world, especially after 1688. There was a common body of law that applied throughout the country, centuries before legal codification; there were reliable courts of law end equity; there was a resilient balance between centralized interests and local ones; there was a deep cultural apprehension to arbitrary power. There was also the fact that, after the Act of Union, Great Britain had very little cause to worry about external military threats potentially destroying investments in physical infrastructure. Industrialization is about improving production efficiency, and thus scaling into larger and wider markets. Even if you have the technology to begin industrialization, if the society at large is unpredictable and its institutions unreliable, you still have a major impediment to scaling your enterprise, and so you have a disincentive to industrialization. If you do have stability and reliable institutions, as the early UK did, you're in a great position to industrialize. It makes you wonder what might have happened if Hero of Alexandria had brought his primitive steam engine to Rome a hundred years earlier, before the Republic collapsed (which would also have been around the same time as Spartacus' rebellion).

28 points by mblakele 16y ago

rue 16y ago

Missing Spoiler Alert: should you be inclined to read the book (this is a book review, not a full-fledged article) rather than a trivial summary, do not read past the first paragraphs. I am disinclined to agree with the assertion and certainly not to the exclusion of other factors - though I suspect and hope the article glosses over the relative importances thereof whereas the book may treat them a bit more sanely. It is an interesting hypothesis, nonetheless, and certainly makes me want to read the book for the full analysis.

rubashov 16y ago

> his book, in the end, plumps for intellectual property as the biggest single spur "A Farewell to Alms" goes into great detail that very few people involved in the industrial revolution got wealthy. It's a story of inventors and industrialists coming away with extremely modest financial gains, despite huge accomplishment, over and over. Greater fortunes were made in completely low tech and un-revolutionized businesses like pottery. The idea that the industrial revolution was a matter of legal frameworks and financial motivations is not particular plausible in light of the financial facts. The people who drove the industrial revolution never much profited. "A Farewell to Alms" argues the industrial revolution happened in Britain because to a degree unique to Britain, the most productive and responsible people had the most children for several generations. It is documented in great detail how this was the true. Through eugenic forces, the British worker and the British engineer had become driven enough to create the industrial revolution.

gaius 16y ago
The pottery might not have been hi-tech, but mass producing it meant a radical change in the way it had hitherto been produced. It's like we say Dell is (or was) an innovative company. How, when they just made generic PCs? Well, their innovation was not in the technology, but in the techniques they used to manage their supply chain and inventory.
- rubashov 16y ago
  > a radical change in the way it had hitherto been produced No, it was made the same way.
  - gaius 16y ago
    That's just not true. You can read about it here: http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-pottery-museum/information-sheets/the-industrial-revolution-and-the-pottery-industry.en;jsessionid=at3RWdnlrmke http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-po... The innovation was not about something other than clay fired in a kiln; it was making the process scale from "a potter" to a factory.
eru 16y ago
Also the British imported early capitalism and improvements in agriculture from the Dutch. Without the improvements in agriculture, around 80% of the population had to work the fields, just to feed everyone.
mblakele 16y ago
Perhaps the spur was a carrot that could never be reached, rather than actual gains?

forinti 16y ago

I've just read most of "Kicking Away The Ladder" (2002, Ha-Joon Chang) and this work makes it clear that Henry VII started the whole textile business in the XVI century. He had lived in the Netherlands, saw the wealth that it created, and put in motion policies geared towards building an industry in Britain (restricting exports and hiring dutch craftsmen). His successors continued his work and in the XVIII century this industry accounted for half of Britain's export revenue. This book is quite interesting; it argues that those economic policies that rich countries now sell to developing nations (through the Washington Consensus, for instance) were actually only put in place after they had become developed. These policies include IP rights, opening up of markets, less government intervention (that's laughable), etc.

Gormo 16y ago
Looking at IP alone might lead to confusion of causation and correlation. What factors led to the ability to create effective IP policies in the first place? Consider the broader context: in the early modern era, England was arguably the stablest and most evenly-governed country in the world, especially after 1688. There was a common body of law that applied throughout the country, centuries before legal codification; there were reliable courts of law end equity; there was a resilient balance between centralized interests and local ones; there was a deep cultural apprehension to arbitrary power. There was also the fact that, after the Act of Union, Great Britain had very little cause to worry about external military threats potentially destroying investments in physical infrastructure. Industrialization is about improving production efficiency, and thus scaling into larger and wider markets. Even if you have the technology to begin industrialization, if the society at large is unpredictable and its institutions unreliable, you still have a major impediment to scaling your enterprise, and so you have a disincentive to industrialization. If you do have stability and reliable institutions, as the early UK did, you're in a great position to industrialize. It makes you wonder what might have happened if Hero of Alexandria had brought his primitive steam engine to Rome a hundred years earlier, before the Republic collapsed (which would also have been around the same time as Spartacus' rebellion).