In Economic History, a key controversial issue is the First Industrial Revolution. Why the Industrial Revolution has happened is not exactly clear. For example why in Britain? What was the correct timeframe and why then? Also what other factors has contributed towards this? This is why it is considered controversial. The Industrial Revolution is also important because it is the foundation of the structure of the modern global economy today. The first Industrial Revolution was British, even though Britain was part of a world economy increasingly structured around European maritime states. It is defined “is not merely an acceleration of economic growth, but acceleration of growth because of, and through economic and social transformation” (Hobsbawm and Wrigley, 1999). There are a number of significant changes due to the Industrial Revolution, some of which are: the increase of modern science being applied to the economic production process, specialization of production and economic activity for both national and international markets, movement of population from rural areas meaning farms and the countryside to urban communities which are cities and towns, enlargement and depersonalization of the typical unit of production to be based less on family and more on the corporate or public enterprise, movement of labour from production of primary products to manufactured goods and services, use of capital resources as a substitute for and complement to human effort, and new social classes determined by the ownership of the means of production other than land, i.e. capital (Deane, 1979) and (Hendrickson, 2014). There are two narratives, David S. Landes (2014 [1998]) and Kenneth Pomeranz (2000), I will be comparing and evaluating both, as well as providing my own opinion in this essay.
David Landes pointed out three main factors. The replacement of human skill and effort for mechanization and the adoption of the factory system, which is the core as it is a change in the mode of production. Replacement of non-renewable energy for renewable energy, “in particular, the invention of engines for converting heat into work, thereby opening an almost unlimited supply of energy”. Lastly, use of new rich artificial materials (Landes, 1999). Landes believes these are what made the Industrial Revolution, which provided a huge rise in productivity, leading to a rise in income per person that was ‘self-sustaining’. The Industrial Revolution was not done overnight, it was a long process. The British Industrial Revolution ran for a century, about 1770 to 1870, and it was believed that British income per head doubled between 1780 and 1860 and multiplied by six between 1860 and 1990 (Landes, 2010). This was due to various numbers of new inventions of machinery in these periods. Landes says the rise of the West was a consequence of the fact that modern factory industries have taken over old-fashioned rivals, nationally and internationally. The Western countries have made far more inventions during the period of Industrial Revolution, renewable energy replacing human labour and using new rich materials for example have been a huge step up compared to non-Western countries, which has made the British income per head multiple by 6 while the other counties were still using non-renewable methods and inefficient human labour, which clearly makes sense why non-Western counties did not experience the boost in income.
Kenneth Pomeranz uses the term Great Divergence, as it is the title of his book. The general meaning of this term is the process where the Western counties have become the dominant populations during the 19th century due to the powerful and wealthy world civilization (En.wikipedia.org, 2018). Some scholars believe the Great Divergence happened due to the Industrial Revolution, while others argue it was occurred before the Industrial Revolution has begun. One view is that the divergence started around 1800 during the Industrial Revolution. Pomeranz looks at many aspects of Europe and Asia before 1800: living conditions, accumulation in terms of capital stock, technology, scientific culture, irrigation and agriculture, textile weaving, dying, porcelain, iron, medicine and energy. He makes a lot of comparisons between Europe and Asia. When it came down to wealth, Europeans were already wealthy before industrialization, by holding back population growth below maximum, it allowed Europeans to have consumption levels above those of Asia (Pomeranz, 2000). When it comes to technology comparisons, “we do find some important European advantages emerging during the two or three centuries before the Industrial Revolution; but we also still find areas of European backwardness. Europe’s disadvantages were concentrated in areas of agriculture, land management, and the inefficient use of certain land-intensive products (especially fuel wood)” (Pomeranz, 2000). So Europe had huge technological advantages centuries before the Industrial Revolution, but they lacked in agriculture and land, but the advantage in technology had been a lot more important than what they had lacked in which led to revolutionary developments. As a result they had increased their wealth which meant later on they could access “additional land-intensive resources” (Pomeranz, 2000). Asian societies had reached human populations significantly higher than the amount of livestock available, which made a shortage of animals and capital equipment and had been a crucial problem. Europe on the other hand had a lot more farm animals available and “capital equipment due to their land transport” (Pomeranz, 2000). When it came to life expectancy, European longevity was higher than Asian populations, but not by a significant amount around 1780. But around the 19th century, Chinese life expectancy had been greater than certain European groups, specifically northwest Europeans. Birthrates for Europeans were not exceptionally low, similar to their death rates. While Asian counties such as Japan had very low birthrates. When it came to accumulation, Europeans were a lot more well off than Asians. “By 1850, northwest Europe already had a marked technological advantage over the rest of the Old World” (Pomeranz, 2000). So Europe were well off when it came to technology compared to east Asia and lots of other parts of the world. Pomeranz believed the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain as a result of conjunctures and empire, due to catching up in land-saving technologies from colonies to escape ecological crisis, as they have worked on their scientific knowledge to learn more about the eco-system. Also, due to luck, when it came to find natural resources such as coal. Other countries did not have much luck in finding coal, such as east Asia. China’s switch to silver currency kept mines in America profitable was also a reason. Cotton was the central industry as well, as the wages were relatively high for Britain in the textile industry, and competition in price sensitive markets.
To compare the two narratives of Landes and Pomeranz, a disagreement between their views is when the technological and institutional superiority of the West had come through, whether it was before the Industrial Revolution, during or after. Landes believed that the Industrial Revolution had happened due to the accumulated superiority in the West, suggesting it has happened after. What he means is that due to machines replacing human labour, introduction of renewable and more efficient energy, and the use of new rich artificial materials in the long term has led to a surplus resulting in the rise of productivity, and later on rise in income per head. This long-term superiority that the West had really led to the West becoming superior compared to other parts of the world such as Asia. Therefore, the Industrial Revolution is just a product of these turn of events. Pomeranz however, he believes that there was no overall superiority of the West until industrialization, meaning most aspects that he had mentioned were similar and the West had no superiority over other countries at this point. A few aspects that I have mentioned earlier are living conditions, accumulation in terms of capital stock, technology, agriculture, and energy. Europe and Japan for example had similar life expectancy, Europe were slightly better off when it came to accumulation and technology but were well below Asia when it came down to agriculture. He argues overall both countries were similar until industrialization has begun. Another disagreement is that Landes highlights the fact that the West had superior technological inventions which led to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and Britain, Pomeranz on the other hand explains the start of the Industrial Revolution in terms of luck, conjunctures and empire. This means the West had higher welfare due to better living standards than Asia for example, they were lucky with the location of their country to be lucky to find better energy sources like coal. Landes focuses on inventions of technology that had been improved overtime rather than luck, but Pomeranz does make a good point about the West being lucky to find coal. The two also disagree on the importance of commerce and colonial trade and production. Landes thinks Calico Acts is an unintentional protection of cotton industry which is relevant in the short-run explanation, but not in the long-run due to technological accumulation. Pomeranz thinks the colonial experience is fundamental in Europe’s technological catch-up process, and the competition for price-sensitive colonial textile markets provides additional incentive for mechanization.
Key weaknesses of Pomeranz’ explanations is that he did not stress enough how important the rise of technological improvements have been. However, Hobsbawm also undermined the importance of technology, he focused too much on cotton being the product creating the Industrial Revolution, as he said, “whoever says Industrial Revolution says cotton” (Hobsbawm and Wrigley, 1999). Pomeranz focused too much on the comparison between Europe and Asia, rather than giving an explanation of the rise of the West compared to other countries. Both Landes and Pomeranz underestimate the role of the state and the alliance between military and industry, as Britain’s powerful military relations allowed them to be the country to have an industrial revolution in the first place. Landes did not stress enough of how the increase in population led to an increase in consumption which is a factor of industrialization. Pomeranz also sounds very vague in terms of his idea of how the Industrial Revolution has started.
A few strengths of Pomeranz’ explanations is how he doesn’t follow the mainstream views, he looks deep into every factor such as life expectancy, population and agriculture. He has a lot of evidence to back up his points about life expectancy in Japan for example and effectively compares to Europe. Pomeranz also considers ecological crisis and resource constraints. Landes strengths are how precise he was about transformation from rural putting-out and industrial production, he has convincing evidence on technological change. Landes also makes sense how he explains the Industrial Revolution is a factor of the increase in income per head, which is due to increase in productivity provided by new renewable machinery replaced human labour and new rich materials. Both Landes and Pomeranz considered the role of science in detail which is also a strength.
In conclusion, Landes definitely had a simpler explanation, his ideas were straight to the point and referring to the rise of Industrial Revolution, while Pomeranz were more focused on his idea of the Great Divergence and comparing Europe to Asia. While Landes reflected more to the idea that new renewable technology that replaced human labour with a combination of a large quantity of new rich materials which had led to an increase in productivity, leading to an increase in income per head, Pomeranz had considered a lot more factors. Pomeranz had thought of factors no other economist would have thought about, like life expectancy for example, and he put in a lot of evidence from credible sources in his book to back up his points. Pomeranz does however sound very vague and does not focus too much on the link between the actual Industrial Revolution with his Great Divergence, which had made it hard to understand. In my opinion, I prefer Landes explanation more convincing as it is straight to the point and easiest to understand, with the right idea that the Industrial Revolution and rise of the West was just a product of the many factors taken place.