The Industrial Revolution is said to have begun in the 1760’s, and ended sometime between 1820-1840. It marked a vast overhaul of the output of the British economy, the once predominant agricultural sector became increasingly inferior, as the percentage of GDP produced by this sector fell from 45% to 20%. Meanwhile the industrial sector boomed, growing from 20% to 35% of GDP, a significant increase when you take into account Britain’s heavily agricultural origins (Outram, 2017). The development of scientific economics lead to technological breakthroughs, like the invention of the steam engine and the water-frame spinning machine, this allowed manufacturers to keep a high supply of marketable goods, said to be one of the factors contributing to the Revolution (De Vries, 1994). These goods were produced on such a large scale that previously domesticated work, for example weaving, moved into the factories. Labourers were no longer able to regulate their own schedules, leading to a change in their working hours. Explanations for the Industrial Revolution are often inconclusive, and end up leading back to the original question. De Vries believed that the answer to the aforementioned lay in what he called an ‘Industrious Revolution’, a period of time preceding the Industrial Revolution, in which the demand for marketable goods excelled (De Vries, 1994), leading to a need for an increase in supply (i.e. the Industrial Revolution) years later.
De Vries’ idea of the Industrious Revolution turned the original idea of the Industrial Revolution on its head, where previous historians had maintained a deep focus on supply-side phenomena that had occurred on or around the beginning of the revolution. De Vries put forward a new approach involving the investigation of the demand-side behaviour of the British population, far before the Industrial Revolution happened (De Vries, 1994). He believed this period to have occurred between the seventeenth and end of the nineteenth century (Clark and Van der Werf, 1998). This growth in demand was believed to have revolved around a change in attitudes of British households. Where self-sufficiency and production of domestic goods had previously dominated, this was replaced by a sudden desire to own marketable goods, once seen as luxuries and limited to those further up in the hierarchy. This change in consumption meant that the “marginal utility of money income rose” (De Vries, 1994 pp.257), causing households to reduce their hours of leisure time, and instead increase hours of labour, in order to fund their new lifestyles (De Vries, 1994). De Vries put such advancement in consumer behaviour down to the role of real wages. There is evidence to suggest that during these times the value of real wages stagnated, and at some points decreased (De Vries, 1994), this is said to have spurred the population on to work increasing amounts of hours and in addition have a surplus of money to buy such goods. Due to this, de Vries believes that this increased demand lay the foundations for an industrial revolution, as the manufacturing process moved from a previously domestic, small-scale setting to large factories consisting of machinery and employed labourers.
However, it could be argued that de Vries’ hypothesis lacks in historical evidence. As Voth stated “To say anything of substance about actual hours worked before 1800 is not for the faint-hearted; existing data is staggeringly scarce” (Voth, 2009). It is not uncommon to find contesting information in regard to the number of hours worked, as the way in which different historians estimate the working day of a labourer can vary greatly. The example in figure 1 shows that the amount of labour put in from the beginning of the seventeenth century in terms of feet sawed per day (where the Industrious Revolution was said to have started), although it fluctuates slightly in the years between, it remains incredibly similar up until the point at when the industrial revolution was said to have begun in the 1760’s. Clark and Van der Werf (1998) also highlight that the fluctuations in the numbers could have been due to a change in the way that one hundred feet was measured, rather than a change in labour intensity itself. This further emphasises the lack of precision in data from the pre-industrial period, making it harder to determine if there was a true change in work patterns.
figure 1
(Clark and Van der Werf, 1998 pp.836) Graph showing the number of amount of 100 feet sawed per day between the year 1275 to 1825.
Yes, there may be some data available to suggest that labour rates rose during this pre-industrial period, however it may be insufficient to determine that this data has a direct relationship with a demand for more marketed goods. Allen and Wiesdorf (2011) suggested that de Vries argument overlooked other factors behind an increase in labour hours. They established that the gap between real working hours and the working hours needed in order to achieve a desired consumption basket in the working-class household (represented by that of southern farmers) was incredibly small, suggesting that they actually contained no luxury goods, contradicting de Vries’ beliefs. Whereas, in regard to the consumption basket of higher class households (shown by London building workers), the gap was significantly greater, due to these baskets being filled with luxury items such as beer and tobacco. Therefore, it could be suggested that instead of working-class households having a surplus of income, these increased labour hours are in fact due to times of financial hardship, in which families would have only just managed to afford basic necessities. This idea is reinforced by Voth (2003) in which although he agrees with de Vries in the respect that leisure time decreased, he suggests the consumption of material goods also stagnated (Voth, 2003).
On the contrary, despite the discrepancies shown between data, if a more political approach is taken, there is support for de Vries’ idea of an increase in the demand for more luxurious items due to a change in tastes. The Sumptuary Law introduced during the middle ages slowly began to deteriorate during the seventeenth century (Ribeiro, 2003), coinciding with de Vries’ suggested start of the Industrious Revolution. Luxury items such as purple fabrics and silk became available to those of lower ranks as the legislation deteriorated (De Vries, 1994). Those that put in the extra hours of labour would have potentially been able to earn the money to purchase these goods, at the expense of leisure time, coinciding with de Vries’ ideas.
During the Industrious Revolution households functioned in a domestic system, in which they would produce goods in response to the demands of their merchant-employer. This allowed families to regulate their own working hours, as long as they produced what was asked of them (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998). This system was overhauled during the formative years of the Industrial Revolution, labour moved into factories powered by heavy machinery in order to take advantage of low-cost energy in England, and avoid high-cost of employing workers. Much of the population of England flocked from the country into urban areas as the profitability of agriculture plummeted (Clark, 2001). These previously self-employed workers were now having to work under the guidelines of factory owners, driven by profit and with little care for their wellbeing. As the presence of factories was a relatively new phenomenon, there was little legislation on the living standards of its workers, this meant that working hours were orientated only in order to produce the greatest output, where it was not uncommon for labours to work for around 3,200 hours per year (Voth, 2003).
As mentioned previously, de Vries exaggerates that during the Industrious Revolution households were said to have worked longer hours and experience less leisure time in order to fund their desire for certain goods (De Vries, 1994). Such fixation on the increase of working hours could suggest that the introduction of the Industrial Revolution had little effect on the number of hours in which families worked. However, in figure 2 it is shown that this number rose drastically from the years in which the Industrious Revolution was said to have ended and the Industrial Revolution began, giving strong evidence that working hours did in fact increase.
figure 2
(Voth, 2003 pp.223) A graph showing the number of hours worked by labourers between the years 1700-2000
However, it is also evident that this figure peaked in around the 1800’s and from there it began to decline, this change can be put down to the introduction of legislation in relation to the living standards of factory workers. For example, the Factory Act of 1833 introduced laws that meant children were prohibited from working more than nine hours a day, whilst young people and women could work no longer than twelve hours (Hutchins and Harrison, 1911). Laws put in place during this period coincide with the drop in working hours experienced between 1800 and 1850, these figures towards the end of the revolution drop so significantly in fact, that there is little difference between that and the figures preceding the industrial revolution. Therefore, when approaching the question in hand in this context, there really was little change in the working hours due to the Revolution.
On a different note, technological advancement in the agricultural sector caused many rural households to be put out of jobs and migrate into more urban areas, in the hope of working in a factory (Pettinger, 2017). This influx of families created a surplus of labourers, and led to another problem in itself, unemployment (Majewski, 1986). A worry expressed as early as the Elizabethan era, in which inventor William Lee put forward the first knitting machine, an idea which was quickly dismissed in fear of rendering hand-knitters unemployed (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998). So, while some were working over twelve hours a day, many others were not working at all. Therefore, could it be said that overall, working hours had truly increased during the revolution?
Through looking at various arguments, it is evident that establishing whether or not the working hours increased or decreased is heavily dependent on the context. It appears that during the Industrial Revolution, these hours appeared to show a sort of ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon, in which they momentarily peaked at their highest point during the 1800’s before taking on a steady and constant decline up until the 2000’s (Voth, 2003). In addition, the idea of ‘working hours’ is too broad to narrow down to a single conclusion. For example, as aforementioned, much of the legislation introduced later on was only applicable to women and children, therefore excluding the introduction of fairer working conditions for men (Hutchins and Harrison, 1911). This meant for men, their working hours did not decrease, whereas the rest of the population did. Furthermore, as Voth (2001) stated, any evidence in the working hours before the Industrial Revolution is minimal, and often hard to decipher into what we now consider a working day. Therefore, not only is it difficult to determine if there was a significant change in working hours from the pre-industrial revolution to beginning of the Industrial revolution; but it is also difficult to support de Vries’ argument that households in the Industrious Revolution took less leisure time in order to purchase more commodities. Furthermore, it is evident that de Vries’ has overlooked significant factors put forward by the likes of Voth (2003), in which it is suggested that while it is true to say there is evidence of a decrease in leisure time, the motives are not down to a change in tastes, but an economic struggle in which families had to put in the extra hours in order to afford basic consumption bundles. All the while, de Vries’ resolution offers a welcome alternative to what he calls the “thrice squeezed oranges” of explanations (De Vries, 1994, p250).