History of the Industrial revolution (Wikipedia)
The first Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, merged into the Second
Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained
momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the 19th
century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. The period of
time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm
held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[7]
while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[8]
Some 20th century historians such as John Clapham and Nicholas Crafts have argued that the
process of economic and social change took place gradually and the term revolution is a
misnomer. This is still a subject of debate among historians. GDP per capita was broadly
stable before the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of the modern capitalist economy.
The Industrial Revolution began an era of per-capita economic growth in capitalist
economies. Economic historians are in agreement that the onset of the Industrial Revolution
is the most important event in the history of humanity since the domestication of animals and
plants.
General Notes
In the decades before the Civil War—a period sometimes dubbed the First Industrial
Revolution—a significant number of inventions and innovations appeared, transforming life.
A telegraph system allowed information to flow from place to place more quickly than the
speed of a horse. A transportation system based largely on steam power allowed goods to be
shipped great distances at reduced expense. Also of great consequence was the development a
system in which individual workers were responsible for only part of a finished product,
helped make store-bought goods more affordable. (This differed from earlier practices, in
which someone skilled in a craft, toiling at home or in a shop, started with raw materials and
worked through the entire creative process alone.) As a result, people began to buy goods
from stores rather than making them—the Western consumer was born.
The Two Countries That Invented The Industrial Revolution
by Curt Anderson
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook14.html#The%20Industrial%20Revolution
Why do the British and American approaches to machinery differ? A short history of machine tools
explains why. No two countries were more responsible for the Industrial Revolution than America and
England. In England, during the 18th and 19th centuries there was no shortage of skilled labor.
Rather than replacing English workers, their machines made work more precise. Meanwhile, in
sparsely populated America, the needs of a new nation required rapid and simple means of
production. Machines augmented the scant work force. In England, machines served to make
talented artisans better. In America, machines served to make entrepreneurs more productive
.
Suggested essay topic: These were certainly impressive achievements, but revolution means
dramatic, rapid change. Are the changes that took place in manufacturing and distribution
during this period best described as a "revolution" or as steady change over time?
What research tools can help you judge the nature of change during the First Industrial
Revolution?
What changes occurred in Britain, Europe and North America during the period of
industrialization? What facts indicate whether early industrialization was a revolutionary or
evolutionary process?
Comparisons to more modern times could be made between the technology of the First
Industrial Revolution and that of the height of the Industrial Age (the 1950s, for example).
Comparisons to the Information Age are less apt
The following is an excerpt from a paper that discusses these issues/questions from an
economic historical perspective. You could explore this further and look at eg social or
psychological perspectives.
THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE INDUSTRIAL
.
REVOLUTION
Gregory Clark
Department of Economics, UCD, CA 95616
gclark@ucdavis.edu
October, 2001
"There be daily many things found out and daily more may be which our fore fathers never knew to be
possible."
Sir Robert Filmer (1653).
When was the decisive break from the pre-industrial world of slow technological advance
and stagnant living standards to the modern world of constant technological progress and
steadily improving living standards? Most historians have assigned the dawn of the modern
world to England in 1770. There has followed a long debate about the cause of the Industrial
Revolution. Here I argue that there was no significant break in 1770 from the earlier world.
That break only occurred later in the nineteenth century. Instead the Industrial Revolution
was most likely the last of a series of localized growth spurts stretching back to the Middle
Ages, as in the Netherlands from 1500 to 1660, and northern Italy in the fourteenth century.
Accidents of demand, demography, trade, and geography made this spurt seem different than
what had come before – but it was really more of the same.
Conclusion
This paper shows that the expansion of output per worker in the Industrial Revolution
years was much less than previously thought, and that there was significant growth of output
per worker in the years 1600-1700, long before the supposed Industrial Revolution. That is
the relatively easy part. But the interpretation of these new output figures is still uncertain, as
thus is the meaning of the Industrial Revolution. Over the years 1500 to 1869 the share of
farmland rents in national income varied substantially. By 1860-9 it was only 7%, but it was
as high as 34% in 1600-9. If we approximate national productivity growth by using a Cobb-
Douglas production function, but changing the factor shares in national income decade by
decade, then the conclusion is that there was little productivity growth in the Industrial
Revolution era beyond that explained by the technological revolution in textiles. Further the
accident that textiles were exported on a large scale by 1800, explained by the need to import
large quantities of food and raw materials given English population growth after 1760,
accounts for a substantial fraction of the gains in productivity. The Industrial Revolution
becomes very narrow. It can then be interpreted as just another isolated technological
advance as European economies had been witnessing since at least the fifteenth century.