Modern Growth - University of California, Davis

download report

Transcript Modern Growth - University of California, Davis

The Industrial Revolution
in England
Roadmap






What’s the Industrial Revolution?
IR & technological progress
Results
Causes
The IR: a discontinuity?
Testing the two views on the IR
What was the IR?
 The IR in England is one of history's
great mysteries. The events are
widely known but their interpretations
are hotly contested.
 First historical instance of the
breakthrough from an agrarian,
handicraft economy to one dominated
by industry and machine manufacture
The IR and Technological Progress
 The heart of the IR was an interrelated
succession of technological changes:
 Use of mechanical devices for human skills
 Use of inanimate power, in particular steam,
instead of human and animal strength
 Improvement in getting and working of raw
materials -metallurgy and chemical industries.
 New forms of industrial organization
 Related to changes in equipment and
processes.
 Factory was a system of production.
 New breed of worker following the demands of the
clock.
Technological changes
 Steam engine (power technology)
 Metallurgy (iron and steel)
 Textiles
 Spinning
 Weaving
Textiles inventions
Spinning
Weaving
Causes
 Institutions: free trade, elimination of
regulations and medieval obstacles.
 Agricultural change: increase in
agricultural productivity due to
technological change.
 Demographic growth: growth of population
in the 18th century increased the market.
 Technological advance
 Foreign trade: bigger market due to the
colonies.
Results
 Production of iron and textiles
 Innovation
 Efficiency
Results – Pig Iron Production
Pig Iron Production
in tons
3,000,000
2,701,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,999,608
1,500,000
1,396,400
1,248,781
1,215,350
1,000,000
677,417
500,000
25
68
150
244
1796
1806
455
0
1720
1788
1823
1830
1839
1840
1843
1847
1853
Results - Textiles
Imports of Raw Cotton
1000 of lbs.
12,000,000
10,000,000
10,005,000
8,000,000
6,136,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
3,874,000
2,000,000
2,009,000
55,721
183,861
320,166
1,214,790
693,706
0
17711780
17811790
17911800
18011810
18111820
18211830
18311840
18411850
18511860
Results - Innovation
Number of Patents
35,000
31,921
30,000
25,000
22,027
20,000
17,596
15,000
10,000
4,654
5,000
297
512
675
936
1,113
1,545
2,713
0
1771- 1781- 1791- 1801- 1811- 1821- 1831- 1841- 1851- 1861- 18711780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880
Results - Efficiency
 Sudden appearance of a more rapid and sustained
rate of efficiency advance than previously seen.
 Textiles were the flagship industry of the IR
 Spinning:
 Old technology: 50,000 hours to spin 100 lbs of cotton.
 With the mule only 300 hours in 1790s
 efficiency in converting raw cotton into cloth
increased fourteenfold from 1760s to 1860s (2.4%
per year).
 1760s: 18 man-hours to transform a pound of cotton
into cloth
 1860s: 1.5 man-hours
The IR in England: a discontinuity?
 Two views on the IR in England:
 Traditional view: Discontinuity (Toynbee, Ashton
and Landes):
 IR as a broad change in the British economy
and society.
 Modern view: gradual
 the IR as a result of technical change in only a
few industries (Crafts and Harley).
 the IR as the result of evolutionary
development that affected other European
economies almost as much as England. It was
the product of the gradual process of settled
agrarian societies toward a more rational,
economically oriented mindset (Clark).
So, it’s gradual, but how much?
 GDP per capita growth:
 Deane and Cole: 1780s-1860s: GDP per
capita increased by about 2.5 times
 Crafts and Harley: 1760-1860, output
per worker doubled.
 Clark: GDP per person grew 28%
between 1700s and 1830s.
 Productivity:
 Crafts and Harley: 0.58%
 Clark: 0.39%
Productivity growth by Clark
Testing the Two views
 Use of the Ricardian model of international trade to
test the nature of the IR (Temin)
 Expected results:
 Traditional view:
 Britain should have been exporting other manufactures
(other than cotton textiles and iron bars).
 Comparative advantage in manufacturing.
 Modern view:
 Britain should have been importing the same goods in
the early 19th century.
 Comparative advantage in cotton and iron.
 Other manufactures not exported because Britain
lacked a comparative advantage in manufacturing in
general.
Testing the Two Views
-continued
 The traditional view of the IR is more
accurate than the new, restricted image.
 Other British manufactures were not
inefficient and stagnant, or at least they
were not all stagnant.
 The spirit that motivated cotton
manufactures extended also to activities as
varies as hardware and haberdashery,
arms, and apparel.