What caused the industrial revolution?

[Thanas]

Free market and freedom caused the revolution? Why did it not happen in Northern Italy or in the Hanseatic States then, because they were the ones having truly unregulated internal free markets and true republics first and for a much longer time since England did?

[Iron Bridge]

1. How do you know it didn't? I have never been able to find historical GDP per capita estimates for the Italian states, let alone something as nebulous as the Hanseatic League.

2. Is it even true that the Republic of Venice had "unregulated free markets"? The Hanseatic League certainly didn't - it was a mercantilist cartel.

[Thanas]

1. How do you know it didn't? I have never been able to find historical GDP per capita estimates for the Italian states, let alone something as nebulous as the Hanseatic League.

Because they did not have any industry present we associate with the Industrial revolution. No steam, no coal, no Iron.

2. Is it even true that the Republic of Venice had "unregulated free markets"? The Hanseatic League certainly didn't - it was a mercantilist cartel.

They had unregulated free internalmarkets. Which is the same as Britain had. It is not as if Britain suddenly abolished taxes and cartels, or city/Royal privileges. Also, how nice of you not to concede the Republic point.

Besides, what freedom brought direct result in Britain anyway?

[Iron Bridge]

1. How do you know it didn't? I have never been able to find historical GDP per capita estimates for the Italian states, let alone something as nebulous as the Hanseatic League.

Because they did not have any industry present we associate with the Industrial revolution. No steam, no coal, no Iron.

It's misleading to view it like that. 1890 India had railways, steam, coal, etc. and yet it was not industrialised. It is possible that the Republic of Venice was equally as developed economically as Britain in, say, 1780. It is also possible that the Republic of Venice was merely a sort of pre-industrial urban tax haven surrounded by a poor feudal hinterland. I do not know.

2. Is it even true that the Republic of Venice had "unregulated free markets"? The Hanseatic League certainly didn't - it was a mercantilist cartel.

They had unregulated free internalmarkets. Which is the same as Britain had. It is not as if Britain suddenly abolished taxes and cartels, or city/Royal privileges. Also, how nice of you not to concede the Republic point.

1. Britain did not have entirely unregulated internal markets.

2. I am sure that neither Venice nor the Hanseatic League did either. They may have had comparably free markets to Britain, but I am not sure of this either. If you have references, I would be happy to read them.

3. I didn't mention being a republic as an important factor. Clearly Britain was not a republic during the industrial revolution.

Besides, what freedom brought direct result in Britain anyway?

I don't understand the question.

[Thanas]

1. How do you know it didn't? I have never been able to find historical GDP per capita estimates for the Italian states, let alone something as nebulous as the Hanseatic League.

Because they did not have any industry present we associate with the Industrial revolution. No steam, no coal, no Iron.

It's misleading to view it like that. 1890 India had railways, steam, coal, etc. and yet it was not industrialised. It is possible that the Republic of Venice was equally as developed economically as Britain in, say, 1780. It is also possible that the Republic of Venice was merely a sort of pre-industrial urban tax haven surrounded by a poor feudal hinterland. I do not know.

It does not bode well for your theory when you have not considered other free places with free markets before England.

1. Britain did not have entirely unregulated internal markets.

Then that makes your theory even less feasible, doesn't it?

2. I am sure that neither Venice nor the Hanseatic League did either. They may have had comparably free markets to Britain, but I am not sure of this either. If you have references, I would be happy to read them.

Well, one of the main programs of the

3. I didn't mention being a republic as an important factor. Clearly Britain was not a republic during the industrial revolution.

So what other nebulous definition of freedom do you need?

Another thing - the USA had both an internal free market and political freedom. Why did it not industrialize like Britain and only took off in the 1880s onwards? If freedom and free market is that important and in fact, according to you, the cataclyst, then why not the USA?

Besides, what freedom brought direct result in Britain anyway?

I don't understand the question.

I am asking you to:
a) define what you mean by the nebulous term "freedom".
b) define what you mean by the nebulous term "free market". Clearly it cannot be free internal market because Britain did not have it. Nor can it be free external market because Britain did not have that either. Nor can it be "free market compared to X" because the USA exceeded any other country in that and did not industrialize until way later.
c) Finally, I am asking you to pinpoint exact cases where the above mentioned terms started the industrial revolution.

[Iron Bridge]

It does not bode well for your theory when you have not considered other free places with free markets before England.

You've not demonstrated that there was any other place that had 1. comparably free markets and 2. a lower level of economic development.

1. Britain did not have entirely unregulated internal markets.

Then that makes your theory even less feasible, doesn't it?

Why?

3. I didn't mention being a republic as an important factor. Clearly Britain was not a republic during the industrial revolution.

So what other nebulous definition of freedom do you need?

Free markets. Private property rights. Free expression also helps.

Another thing - the USA had both an internal free market and political freedom. Why did it not industrialize like Britain and only took off in the 1880s onwards? If freedom and free market is that important and in fact, according to you, the cataclyst, then why not the USA?

USA was developed before then. That is why it is was a magnet for immigrants. 1880s is when USA total GDP exceeded UK total GDP, because of rising population due to immigration.

You should also remember that before the 20th century the UK did not have less of a free market than the USA.

I am asking you to:
a) define what you mean by the nebulous term "freedom".
b) define what you mean by the nebulous term "free market". Clearly it cannot be free internal market because Britain did not have it. Nor can it be free external market because Britain did not have that either. Nor can it be "free market compared to X" because the USA exceeded any other country in that and did not industrialize until way later.
c) Finally, I am asking you to pinpoint exact cases where the above mentioned terms started the industrial revolution.

Free markets aren't a boolean variable. UK had freer markets than Tsarist Russia or Hapsburg Austria in 1800, even though they were not maximally free. I do not think you seriously dispute this.

A handful of important causes and effects, to convince you that this is important:

1. Abolition of serfdom allowed people to be freely employed at the job that would pay them the most, rather than one they are bound to by law.
2. Abolition of grants of monopoly allowed more productive newcomers to displace less productive incumbents from industries
3. Freer expression and comparative freedom of religion allowed people to conduct scientific investigations without fear of reprisal.
4. Low tax rates and protection against arbitrary seizure of property allowed people to make long term investments with the expectation of making a return.
5. Freer trade with other countries reduced prices both of finished goods and industrial inputs where foreigners could produce them more efficiently.

[Thanas]

It does not bode well for your theory when you have not considered other free places with free markets before England.

You've not demonstrated that there was any other place that had 1. comparably free markets and 2. a lower level of economic development.

I have named 2 already.

Why?

Because you cannot discount all other factors in favor of a non-defined theory of "free markets 111!1" if your prime example is not the most free market country there is.

Free markets.

Which Britain did not have.

Private property rights. Free expression also helps.

Both in place in the USA and before that in place at most Hanseatic cities or other free states.

Another thing - the USA had both an internal free market and political freedom. Why did it not industrialize like Britain and only took off in the 1880s onwards? If freedom and free market is that important and in fact, according to you, the cataclyst, then why not the USA?

USA was developed before then. That is why it is was a magnet for immigrants. 1880s is when USA total GDP exceeded UK total GDP, because of rising population due to immigration.

You now obfuscate by claiming total GDP = industrialization. This is blatantly false. Also, the USA had free internal markets and freedom of expression, private rights etc. since their revolution in 1783. How come they did not industrialize at the same pace as Britain? How come none of the other republics did?

You should also remember that before the 20th century the UK did not have less of a free market than the USA.

How so?

Free markets aren't a boolean variable. UK had freer markets than Tsarist Russia or Hapsburg Austria in 1800, even though they were not maximally free. I do not think you seriously dispute this.

And the UK did not have freer markets than the USA, in fact even less freer markets than the USA. See how your insistence to cling on the "freedom" stuff is just self-defeating?

1. Abolition of serfdom allowed people to be freely employed at the job that would pay them the most, rather than one they are bound to by law.
2. Abolition of grants of monopoly allowed more productive newcomers to displace less productive incumbents from industries
3. Freer expression and comparative freedom of religion allowed people to conduct scientific investigations without fear of reprisal.
4. Low tax rates and protection against arbitrary seizure of property allowed people to make long term investments with the expectation of making a return.
5. Freer trade with other countries reduced prices both of finished goods and industrial inputs where foreigners could produce them more efficiently.

Yes, all of those things have been discussed before. I want you to show how you claim these are more important than other factors. With evidence, preferrably.

[Iron Bridge]

I have named 2 already.

You haven't demonstrated either thing about them. I think it's just stalling tactics at this point.

Because you cannot discount all other factors in favor of a non-defined theory of "free markets 111!1" if your prime example is not the most free market country there is.

Most free market country there is != most free market country possible.

Another thing - the USA had both an internal free market and political freedom. Why did it not industrialize like Britain and only took off in the 1880s onwards? If freedom and free market is that important and in fact, according to you, the cataclyst, then why not the USA?

USA was developed before then. That is why it is was a magnet for immigrants. 1880s is when USA total GDP exceeded UK total GDP, because of rising population due to immigration.

You now obfuscate by claiming total GDP = industrialization. This is blatantly false. Also, the USA had free internal markets and freedom of expression, private rights etc. since their revolution in 1783. How come they did not industrialize at the same pace as Britain? How come none of the other republics did?

No, the opposite, I'm saying that your (false) impression that the USA was not economically developed before the 1880s is likely a trick caused by looking at total rather than per capita GDPs. Per capita the US was highly developed in the early 19th century.

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Maddison.htm - scroll down to 'Historical Statistics'

This overlays modern borders; nonetheless, the US in 1820 is richer than all the large European countries except the UK. It is poorer than the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark. The US is 10% richer than France, 17% richer than Germany and 33% richer than Russia in 1870 (no data given for Russia in 1820). This is despite a large population of both slaves and frontier settlers.

You should also remember that before the 20th century the UK did not have less of a free market than the USA.

How so?

Free markets aren't a boolean variable. UK had freer markets than Tsarist Russia or Hapsburg Austria in 1800, even though they were not maximally free. I do not think you seriously dispute this.

And the UK did not have freer markets than the USA, in fact even less freer markets than the USA. See how your insistence to cling on the "freedom" stuff is just self-defeating?

Although I only said that they were not more free, the US in fact had less free markets than UK for most of the 19th century, due to the institution of slavery. The USA also fought a ground war on its own soil, which the UK did not. This is not a permanent institutional difference but it did result in a substantial period even after the abolition of slavery when parts of the US was under military occupation and rule.

You seem to think USA had freer markets than the UK; even ignoring slavery (this is totally unjusitifable), I think you are projecting current institutional differences into a time period where it does not make sense. If not, in what way were US markets in eg. 1820 freer than those of the UK?

1. Abolition of serfdom allowed people to be freely employed at the job that would pay them the most, rather than one they are bound to by law.
2. Abolition of grants of monopoly allowed more productive newcomers to displace less productive incumbents from industries
3. Freer expression and comparative freedom of religion allowed people to conduct scientific investigations without fear of reprisal.
4. Low tax rates and protection against arbitrary seizure of property allowed people to make long term investments with the expectation of making a return.
5. Freer trade with other countries reduced prices both of finished goods and industrial inputs where foreigners could produce them more efficiently.

Yes, all of those things have been discussed before. I want you to show how you claim these are more important than other factors. With evidence, preferrably.

Wherever free markets are present, countries develop. Wherever they're not, they don't. The vast majority of the claims made in this thread aren't actually wrong (though some are, like giving large weight to location of certain resources), it is just misleading to take them as random disjointed circumstances rather than the result of a consistent socio-economic system: classical liberalism.

[Guardsman Bass]

Here's a question. Was China, even under the KMT actually an industrialised nation? Certainly the ending years of the Qing and in the era of the Republic, China had the technological trappings, with steam railways, engines, factories and the like. But was it an industrialised country?

It's hard to say without knowing the breakdown of China's GDP back then by sector (I've looked for historical GDP composition data on mainland China*, but it seems to be very hard to find via Google). The vast majority of China's population was still living in rural areas, but industrialization usually comes before most of the population moving into urban areas - Great Britain's population was still at least 50% rural in 1850, even after two "waves" of industrialization in the late 18th century and 1830s/40s.

I'm inclined to say "yes", if the Chinese had multiple industries with factory production and machine use in production. They may not have been nearly as heavily industrialized as western Europe and the US at the time, but they were still industrialized.

* I found it for Taiwan, which was interesting reading. Even as early as the 1890s, agriculture only accounted for 7.3% of the Taiwanese economy. The rest was almost evenly split between industry and services.

[Iron Bridge]

Here's a question. Was China, even under the KMT actually an industrialised nation? Certainly the ending years of the Qing and in the era of the Republic, China had the technological trappings, with steam railways, engines, factories and the like. But was it an industrialised country?

It's hard to say without knowing the breakdown of China's GDP back then by sector (I've looked for historical GDP composition data on China, but it seems to be very hard to find via Google). The vast majority of China's population was still living in rural areas, but industrialization usually comes before most of the population moving into urban areas - Great Britain's population was still at least 50% rural in 1850, even after two "waves" of industrialization in the late 18th century and 1830s/40s.

By comparison, PRC was 26% urbanised in 1990. Under the KMT, it was less than 10%. According to the UN data, there is no country in the world today that is less urbanised than KMT China.

China did have one semi-industrialised region, Manchuria, but this industrialisation took place under Japanese rule.

Anyway, sectoral breakdowns don't really matter at low values, because a certain fixed amount has to be food production unless the population is starving. Maddison estimates Chinese GDP per capita in 1950 as $448 (FY1990). This is a bare subsistence income, so any allocation to industry or services must be small in the proportional to the output of the entire country.

[Simon_Jester]

Here's a question. Was China, even under the KMT actually an industrialised nation? Certainly the ending years of the Qing and in the era of the Republic, China had the technological trappings, with steam railways, engines, factories and the like. But was it an industrialised country?

Industrialization means having the technology and having enough penetration of it that the technology appears in a widespread area.

Since construction of a national rail network and widespread creation of factories didn't really kick off until the Communists took over, I'd say you have a point. You could make a case for saying that no, China was merely the world's largest "un-industrialized" or "semi-industrialized" nation under the Kuomintang.

The same thing that causes countries today to have "industrial revolutions": development of free market institutions.

Russia became vastly more industrialized under the communists than it had ever been under the capitalists. China likewise. How does that impact your argument?

Looking at presence of coal is missing the point. First because a lot of the early developments in living conditions did not involve what is today regarded as industry - improved agricultural tools for instance - and that second as an input commodity coal would simply be imported from where it could be found. The British Isles did not grow cotton, but they still had the world's largest textiles industry.

Coal is consumed in much bulkier quantities- it can't be moved efficiently without industrial machinery; good luck moving thousands of tons of coal around without railroads and industrial shipbuilding. For that matter, the methods of coal mining didn't even exist in recognizable form until the British developed them around the late 1700s and early 1800s...

I agree that probably even a lifetime spent working in the field of history would not lead one to any firm answer to this question. But a few terms spent studying economics would give an accurate first approximation.

I question this. Why would economists automatically understand this better than historians? It's very much a historical question, because nothing like the first emergences of industrialization in Europe has happened in at least a hundred years.

[Iron Bridge]

The same thing that causes countries today to have "industrial revolutions": development of free market institutions.

Russia became vastly more industrialized under the communists than it had ever been under the capitalists. China likewise. How does that impact your argument?

Russia never had free market institutions.

Was Marxian Communism an improvement on Tsarism?

Let's refer again to the Maddison data.

In 1913, Former USSR (no data for 1917, or I would use that) had a GDP per capita of $1,488 (FY1990), while USA had a GDP per capita of $5,301, so F USSR had a GDP per captia 28% that of the USA. In 1984, the last year before Perestroika, the USSR had a GDP per captia of $6,709, while USA had a GDP per capita of $20,123. So the USSR ended with a GDP per capita 33% than of the USA. This is a slight win for Marxism over Tsarism, while still far inferior to the performance of market capitalism.

Perhaps you will say this is unfair because the USA started off much more developed too. So let us compare this progress to a country that started off at a comparably low level of development and fully adopted free market institutions in this time period. In 1913, Japan had a GDP per capita of $1,387 (26% USA). In 1984, it had a GDP per capita of $14,773 (73.5% USA).

The fact is the USSR ended up, relative to the technology of the time, about as poor as Tsarist Russia. Japan, South Korea, HK, Singapore, etc. by comparison closed the gap with the West.

Perhaps China fared better? In 1949, the year of PRC victory in the civil war, Chinese GDP per capita was $488 (5.4% of US). In 1978, the year economic policy switched to "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (more accurately, Socialism with Anglo-American Characteristics), Chinese GDP per capita was $978 (5.3% of US). 30 years of Chinese socialism marginally increased the gap with the capitalist West.

Looking at presence of coal is missing the point. First because a lot of the early developments in living conditions did not involve what is today regarded as industry - improved agricultural tools for instance - and that second as an input commodity coal would simply be imported from where it could be found. The British Isles did not grow cotton, but they still had the world's largest textiles industry.

Coal is consumed in much bulkier quantities- it can't be moved efficiently without industrial machinery; good luck moving thousands of tons of coal around without railroads and industrial shipbuilding. For that matter, the methods of coal mining didn't even exist in recognizable form until the British developed them around the late 1700s and early 1800s...

In the early 1800s, Britain was importing 10,000s of tons of cotton. This is more than enough weight of coal to merely build more transport infrastructure, and pre-dated both construction of railways and iron-hulled ships.

I agree that probably even a lifetime spent working in the field of history would not lead one to any firm answer to this question. But a few terms spent studying economics would give an accurate first approximation.

I question this. Why would economists automatically understand this better than historians? It's very much a historical question, because nothing like the first emergences of industrialization in Europe has happened in at least a hundred years.

Two reasons. First, historians do not learn economic theory, only qualitative descriptions of events. It is like asking why might an engineer understand more than a historian about how coal mining developed. Second, history as a discipline still perceives events through the prism of some psuedoscience theories, such as Marxism, which are actually long disproven and abandoned economic theories.

While I've been heavily criticised for it here, my economic analysis of development is the mainstream view among economists.

[Simon_Jester]

Russia never had free market institutions.

It had a hell of a lot more of them in 1910 than in 1930, I'll say that. Why didn't it collapse into the dark ages instead of following an economic trajectory roughly paralleling that of the capitalist nations that had the same starting position in 1900?

In 1913, Former USSR (no data for 1917, or I would use that) had a GDP per capita of $1,488 (FY1990), while USA had a GDP per capita of $5,301, so F USSR had a GDP per captia 28% that of the USA. In 1984, the last year before Perestroika, the USSR had a GDP per captia of $6,709, while USA had a GDP per capita of $20,123. So the USSR ended with a GDP per capita 33% than of the USA. This is a slight win for Marxism over Tsarism, while still far inferior to the performance of market capitalism.

How so?

The Russians under communism wound up narrowing the relative gap between themselves and the US, if that figure is to be believed. You'd expect equally good systems to provide equal multipliers: if system A and B are equal, both would double GDP per capita in X years. If system A is much better than B, A would double the GDP while B would take longer to do so... in which case the relative percentage would decline, and we'd expect the USSR to end up with LESS than 28% of the US's per capita GDP, not more.

Perhaps you will say this is unfair because the USA started off much more developed too. So let us compare this progress to a country that started off at a comparably low level of development and fully adopted free market institutions in this time period. In 1913, Japan had a GDP per capita of $1,387 (26% USA). In 1984, it had a GDP per capita of $14,773 (73.5% USA).

The fact is the USSR ended up, relative to the technology of the time, about as poor as Tsarist Russia. Japan, South Korea, HK, Singapore, etc. by comparison closed the gap with the West.

Interesting.

Care to try comparing them to, say, Brazil? Or Argentina?

In the early 1800s, Britain was importing 10,000s of tons of cotton. This is more than enough weight of coal to merely build more transport infrastructure, and pre-dated both construction of railways and iron-hulled ships.

The main problem is on the exporter end.

Put this way, here's a question for you: was there an international trade in coal in the 1770-1820 timeframe? If so, how did it operate and where? If not, why not?

Two reasons. First, historians do not learn economic theory, only qualitative descriptions of events. It is like asking why might an engineer understand more than a historian about how coal mining developed. Second, history as a discipline still perceives events through the prism of some psuedoscience theories, such as Marxism, which are actually long disproven and abandoned economic theories.

I think you are greatly oversimplifying what "history" means compared to "economics." I am also a bit dubious of comparing economics to engineering, simply because of the large number of differing schools.

It is as if engineers couldn't agree on what the laws of physics were reliably, and proposed massively mutually-exclusive bridge designs.

[Thanas]

I have named 2 already.

You haven't demonstrated either thing about them. I think it's just stalling tactics at this point.

Oh, that is rich. I'll quit "stalling" as soon as you put forth concrete numbers to show how freedom impacted the Industrial revolution. Otherwise you are just preaching "FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM" Gospel.

No, the opposite, I'm saying that your (false) impression that the USA was not economically developed before the 1880s is likely a trick caused by looking at total rather than per capita GDPs. Per capita the US was highly developed in the early 19th century.

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Maddison.htm - scroll down to 'Historical Statistics'

This overlays modern borders; nonetheless, the US in 1820 is richer than all the large European countries except the UK. It is poorer than the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark. The US is 10% richer than France, 17% richer than Germany and 33% richer than Russia in 1870 (no data given for Russia in 1820). This is despite a large population of both slaves and frontier settlers.

Wealth does not equal industrialization, you dolt. If that were true, 16th century spain would have been the most industrialized country possible.

Although I only said that they were not more free, the US in fact had less free markets than UK for most of the 19th century, due to the institution of slavery.

And the British Empire had much more colonial subjects than there were in the USA, none of whom the free market applied to. There also weren't exactly free markets for places like Ireland, which suffered famines and where the majority of the population was not even allowed to own land.

So please provide figures for your claim.

The USA also fought a ground war on its own soil, which the UK did not. This is not a permanent institutional difference but it did result in a substantial period even after the abolition of slavery when parts of the US was under military occupation and rule.

You will now cite figures to show how much harm this did.

Wherever free markets are present, countries develop. Wherever they're not, they don't.

Rome had no free market and little freedom. It was the most developed country in its day and beat out more free states like Athens, Carthage (the greatest trading city of its time) etc. Spain had no free market and was an absolutionist state. It too was the most powerful country of its time and regularly imposed its will on freeer market societies or republics. France under Louis XIV was undoubtedly the hegomon of its time and had no free market and was the posterchild of absolutism to boot. The teutonic order was an actual theocracy yet ruled over republics and free trade cities like Gdansk.

Your claim is simplistic. More over, it does not answer the question raised by me - show the direct impact of freedom and free market on the industrialization of the UK. Figures, now. Put up or shut up.

Two reasons. First, historians do not learn economic theory, only qualitative descriptions of events.

You are ignorant. My teacher had both a doctorate in economics and a doctorate in history. Your sweeping generalization might be true out of whatever poor education you crawled out of, but they are not true for my university education.

It is like asking why might an engineer understand more than a historian about how coal mining developed.

Again, ignorance. If a historian does not know what he is writing about, he will get help or ask somebody who does. I regularly consult with engineers when I do write something about roman roads for example.

Second, history as a discipline still perceives events through the prism of some psuedoscience theories, such as Marxism, which are actually long disproven and abandoned economic theories.

[/quote]
Again, ignorance. We develop models by using a myriad of theories. If we use one particular theory, we explain why and how. If you do not like that, then take issue with the specific model and explain how it will not work, not with the mere existence of the theory itself.

[Surlethe]

Skimming the thread, one huge factor that hasn't been mentioned so far is resource extraction from overseas colonies. I've been on-again, off-again reading The Great Divergence by Kenneth Pomeranz.* The thesis (as I recall) is that one main factor in European - particularly British - industrialization is low-cost resource imports from new world colonies. Basically, as I've been able to figure it, prior to the industrial revolution, increases in the production possibilities frontier occurred so slowly that population had time to catch up. The influx of cheap resources from the new world caused a boom that pushed the economy's PPF out so quickly, population couldn't catch up in time, and that spurred investment and all of the capital development that characterized the industrial revolution.

This is of course not to deny the importance of other factors and necessary conditions: relatively free markets, banking, international trade, higher return to capital, cheaply available fossil fuels, the English Channel, and so on. But given the similarity in many of these factors between comparable regions in China, India, and Europe, I guess the biggest difference was that the Europeans - especially the British - had colonies from which they could extract resources.

*Published by an academic press and assigned in one of my wife's graduate classes, so I'm pretty sure it's not a crank book.

[ray245]

This is of course not to deny the importance of other factors and necessary conditions: relatively free markets, banking, international trade, higher return to capital, cheaply available fossil fuels, the English Channel, and so on. But given the similarity in many of these factors between comparable regions in China, India, and Europe, I guess the biggest difference was that the Europeans - especially the British - had colonies from which they could extract resources.

However, it is not as if the Romans, Imperial China and India do not have the equivalent of colonies. The numerous provinces of China and Rome are ample enough to provide cheaper resources. The Ming dynasty had several overseas colonies in South East Asia that provided them with silver.

[Guardsman Bass]

Skimming the thread, one huge factor that hasn't been mentioned so far is resource extraction from overseas colonies. I've been on-again, off-again reading The Great Divergence by Kenneth Pomeranz.* The thesis (as I recall) is that one main factor in European - particularly British - industrialization is low-cost resource imports from new world colonies. Basically, as I've been able to figure it, prior to the industrial revolution, increases in the production possibilities frontier occurred so slowly that population had time to catch up. The influx of cheap resources from the new world caused a boom that pushed the economy's PPF out so quickly, population couldn't catch up in time, and that spurred investment and all of the capital development that characterized the industrial revolution.

I've read part of that book, but I don't think Pomeranz's theory about low-cost primary imports is a crucial factor (even he admits elsewhere that the amount of food actually shipped overseas from the colonies to the UK was pretty small, IIRC). I think you could make an argument that New World Conquest was important to industrialization, but more because

1. It funneled a ton of gold and silver into the European economy, increasing liquidity;

2. It brought over new crops* that created a major population boom in Europe and helped ameliorate the risks of famine;

3. It created a profitable flow of luxury imports cycling between Europe, Africa, and North/South America (particularly tobacco and sugar), as well as far greater overall integration in global trade;

4. It generally created the Trans-Atlantic Trade, which led to the UK putting a great emphasis of precision manufacturing for clocks and navigational purposes, which helped them develop an appropriate set-up for the manufacture of machines and machine parts later on.

These are all much less direct than Pomeranz's main argument on that front, though. I think his argument about the significance of British coal resources is far stronger, since the UK really did have a good set-up of coal, iron, and the waterways to effectively use and transport them.

* It's been a few years, but I think Pomeranz's addressal of the effect of New World food crops on European population expansion and agro-production wasn't that hot in his book.

This is of course not to deny the importance of other factors and necessary conditions: relatively free markets, banking, international trade, higher return to capital, cheaply available fossil fuels, the English Channel, and so on. But given the similarity in many of these factors between comparable regions in China, India, and Europe, I guess the biggest difference was that the Europeans - especially the British - had colonies from which they could extract resources.

The similarities often aren't as deep as they look (although they're closer than people used to think, which is why I'm skeptical of the "long term" theories of the Great Divergence). Labor costs and differing wages, for example, made a pretty huge difference - British wages in London and other British cities in the late 17th/18th centuries were significantly higher than wages in Chinese cities. They were even quite high compared to nearby France at the same time.

*Published by an academic press and assigned in one of my wife's graduate classes, so I'm pretty sure it's not a crank book.

It's not. Pomeranz is a top-notch China scholar.

[Surlethe]

The similarities often aren't as deep as they look (although they're closer than people used to think). Labor costs and differing wages, for example, made a pretty huge difference - British wages in the late 17th/18th centuries were significantly higher than wages

Did you mean to finish this sentence in a revision?

[Guardsman Bass]

The similarities often aren't as deep as they look (although they're closer than people used to think). Labor costs and differing wages, for example, made a pretty huge difference - British wages in the late 17th/18th centuries were significantly higher than wages

Did you mean to finish this sentence in a revision?

Ninja edit! It should be fixed now.

[K. A. Pital]

Looking at presence of coal is missing the point. First because a lot of the early developments in living conditions did not involve what is today regarded as industry - improved agricultural tools for instance - and that second as an input commodity coal would simply be imported from where it could be found. The British Isles did not grow cotton, but they still had the world's largest textiles industry.

Presence of coal does not matter if it can be secured by sea supply; the process of using coal instead of charcoal is what matters a lot more. Skipped the gibberish about stupid historians not understanding history, since that argumentation is so weak it doesn't even warrant discussion. Development of advanced market institutions and a legal base which supposed them did not allow the Roman Empire or its parts to proceed onward to the industrial revolution. Sorry, but technology is just as important as institutional reforms. They go hand in hand; if they do not, then there's a contradiction between the institution and the tech level which can be resolved in many different ways. The industrial revolution is just one of those possibilities.

It's misleading to view it like that. 1890 India had railways, steam, coal, etc. and yet it was not industrialised.

You're either misinformed or ignorant - all iron for machinery and railways was shipped to India from Britain. Its proto-industry (charcoal based metallurgy) was destroyed by British metal imports. Attempts to set up modern industrial metallurgy in India have utterly failed - in no small part due to the colonial policies - and the first modern domestic metallurgy plant in India was built in the early 1900s by Americans. Coal was not used widely in Indian metallurgy since India had no modern metallurgy to speak of. Britain discovered and introduced the new process in the late XVIII century, but did not care to develop a domestic metallurgy in India. Or the United States, for that matter, where Britain also sought to legally suppress metallurgic developments as those could be used for arms production. Which would later be important in case of rebellion.

Just from that sentence alone it is quite clear you barely understand the subject you are touching.

Chinese GDP per capita was $488 (5.4% of US). In 1978, the year economic policy switched to "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (more accurately, Socialism with Anglo-American Characteristics), Chinese GDP per capita was $978 (5.3% of US).

Are you really that fucking stupid to gauge the level of industrialization by GDP per capita? Amazing. I thought that when you get an economics education, you learn the nature of different indicators, such as GDP, and especially take some classes so that the understanding of early GDP indicators may be achieved. That's what I was told.

[Spoonist]

Just from that sentence alone it is quite clear you barely understand the subject you are touching.

Chinese GDP per capita was $488 (5.4% of US). In 1978, the year economic policy switched to "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (more accurately, Socialism with Anglo-American Characteristics), Chinese GDP per capita was $978 (5.3% of US).

Are you really that fucking stupid to gauge the level of industrialization by GDP per capita? Amazing. I thought that when you get an economics education, you learn the nature of different indicators, such as GDP, and especially take some classes so that the understanding of early GDP indicators may be achieved. That's what I was told.

If he is from the Chicago school type of economy education then that is par for the course. You skip the evidence based part and go straight to math & unverified economic theories. So not knowing the reasoning behind some of the abbriviations is actually helpful since then the true meaning of those words don't get in the way of numbers.

[PainRack]

However, it is not as if the Romans, Imperial China and India do not have the equivalent of colonies. The numerous provinces of China and Rome are ample enough to provide cheaper resources. The Ming dynasty had several overseas colonies in South East Asia that provided them with silver.

Are.... we seriously suggesting that the Romans could had developed an Industrial Revolution? I thought that was always steampunk fiction.

India history was relatively tumultuous and not united.

China most definitely didn't have a colony, at least, anything recognisable by Western standards. For one, silver in China came from primarily three sources. Domestic mining, which was limited due to various Imperial concerns, Japan and overseas trade from the 'Franks'.

There were no colonies though... at least none under Chinese rule. China did have Chinese settlements overseas, mostly settled during the Song era. Malacca, Singapore, Manila.... I think there were several other locations such as Batavia. Now, Zheng He expeditions to the south formalised tribute states in the South China Seas, mostly in what is now Indonesian waters. One of them was a result of displacing a former pirate king for example, and the ruler was Chinese racially. However, Imperial China had no formal means of control over their affairs outside of trade.

Ming China did occupy various territories, for example, Anman, which is now modern day Vietnam. However, a resistance movement saw the end of Chinese Imperialist ambitions southwards. I have to go google and see what happened to the ancient Han outposts that Ming China revivied.... Lastly, China exerted significant influence over states like Korea, but it was in no way similar to a state of colonialism. The last aspects was the Silk Road and her inroads there, however, China influence over those region, her settlements and etc eventually all came to nothing after Yongle due to the disruptions of overland trade further west. All such trade was replaced by maritime trade in importance in successive eras, especially after the end of Hai Jin after 1560s....

Hell, the importance of the Silk Road had steadily declined even during the Song dynasty, along with that, the end of any reason for China to exert control in the region outside of Imperial reasons(Tang dynasty:D)

[K. A. Pital]

Even Chicago school does not argue a complete abolition of empiric test, the standard of all science and a cornerstone of the scientific method itself. That's only possible if you're an Austrian, and not just an Austrian, but an extreme Austrian following the anti-scientific "praxeology" like a crusader - that's the only economic school from neoclassics to post-whatever which completely discards the scientific method from the very onset.

It would be helpful if Iron Bridge had explained that he's a member of a "school" that discards empiric tests, the economist's equivalent of creationists, then it would be clear that no amount of evidence can ever falsify a theory he holds true, and that's it.

[ray245]

Are.... we seriously suggesting that the Romans could had developed an Industrial Revolution? I thought that was always steampunk fiction.

No I wasn't. Just indicating that numerous Empires since the classical age have numerous 'colonies' or provinces that provided the state with additional resources.

[Thanas]

The Roman empire is actually the best example for how technology matters, as Stas said. Without industrialization it was still able to extract raw materials on a scale only matched by Britain in the late 18th century. Yet as we all know it failed to industrialize.