Qing china should had modernised earlier?

[PainRack]

I trying to put together some sources on the question that Qing should had reformed earlier so they could fend off the Europeans.

Apart from a military reform which started only after China defeats and failures, I don't think this is wholly appropriate as China did enact social reforms in the form of the Jiazhen and during Qianlong, but to put up a counter-example, I kinda need consensus on when the Industrial revolution started and when did it start affecting European foreign policy.... Which got kinda dodgy.

Did the Industrial revolution reform start with Britain Calico acts, restricting import of India cotton? when did increased steam power led to increased British military power, for in my view of history, it appears that it was British military ascendancy that drove the revolution towards coal powered ships and it was her colonial system that fed it, then a feedback loop occurred when colonies initially established for the China or Gold trade became coal depots.

[LaCroix]

While this certainly was an incentive to import cotton, the true start of the Industrial Revolution would be the change to use coal in ironworks, allowing for the creation of machines in increasing quantities. That should be roughly during the 1680's, and made the British Industry "explode" after the invention of rolling and puddling, somewhere in the mid to late 1780's.

These inventions took about a decade to take hold and spread, causing innnovations everywhere (steam engines because of higher demand of coal, improved machinery, weaopons, ships), but you can see how Britain flourished right after that. Without that, the British "imperial century" wouldn't have taken off like it did, I'd presume.

[Thanas]

Another, more important issue is the growth of agricultural production, which allowed the British to build large cities again. It was only then that we reached similar city levels to the Romans, which in turn led to (and was made possible by) the development of transport, which lead to the necessary production increase via the means LaCroix outlined above.

[LaCroix]

If you were to take a 'hardcore' stand, you could argue that the true reason for industrialisation were the increasing number of in/enclosure acts (making former public lands private land) that caused trouble since the 1520ies, and really started becoming a problem about 1607, with the Midland Revolt.

Due to the lands being enclosed (not just by nobility, also by richer peasants), the owners could use better farming methods and tools (scythes were replacing sicles, etc), and less manpower, while subsistence farming became impossible for the poor who could not afford land titles or hold on to their plot on the dwindling public land.

Thus, these In/Enclosure acts caused a lot of manpower to flee the land for the cities, which made labour cheap and became a reason for proto-industry to emerge where prior, there was mostly craftmanship and manufacture.

[LaCroix]

If you were to take a 'hardcore' stand, you could argue that the true reason for industrialisation were the increasing number of in/enclosure acts (making former public lands private land) that caused trouble since the 1520ies, and really started becoming a problem about 1607, with the Midland Revolt.

Due to the lands being enclosed (not just by nobility, also by richer peasants), the owners could use better farming methods and tools (scythes were replacing sicles, etc) and less manpower, while still increasing production, while subsistence farming became impossible for the poor who could not afford land titles or hold on to their plot on the dwindling public land.

Thus, these In/Enclosure acts caused a lot of manpower to flee the land for the cities, which made labour cheap and became a reason for proto-industry to emerge where prior, there was mostly craftmanship and manufacture.

[Pelranius]

Going to the topic of agricultural productivity, I think that rice cultivation would still remain pretty manpower intensive compared to whatever 17th and 18th century agricultural improvements that could be had (though Qing China ate a lot of other staple crops, both Old and New World ones).

[Thanas]

If you were to take a 'hardcore' stand, you could argue that the true reason for industrialisation were the increasing number of in/enclosure acts (making former public lands private land) that caused trouble since the 1520ies, and really started becoming a problem about 1607, with the Midland Revolt.

Due to the lands being enclosed (not just by nobility, also by richer peasants), the owners could use better farming methods and tools (scythes were replacing sicles, etc), and less manpower, while subsistence farming became impossible for the poor who could not afford land titles or hold on to their plot on the dwindling public land.

Thus, these In/Enclosure acts caused a lot of manpower to flee the land for the cities, which made labour cheap and became a reason for proto-industry to emerge where prior, there was mostly craftmanship and manufacture.

Yeah but the impact of enclosures has been debated a lot in recent times, up to a point where I feel uncomfortable stating the enclosures did this or that.

[PainRack]

Well yes... But the question I'm interested in is in when did the Industrial Revolution start affecting Britain foreign policy , as that's would provide a gauge of too late.


Qing China obviously never took on reforms or embark on an industrial revolution... Instead, I argue that similar steps that had intended effects similar to liberal policies of the 17th century was intended, however, Qing China bungled it.


For example, agricultural production in Qing China increased rapidly, although I can't seem to find that image link now.This was due to the introduction of new world crops such as potatoes,yams and chillis. Qing China however couldn't displace this population on to colonies and instead did an internal colonisation of the interior. Without the technological boost of the Industrial revolution, economic growth was too slow to increase wealth and instead created economic problems.

Piracy along the South China Seas boomed as a result and this caused further economic backlash.


The trade overseas in Asia was also no longer overwhelming favorable for Qing merchants .... All this help explains why Qing China was also so hesistant to open her ports further to Western trade. Mass importation would not only threaten the vital customs revenue for the Qing, it would also destroy the delicate economic balance Qing was propping up.

[LaCroix]

Well yes... But the question I'm interested in is in when did the Industrial Revolution start affecting Britain foreign policy , as that's would provide a gauge of too late.

Britain definitely felt the industrialisation by the early 1700's. A series of wars with France and Spain held Britain occupied ans caused them to industrialize the British arms production even more. By the time they won in India (~1760s), too late is definitely a moment in history, already. There was no European Roadblock in the way, anymore, the British fleet ruled the seas, unopposed, so anyone not remotely on par with Britain was just a price to be claimed.

I'd say if Qing doesn't manage to catch up with the major European nations by ~1750, latest, and can help France in India (choosing the lesser evil/empire, just to prevent british world domination), or become powerful enough to drive France and Britain out of India, things are becoming inevitable.

Britain would not allow a nascent superpower to bloom unopposed.

[madd0ct0r]

Well yes... But the question I'm interested in is in when did the Industrial Revolution start affecting Britain foreign policy , as that's would provide a gauge of too late.


Qing China obviously never took on reforms or embark on an industrial revolution... Instead, I argue that similar steps that had intended effects similar to liberal policies of the 17th century was intended, however, Qing China bungled it.


For example, agricultural production in Qing China increased rapidly, although I can't seem to find that image link now.This was due to the introduction of new world crops such as potatoes,yams and chillis. Qing China however couldn't displace this population on to colonies and instead did an internal colonisation of the interior. Without the technological boost of the Industrial revolution, economic growth was too slow to increase wealth and instead created economic problems.

Piracy along the South China Seas boomed as a result and this caused further economic backlash.


The trade overseas in Asia was also no longer overwhelming favorable for Qing merchants .... All this help explains why Qing China was also so hesistant to open her ports further to Western trade. Mass importation would not only threaten the vital customs revenue for the Qing, it would also destroy the delicate economic balance Qing was propping up.

I'd refer you to my steampunk SEAasia thread where I've been grappling with similar.
European countries were already setting up 'factories' in Asian countires to produce goods for export back home a hundred years before king coal.

[Guardsman Bass]

Thus, these In/Enclosure acts caused a lot of manpower to flee the land for the cities, which made labour cheap and became a reason for proto-industry to emerge where prior, there was mostly craftmanship and manufacture.

I've heard that argument before, but I'm not sure I buy it. The timing is off, factory-style production actually started with "putting out work" to cottage manufacturers, and British wages were quite high in absolute terms - I've read papers saying the wages in London in the late 17th century onward were probably among the highest in the world at the time.

[LaCroix]

Thus, these In/Enclosure acts caused a lot of manpower to flee the land for the cities, which made labour cheap and became a reason for proto-industry to emerge where prior, there was mostly craftmanship and manufacture.

I've heard that argument before, but I'm not sure I buy it. The timing is off, factory-style production actually started with "putting out work" to cottage manufacturers, and British wages were quite high in absolute terms - I've read papers saying the wages in London in the late 17th century onward were probably among the highest in the world at the time.

That's why I stated it was a "hardcore" stance to take, as it was a contributing factor, but not the reason, per se, imho.

[Guardsman Bass]

I lean towards it being a combination of massive coal use, the high wages, and gradual accumulation of technology to the point where they could actually build this stuff - and had an incentive to do it in a labor-saving fashion. I found an interesting piece contrasting the way technological development played out in western Europe versus the Yangzi Delta in China, in light of different amounts of labor (and labor costs). Both of them heavily used machines, but the Chinese side tended to lean more heavily on labor-intensive use of machinery, while western Europe went down the road of much more labor-saving machinery.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah but the impact of enclosures has been debated a lot in recent times, up to a point where I feel uncomfortable stating the enclosures did this or that.

I would like to second the opinion of LaCroix. The 'debate' around enclosures is very much ideologically driven. The fact that industrialization was driven by cheap, forced-off-land labour is a very unwelcome picture for something so critically important as the Industrial Revolution. It is also connected to a massive lengthening of working time - the "squeezing of the workers", which people also are not very keen to acknowledge (you will see a lot of disagreement after I post this comment, I am sure). The desire to challenge these conclusions is not a matter of pure scientific curiosity.

Actually, while the debate on the effect of enclosures on agricultural productivity I can see as a legitimate debate (the data is far from conclusive), the attempts to refute the effect of surplus labour on industrialization have so far been very weak. The strongest argument was that enclosures were not connected to surplus labour - but it is hardly well-proven by the data. What is also interesting is Guardsman's comment about high wages in London. In reality, the wages have declined massively (at least for 1750-1800).

[Thanas]

Yeah but the impact of enclosures has been debated a lot in recent times, up to a point where I feel uncomfortable stating the enclosures did this or that.

I would like to second the opinion of LaCroix. The 'debate' around enclosures is very much ideologically driven.

He didn't say that, did he?

The fact that industrialization was driven by cheap, forced-off-land labour is a very unwelcome picture for something so critically important as the Industrial Revolution. It is also connected to a massive lengthening of working time - the "squeezing of the workers", which people also are not very keen to acknowledge (you will see a lot of disagreement after I post this comment, I am sure). The desire to challenge these conclusions is not a matter of pure scientific curiosity.

Actually, while the debate on the effect of enclosures on agricultural productivity I can see as a legitimate debate (the data is far from conclusive), the attempts to refute the effect of surplus labour on industrialization have so far been very weak. The strongest argument was that enclosures were not connected to surplus labour - but it is hardly well-proven by the data. What is also interesting is Guardsman's comment about high wages in London. In reality, the wages have declined massively (at least for 1750-1800).

Meh, I am not that interested in reopening the enclosure debate. I am also convinced that such a link existed for early Germany, but I don't think it is quite as easy for Britain and France.

[K. A. Pital]

He mentioned this, even if not fully endorsing it:

Thus, these In/Enclosure acts caused a lot of manpower to flee the land for the cities, which made labour cheap and became a reason for proto-industry to emerge

I find it very much true. And if someone would want to bring arguments against it, I'm very much willing to take the challenge.

[LaCroix]

He mentioned this, even if not fully endorsing it:

Thus, these In/Enclosure acts caused a lot of manpower to flee the land for the cities, which made labour cheap and became a reason for proto-industry to emerge

I find it very much true. And if someone would want to bring arguments against it, I'm very much willing to take the challenge.

To clarify my position, I believe that this is a contributing factor, but claiming it was THE thing that set industrialization in motion, I'd consider rubbish.

In my opinion, coal was more important.

If there weren't, say, easily accessible coal deposits present in England to kickstart the metal industry, industrialisation would not have set in as we know. Coal was dug up (mostly by the displaced farmers), foundries started using it en masse (again using the manpower to grow bigger), and then the easy deposits were exhausted. Metal industry was dependent on coal by then, so they needed to dig deeper (again, more workers needed). Displaced farmers were the supply for cheap labor. Wages in London might have been high, but the mass of peoples didn't move to London, but to the towns around coal deposits in the Midlands, where industry settled. For without trains, you needed to build factories close to mines, which again drew in more people from the country.

Fast forward - at one point, it became too expensive/impossible to keep mining with manpower alone, and steam engines were invented. And then, like with every invention, people realized that this could be used for other things, and industrialisaton set in.

Only later, once trains were invented as a cheap method of moving coal, London could develop that huge industry and became that man-devouring moloch.

That's why I believe coal and iron were the primary factor, and textile industry was only the best way to make money using the available technologies. You couldn't have had the huge textile/cotton industry without the steam engine - wind and water power only can drive that much machinery. All these huge looms and whatnot weren't possible without the iron industry and the steam engine. Available manpower hastened the process in Britain, which was happening all over the world, too, but slower.

[K. A. Pital]

I would say that early industrialization moved in phases; coal was critical for one phase but not the other, just as natural rubber was critical before synthetic rubber arrived.

Wages in London might have been high, but the mass of peoples didn't move to London

If we are talking about 1750 and onwards, the wages for unskilled labour in London were falling. But you should know that the importance of coal mining is also being challenged. Even the very idea that England's posession of coal reserves contributed is being challenged by some.

I'm personally inclined to agree with Pomeranz on the importance of deep coal mining as a driver for technological change, but I far from seeing industrialization as a game where you have to have A to progress to B, I see it more like a river with parts of the stream blocked.

[Thanas]

See here's the thing - everything is being challenged, that does not mean one needs to accuse the different positions of being ideologues.

[K. A. Pital]

I am not saying these challenges are worth serious consideration.

When you look at the data and facts, some things are very hard to dispute: like the connection between deeper mining and the mass use of Newcomen engines, for example. However, defying the obvious importance of surplus labour is an ideological thing: when you see that wages are falling and working hours are rising, and at the same time migrations are taking place, it is very hard to find a reason to go against the logic of events and say that the early industrialization was not largely driven by cheapening labour in excess and its ever greater exploitation. Maybe that exploitation was not all that critical, but given the simple logic, when present consumption is falling, it means investment or savings are rising, which means capital accumulation accelerates...

This thread is very interesting, and I wish to contribute more to it, anyway. I'll try to dig up some interesting studies of the East-West divergence that I've read last year.

[Guardsman Bass]

It does look like wages in London declined from about 1750-1800, from here and here. I'm skeptical that it was a big cause of industrialization, given that it wasn't until the 1830s that industrialization in England truly spread out from textiles, mining, and a small number of sectors into the broader economy with improving steam-powered machinery. Moreover, the latter paper shows that at the same time that London wages were going down*, wages in Lancashire (the heartland of textile production in England) were going up.

* The nominal value of London wages in that paper seems to have been relatively stagnant over the period, but the buying power of those wages went down after 1750.

This third paper made a similar point - in the 1750-1790/1800 period, wages in London got outpaced by rises in the cost of living, especially the costs of food.

RE: Stas

Since you brought up the Rise of the West vs the East, I figured I might post this as well.

[madd0ct0r]

This is interesting: http://www.demographia.com/dm-lon31.htm

If you look, the population (and pop density) of inner london keeps rising until the 1920's or so. I wonder if the rising cost of living in 1750 was due to limitations on how tall you could build housing blocks, and how fast you could bring food in in carts in narrow streets.
Lancashire had a smaller set of population concentrations, and hadn't reached those limits yet.

[Irbis]

When I was researching for my paper on age of sail battleships and their construction I saw a lot of arguments it was fleet that actually started the industrial revolution. British admiralty was then largest singular employer in the world demanding huge amounts of high tech goods (guns, cannons, clocks, precise navigational instruments), high education for their employees (navigators, gunnery officers, and on land logistic and construction work, all of which were useful for industry too), as well as pushing for better methods of transport for all the goods it consumed. They were also among one of the first adopters of steam engines - modern drydock is not really performing without reliable and fast methods of pumping water out, then of course came engined tugs and in due course warships.

I don't know if you say there was ever time when Industrial Revolution started affecting Britain foreign policy, it was rather other way around - needs of big navy military-industrial complex drove foreign policy, which happened to be beneficial for industrialisation of processes it used. Is there a difference between needing to have open shipping lanes to dozen Baltic ports for importing special goods navy needs any different from keeping them open to export your industrial goods in return? Yes, once the industrialization took off it found a lot of other markets and uses, but initial client and investor (quite a lot of prize money from US and Napoleonic wars went into factories) that kickstarted it was most likely state apparatus.

[Zor]

Another, more important issue is the growth of agricultural production, which allowed the British to build large cities again. It was only then that we reached similar city levels to the Romans, which in turn led to (and was made possible by) the development of transport, which lead to the necessary production increase via the means LaCroix outlined above.

China's agriculture did get a boost in the Qing Dynasty. The population rose from 140,000,000 at the start to 300,000,000 by 1790 thanks to the introduction of New World crops such as sweet potatoes, corn and peanuts.

Zor