How useful is the concept ofproto-industrialisation in discussing the British industrial revolution?

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Tom Burrell 07/11/03

Trinity Hall

Cambridge

How useful is the concept of proto-industrialisation in discussing the British industrial revolution?

Proto-industrialisation was a concept introduced by Mendels (1968), which he believed was the developmental stage between feudal and capitalist society. Kriedte coined it as ‘industrialisation before industrialisation’. Coleman (1983) outlined a number of characteristics that indicated ‘proto-industrialisation’:

During the 15th and 16th centuries, agriculture dictated the great majority of the economic activity and production, namely the majority of worker’s worked on farms, often on a subsistence basis. However, ‘agricultural enclosure’ and the use of farm machinery, led to the emergence of a number of landless unemployed or under-employed peasants. This peasantry or ‘rural sub-stratum of the population’ often turned to handicraft, to gain, or supplement an income to survive. Coleman noted that this production was on a regional level, and products were sold to markets outside this region. This was crucial in that it created markets, on a domestic and international basis. Overall, this created a ‘village symbiosis’, namely agriculture and this ‘cottage industry’ living and functioning together.

This ‘proto-industrialisation’ referred to rural peasants turning to industrial production, such as ‘textiles’, ‘straw-plaiting’ and ‘glass making’, and creating domestic and international markets where this produce was sold. This is clearly an early capitalist development, with the emergence of industrial production and the commercialisation of trade.

Medick theorized an outline of the stages for proto-industrialisation to develop into industrialisation, with the first stage, ‘Kaufsystem’, referring to the ‘rural-peasants’ maintenance of control over the production and selling of their output. Entrepreneurs recognised the attractiveness of rural workers, and rural production, as it was uninhibited by ‘urban guilds and company restrictions’ the way many towns were, whilst many worker’s wages could be lower as some still partly had a subsistence base in agriculture. This led to ‘Verlagsystem’, a heightened merchant capital investment, which lead to the peasants’ loss of control and autonomy over production. Merchant capitalists would supply factor inputs, and workers would process them in return for a wage, with the merchant capitalists extracting the profits.

A third and final stage in this theoretical transition from proto-industrialisation to industrialisation, was the movement of production to centralized and mechanized factories. Medick therefore saw a logical progression, whereby proto-industrialisation would lead to industrialisation, with rural peasants developing a trade and regional domestic and international markets; and merchant capitalists investment leading to their eventual control and industrialisation of the trade, highlighting the value of proto-industrialisation in discussing the British industrial revolution.

Yet, whilst this is a logical transformation that sees small rural industry eventually leading to industrialisation, did this actually happen? And even if it did not, did this ‘proto-industrialisation’ have any impact on or significance for the industrial revolution?

Indeed, rather than industrialize from proto-industry, some proto-industries actually de-industrialised or re-agrarianized, as Coleman concludes ‘only 4 out of 10 proto-industries ‘industrialized’. De-industrialization refers to the reduction in the industry production, with a return to agriculture. There is little theory to suggest what determines whether the proto-industry industrialises or de-industrialises, but Mendels had suggested that over-supply of labour, driven by population ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Yet, whilst this is a logical transformation that sees small rural industry eventually leading to industrialisation, did this actually happen? And even if it did not, did this ‘proto-industrialisation’ have any impact on or significance for the industrial revolution?

Indeed, rather than industrialize from proto-industry, some proto-industries actually de-industrialised or re-agrarianized, as Coleman concludes ‘only 4 out of 10 proto-industries ‘industrialized’. De-industrialization refers to the reduction in the industry production, with a return to agriculture. There is little theory to suggest what determines whether the proto-industry industrialises or de-industrialises, but Mendels had suggested that over-supply of labour, driven by population growth, might lead to the preference of using extra labour rather than machinery. This is ironic, as discussed later, as the proto-industrialisation theory views population growth as vital for the development of proto-industry. There is also limited evidence of the transition from ‘Kaufsystem’ to ‘Verlagsystem’, as many small rural peasants, continued to produce on a small scale. Furthermore, Ogilvie & Cerman declare that ‘at no time did a major landless proletarianized workforce dependent on industrial capital arise’.

Moreover, Houston & Snell highlight that industrialisation occurred frequently in the absence of proto-industrialisation and the existence of other determinants, often urban handicraft industries, whilst industrialisation did not in the converse of this scenario. They concluded that perhaps the other determinants might have more influence over industrialisation, or urban industry and other factors would need to be included in the theory of proto-industrialisation. This clearly undermines and limits the perspective that ‘proto-industrialisation’ was a pre-condition for industrialisation.

Next, it will be considered, whether the development of ‘proto-industry’ had any impact whatsoever on the industrial revolution, and whether or not it should be considered at all when discussing the industrial revolution.

Deyon and Mendels (1982) proposed a number of reasons why proto-industrialisation had significance for the industrial revolution. One model, proposed by Mendels, was that proto-industry was responsible for the rapid expansion in population, in what he coined ‘demo-economic systems’. This was mainly on the basis that rural peasants required a labour force to produce output, and by increasing fertility, they were able to breed one. Despite this, Medick suggested that the reason for increased fertility was earlier marriage, as the previous relationship between agriculturally inherited land and marriage, had been removed by the growth of industries. Levine cited that this population growth was vital, as it created an industrial proletariat, a precondition for the industrial revolution. Although, this would appear to indicate an important aspect of proto-industry, Ogilvie and Coleman reject this unequivocally, claiming that the substantial demographic changes were the product of many variables, and rapid increases in real wages, agricultural output and productivity were more likely to be responsible.

Further suggested reasons by Deyon and Mendels why proto-industry was important for the industrial revolution, was that it permitted further developments that were to be crucial during the industrial revolution. Profits and capital created by proto-industry was one these developments, and it was suggested that they would then be re-invested into industrial revolution production. However, evidence suggests that this was just one of many sources of capital, and it should not be singled out for any great importance. Moreover, proto-industry profits and capital often were re-invested into agricultural and land-holding, rather than industrial development.

Mendels model also theorized that proto-industry would form the first generation of factory entrepreneurs and factory labour, a key step on the industrial revolution ladder. However, it is more likely that both peasant workers and entrepreneurs were most resistant to change; content with the lifestyle they already had. Indeed, even entrepreneurial skills, which Deyon and Mendels (1982) suggested would be harnessed by proto-industry, may have actually been ‘restricted by the framework that existed’.

A fourth factor in Deyon and Mendels summary was the fact that proto-industrialisation would commercialise agriculture, by building the regional markets and by the necessity in having to feed an urbanized proletariat. Once more, this was rejected, as Ogilvie and Cerman highlighted that commercialised agriculture was actually occurring before proto-industrialisation, further limiting it’s importance.

This illustrates that a number of factors focussing on the importance of proto-industrialisation for the industrial revolution have been proposed, and nearly all have been rejected or their importance limited. Evidence would appear to suggest that proto-industry was not a key aspect of the industrial revolution, but rather reflected the changes in economics and society at the time, namely, growing populations, emerging industries, entrepreneurial activities and the commercialisation of trade. This is illustrated by the emergence of ‘urban industry’, ‘nationwide exponential population growth’ and ‘substantial technological development’. It appears that by no means should proto-industrialisation be isolated as a key in factor in the development of the industrial revolution, in the way that Mendels had outlined, but it should be considered and discussed as one of the many economic changes taking place, that was eventually to lead to the industrial revolution, as Ogilvie and Cerman reflect ‘the impact of domestic manufacturing on mercantile skills and contacts, on commercial infrastructures, in promoting new working and consumption habits and in influencing personal and family life is likely to have been fundamental to the industrialization process in England’.

Yet, Coleman (1983) reflects that proto-industry had no direct relevance with ‘steam power, transformation of iron smelting and steel making for railways, mechanical papermaking and printing, gaslights and dyestuffs, and without these the notion of the industrial revolution would not exist’. This exhibits the limited extent to which proto-industrialisation can be useful when discussing the industrial revolution. Indeed, Hartwell, in summarising the key factors and preconditions for industrialisation in Britain, pointed to low interest rates to stimulate capital formation, an expanding geographical frontier that permitted world trade, a technological revolution and the growth of ‘laissez faire’, a rational drive towards wealth. Hartwell does give reference to ‘agricultural change (which enabled the economy to support an increasing non-agricultural workforce)’ and population growth, but at no time points to the importance for proto-industry as a precondition for the British industrial revolution.

Hence, It is possible to make a number of conclusions surrounding proto-industry. Firstly, a weight of empirical evidence suggests that Mendels’ model for proto-industrialisation as a necessary transitional stage of feudal society to agriculture was incorrect, as many industrialisations occurred without proto-industry, and proto-industry more often that not lead instead to de-industrialization. Secondly and despite the first conclusion, proto-industry has also been highlighted as having some influence in the development of the industrial revolution, namely in the form of increasing population growth, commercialising agricultural and building domestic and international markets and in the development of entrepreneurial skills. Yet, the importance of proto-industry on each of these factors had been questioned and undermined.

Evidence appears to highlight that proto-industry was not a key aspect of the industrial revolution, but rather the small influence it did have, can be seen to reflect and represent the changes in economics and society at the time, for example in populations increases, emerging industries, entrepreneurial activities and the commercialisation of trade.

In summary, it is possible to state that the concept of proto-industry is useful in discussing the British industrial revolution, as its small and limited influence is representative and reflective of changes that led to the industrial revolution; but it is by no means useful as being highlighted as a key factor or precondition for the industrial revolution, in the way significant technological progress, raw material developments or the transformation in transport can be.

Bibliography

Berg, M., ‘Factories, workshops and industrial organisation’, in R. Floud and D. McCloskey, The economic history of Britain since 1700. Volume 1: 1700 - 1860

Coleman, D. (1983). 'Proto-industrialization: A Concept Too Many'. Economic History Review, 36,

Houston, R., & Snell, K. (1984). 'Protoindustrialisation? Cottage industry, social change and the Industrial Revolution'. Historical Journal, 27.

Hudson, P. (1996). 'Proto-industrialization in England'. In S. C. Ogilvie & M. Cerman, ‘European proto-industrialization’.

Hudson, P. (1992). The Industrial Revolution.

Kriedte, P., Medick, H., & Schlumbohm, J. (1981) Industrialization before Industrialization: Rural Industry in the Genesis of Capitalism

Mendels, F. (1972). 'Proto-industrialization: The first phase of the industrialization process?’ Journal

Of Economic History,

Ogilvie, S. C., & Cerman, M. (1996). 'Theories of proto-industrialization'.

Houston, R. & Snell, K. (1984) ‘Protoindustrialisation? Cottage industry, social change and the Industrial Revolution’. Historical Journal, 27.

Ogilvie, S. C., & Cerman, M. (1996). 'Theories of proto-industrialization'.

Ogilvie, S. C., & Cerman, M. (1996). 'Theories of proto-industrialization'.

Coleman, D. (1983). 'Proto-industrialization: A Concept Too Many'. Economic History Review, 36,

Hartwell in Hudson, P. ‘The Industrial Revolution’.