In what ways has the idea of a European industrial revolution been challenged?

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

In what ways has the idea of a ‘European industrial revolution’ been challenged?

To analyse the ways in which the idea of a ‘European industrial revolution’ has been challenged, one must define what is meant by the term ‘industrial revolution’ that Europe supposedly experienced during the 19th century. The term ‘Industrial Revolution’ can be traced back to being coined by English economic historian, Arnold Toynbee in his book Lectures On The Industrial Revolution In England published in 1884. Toynbee’s argument focuses on that as methods of production and industry modernised throughout the 18th and 19th centuries it brought about serious change to the social demographics of England. The traditionalist argument as outlined by Rondo Cameron is that, “the industrialisation of Europe and the world began with an "industrial revolution" in England (or Great Britain) which other nations subsequently imitated” This view is supported by historians such as William Henderson and Walt Rostow and predicted by Marx: “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future” Whilst it is clear there is definitely economic development seen in the 19th century, to call the period as a revolution has been debated. The word ‘revolution’ is defined as ‘A drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving’ and ‘a sudden or momentous change in a situation’. To think of an example of Revolution, the French Revolution completed changed the political and social landscape of France in a year. When analysing the idea of the European Industrial Revolution, one must take both of these definitions in to account. One must analyse the revolutions affect on society, the scale and size of it and the speed in which it happened.

The traditional idea is that Britain was the vanguard of Industrial Revolution in Europe and that the continent then proceeded to imitate the British model of bringing about industrial development. However with minimal scrutiny an argument can be formed that this was not the case. The British model of industrialisation happened first for a number of reasons; a large amount of natural resources, good geographical locations for industry such as water sources require for power, a large agriculture industry, a large base of human capital, a developed banking system and a skilled large labour forces. This is according to The Rostow Model. Britain saw these advances unquestionably, but the traditional interpretation of the industrial revolution argues that this model was copied across Europe. Sidney Pollard argues against this, and makes the point “European industrialisation should not be seen as the repetition of a model, but as a single, if complex, process". Pollard argues that only countries with similar resources as Britain enjoyed the same level of industrialisation as Britain. This challenges the traditional viewpoint that industrialisation was a widespread European phenomenon. The first industrialized nation on the continent is accepted to be Belgium as it follows the ‘British Model’ the most purely because it has similar natural resources required for industrialisation, most notably coal. Its similar size and geographical landscape to Britain also paid a key role. This argument is backed up by analysing industrial development in France. France is seen to be one of the late developers in industrial terms and it differs vastly from the ‘British Model’ of development, Britain had a much larger population than France, who where going through a population crisis during the 19th century, Britain had an established banking system which was there to stimulate industrial growth and Britain had a larger amount of raw materials than France. Clive Trebilcock states that when the French credit system and government worked effectively there is a noticeable upswing in industrial development. However Trebilcock also argues that French industrialization is unique, as it did not have the infrastructure the ‘British Model’ of development had it did draw from its academic, traditional science and wealthy past. However one cannot cast off Britain’s influence on the industrialization of Europe. As William Henderson outlines “It has been seen that for over a hundred years before the Franco-Prussian war British technical knowledge had, in various ways, contributed to the industrial development of important manufacturing regions on the European mainland. British entrepreneurs, contractors, managers, foremen and skilled workers had played their part…” But this viewpoint does not take in to account the different methods that countries developed for example Germany had minimal input by British advancements.

This is a preview of the whole essay

One critique of a ‘European Industrial Revolution’ is the rate of which it happened. As already defined a revolution connotes a quick sudden change in a situation. If this was to be true one could assume the industrial revolution happened in a short time frame. However a number of modern historians have presented arguments that the economical development of Europe was a much slower process and the term revolution does not represent it accurately. The fact that there is debate over when the Industrial Revolution took place shows a challenge to the traditionalist idea of the revolution. Toynbee dates the revolution to have taken place between 1760-1820 in Britain whereas John Nef, a revisionist argues the industrial revolution was “false” but accepted there where increases in industrial production in the late 18th century but not significant enough for it to be considered a revolution. Thomas Ashton states “The changes were not merely 'industrial', but also social and intellectual. The word 'revolution' implies a suddenness of change that is not, in fact, characteristic of economic processes. The system of human relationships that is sometimes called capitalism had its origins long before 1760, and attained its full development long after 1830: there is danger of overlooking the essential fact of continuity." Aston’s view is backed up by the fact Belgium obtained a steam pump in 1720 and its influences lasted over a century.

The traditional understanding of the Industrial Revolution is that it was a wide spread revolution that covered the whole of Europe. However revisionist historian Michael Palairet presents the argument that some economies during this period suffered from economic decline as apposed to economic growth. He comments on the Balkan stares that urban decline, retardive supply side influences, widespread peasant agriculture and introduction of state government post ottoman empire led to a decline in all of the Balkan economies. Whereas a state was supposedly good for economic development as could address infrastructure issues, and promote education and industry this was not the case in the Balkans. Output per capita has a clear downward coloration from the middle of the 19th century in to the 20th century, a period in which Europe was said to be at the peak of its industrial revolution.

In terms of state intervention, traditional models suggest sufficient support from banks or the state is required in industrialisation. However the banking system found in Switzerland and Holland where far more advanced then the ones found in France or Germany this shows that the traditional models applied to industrial revolution are not flawless. Again using Britain as the example it had virtually no state intervention in to industry as apposed to France and Germany where it was seen as the norm to require the state to encourage economic growth. Again this apposes the view of a one model that industrial revolution in Europe followed.

For a continent wide revolution to have taken places then one may assume that there was cohesion in policy across European states, however this is not the case. A key development to come out of the industrial revolution was that of the railways. One of the suggested preconditions of industrial growth suggested by Rostow is a developed rail network, however this is arguably only true of Russia and they were quite a late developer, seeing rapid growth in the early 20th century. Britain the traditional first industrialised nation did not see great expansion in its rail network until the end of its ‘industrial revolution’ arguably this shows that Rostow’s traditional model is wrong in assuming that a railway network is key for industrialisation. Russia had an established rail system before its industrial period yet did not reach the same scale of British development in the same time frame. One could argue that the industrial revolution process was unique to different regions across Europe that shared similar resources and pre conditions but inevitably developed different means of economic growth. As already established industrialisation was arguably varied across Europe, “Europe was a phenomenon of very variable pace and intensity” The traditional idea that revolution happened state to state has been challenged, as history has shown in economically developed nations such as Britain substantial areas of it where not industrialised, one simply needs to see a map of the British isles to determine the South East did not see much industrial expansion. Also states that bordered each other such as the Rhineland of Germany and Northern France saw development at around the same period, this shows that the industrial revolution happened on a local geographical and regional level as apposed to an entire continental one.

Notably one must consider just how industrialised Europe was at the start of the 20th century, whilst there where clear developments in new technologies such as harnessing the power of coal, methods of industry from the 18th for example steam power that was used in Britain in 1870 mining and textiles was still significant after the supposed period of industrial revolution in the early 20th century.

To conclude, the ideas of a European Industrial Revolution have been challenged in many ways by modern revisionist historians. The main challenges to consider are; can the period of economical development in the 19th century be defined as a revolution? Revisionists argue that yes there was industrial development but it was in fact a gradual development over a period of one hundred to two hundred years as apposed to a short time span. Another challenge is that Europe did not imitate a single British Model for development. Industrial development was arguably not a Europe spread phenomena; it was very much based upon what natural sources where available. Whilst in can be agreed there were certainly similarities between countries that experienced economic growth in this period, most notably Belgium and Great Britain coincidently the two nations that historians agreed where industrialised first. However these similarities do not take in to account the variation of the different models, speed and scale of industrialisation across Europe. There is also debate over how industrialised was Europe by the start of the 20th century, with industries that where over a century old still have significant impact on industrial process. Of course there is debate over only regions of certain states being industrialised so it is not accurate to apply the term to cover the whole of Europe, considering the Balkan states did not even have economic growth in this period. Rondo Cameron summarises the revisionist argument as “The customary depiction of an "industrial revolution" in Great Britain and its repetition in continental Europe and elsewhere distorts the historical record. It also conceals the distinctive varieties of industrialization, and ignores the ingenuity and achievements of the men and women who contributed to it.” This is the essential summary of challenges to the traditional idea as one could argue the broad term European Industrial Revolution does ignore the numerous factors that show a variation within Europe. One could argue a more accurate term to describe this period is as ‘further technological development and economical growth in resource rich Europe’ as it better reflects the development shown in this period.

Word Count: 2312

Bibliography

Ashton, T. The Industrial Revolution, 1760-1830 (Oxford, 1948) p. 3

Cameron, R. ‘A new view of European Industrialization’, The Economic History Review, Vol 38, No.1 (1985) pp. 1-23

Henderson, W. Britain and Industrial Europe 1750-1870 (Liverpool 1954) p.211

Henderson, W. The Industrial Revolution on the continent 1800-1914 2nd ed. (London 1967) p.10

Marx, K. Capital: A critical analysis of Capitalist Production, Friederich Engels, ed. translated from the third German edition by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (New York 1901) p. 11

Nef, J Western Civilization Since the Renaissance: Peace, War, Industry and the Arts (New York 1963) pp. 280-290

Palairet, M. The Balkan Economies c. 1800-1914 (Cambridge 1997) pp. 363-370

Pollard, S. 'Industrialization and the European Economy', Economic History Review 2nd ser. (1973), p. 646.

Rostow, W. The Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge 1960)

Trebilcock, C The Industrialization of the Continental Powers 1780-1914’ (New York 1981) p. 1-197

Cameron, R. ‘A new view of European Industrialisation’, The Economic History Review, Vol 38, No.1 (1985) p. 1

Marx, K. Capital: A critical analysis of Capitalist Production, Friederich Engels, ed. translated from the third German edition by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (New York 1901) p. 11

Rostow, W. The Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge 1960)

Pollard, S. 'Industrialisation and the European Economy', Economic History Review 2nd ser. (1973), p. 646.

Cameron, R. ‘A new view of European Industrialisation’, The Economic History Review, Vol 38, No.1 (1985) p. 11

Trebilcock, C The Industrialization of the Continental Powers 1780-1914’ (New York 1981) p. 197

Henderson, W. Britain and Industrial Europe 1750-1870 (Liverpool 1954) p.211

Cameron, R. ‘A new view of European Industrialisation’, The Economic History Review, Vol 38, No.1 (1985) p. 3

Nef, J. Western Civilization Since the Renaissance: Peace, War, Industry and the Arts (New York 1963) pp. 280-290

Ashton, T. The Industrial Revolution, 1760-1830 (Oxford, 1948) p. 3

Palairet, M. The Balkan Economies c. 1800-1914 (Cambridge 1997) pp. 363-370

Henderson, W. The Industrial Revolution on the continent 1800-1914 2nd ed. (London 1967) p.10

Trebilcock, C The Industrialization of the Continental Powers 1780-1914’ (New York 1981) p. 1

Cameron, R. ‘A new view of European Industrialisation’, The Economic History Review, Vol 38, No.1 (1985) p. 23

In what ways has the idea of a European industrial revolution been challenged?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Article Review of De Vries' The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious R...

British transport during the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution: A Complete Shift towards the Growth of the Unite...

One of the most controversial issues of British Economic History is the liv...