Below there are two examples of changes in production techniques that are attributed to industrial revolution :
Steam-powered engines
A ''Critical Technology'' is considered to be a ''power'' that plays a decisive role ,either in a direct or an indirect way on output and productivity growth (as an efficient production technique which helps to produce more with less labor units) . The use of these critical technologies ,which should bring great economic benefits ,were characteristically applied to the steam engine. Both Deane and Arnold Toynbee have stressed the significance of steam engines and have linked it with the industrial revolution itself. However , even the steam machine ''did not pass'' the 'social savings' test. The 'social savings' method in brief , is the difference obtained if we deduct the old resources costs for an economical function from the new ones. In the case of steam engines, maybe the most representative application of critical technology during industrial revolution,anyone would expect the result of this abstraction to be significantly high .However the evaluation of Von Tunzelmann showed very interesting if not paradoxical results. Von Tunzelmann made two hypotheses. These involved the replacement of the Watt and all other steam engines by the early atmospheric steam engines. Finally, the social savings for the first and second hypothesis were just 0.11% and 0.20% of the national income in 1980 respectively. Furthermore it is believed by most historians that the technical development of coal happened before the industrial revolution and steam furnaces while Von Tunzelmann moves even further to say that steam powered inventions by no means reduced the cost of textile processes although that is commonly presumed.
The investigation of Von Tunzelmann although not questionless , breaks the myth that technology necessarily means changes in growth or more specific productivity growth. Although industrialization usually implies technological change , technological change does not necessarily mean industrial revolution.
Textiles
The sector of textiles undoubtedly flourished during the industrial revolution with significant changes in production , since it benefited from the development of technologies. Textile equipment and steam power were the representative examples of technology of industrial revolution. The new mechanized production of textiles techniques led to rapid industry growth and laborer productivity increase. But this mechanization changed the sector of textiles from manufacturing to factory production. Factory production required concentration and obedience from the laborer who could not adjust easily to this new working environment. As Rober Cookson reported:The men were considerably dissatisfied , because they could not go in and out as they pleased , and go on as they used to. Apart from the unwillingness of laborers to accept the managerial changes , the skilled laborer was limited since their demand increased and the ''supply'' of these workers remained constant. Thus , skilled workers soon had the power to resist to the managerial control and handle in their own way the speed of production and negotiate their wages from better position. Managers' power on the other hand was limited in the organization of production.
All the above show that technology influenced the production since it provided new machinery. Nevertheless , it is not right to see the development of this sector just as a consequence of the introduction of new technologies. On the contrary there is a debate of whether these technologies were unique and if the development in the production sector of textiles was an interaction of technology – organization -management. In addition textiles was just one of the sectors that were developing through innovation and it is wrong to consider it as the only sector that contributed to the general productivity growth.
The British Industrial Revolution...or maybe not?
Nowadays , there is an intense skepticism about , if these new production techniques introduced from 1760 to 1850 can be characterized as ''revolution''.It seems that just before the classical years of the industrial revolution , the British economy was as well developed and commercialized
as any other country of the world. So , there was not such a great discontinuity in the economy of the British industries so as to characterize the changes that occurred in this sector as ''revolution''.Indeed , productivity changes happened in some key industries of the economy , like woolen textiles and cotton for example , but these changes covered only a small part of the whole economy. According to Jeffrey G. Williamson , growth was really slow during 1760-1850 , the standard of living and wages of the working class did not improve before 1819 and the new technologies were capital – saving. He also adds that England's policy to combine industrialization with (always) expensive wars failed because of lack of resources. On the contrary , noone can deny the fact that during the ''traditional'' years of industrial revolution , occurred a movement from agrarian to urban areas. Maybe 1760 - 1850 is an era of cultural and not ''industrial'' change. However , the growth that followed the industrial revolution until the First World War is indisputable. The inventions that happened during the era of industrial revolution developed ,since there was the scientific background , and that secured the duration of growth in productivity. As a consequence of the machinery production there were some developments like the steam-powered iron ships , railroad and the general mechanization of industries which ''kept'' the British economy in high levels for almost 65 years after the industrial revolution.
Concluding , I would say that this is the real revolution. The era that followed the so called industrial revolution. The inventions , the steam engines and the cheap iron boomed the British economy and productivity for many years after. I am of the opinion that the era of 1760-1840 is the British ''anteroom'' for the great growth rates that followed.
Bibliography
- Oxford Reference Online Premium , A Dictionary of Sociology
-
The Cambridge Economic History Of Modern Britain , Volume 1 ,Industrialization 1700-1860 ,edited by Roderick Floud and Paul Johnson
- ''Why Was The British Growth So Slow During The Industrial Revolution?'' by Jeffrey G.Williamson
- ''The British Industrial Revolution In Global Perspective'' , Robert C.Allen
- 'The Myth Of a British Industrial Revolution.''History (The Journal of the Historical Association) 66 (June 1981) : 181 – 198 by Michael Fores
Oxford Reference Online Premium , A Dictionary of Sociology
Arnold Toynbee's Lectures on the Industrial revolution of the Eighteenth Century
The Cambridge Economic History Of Modern Britain , Volume 1 ,Industrialization 1700-1860 ,edited by Roderick Floud and Paul Johnson
The Cambridge Economic History Of Modern Britain , Volume 1 ,Industrialization 1700-1860 ,edited by Roderick Floud and Paul Johnson
The Cambridge Economic History Of Modern Britain , Volume 1 ,Industrialization 1700-1860 ,edited by Roderick Floud and Paul Johnson
Committee on Woollen manufacture , evid.of R. Cookson, quoted in Pollard 1965:152
The Cambridge Economic History Of Modern Britain , Volume 1 ,Industrialization 1700-1860 ,edited by Roderick Floud and Paul Johnson
The Cambridge Economic History Of Modern Britain , Volume 1 ,Industrialization 1700-1860 ,edited by Roderick Floud and Paul Johnson
''Why Was The British Growth So Slow During The Industrial Revolution?'' by Jeffrey G.Williamson
''The Myth Of a British Industrial Revolution.''History (The Journal of the Historical Association) 66 (June 1981) : 181 - 198
''The British Industrial Revolution In Global Perspective'' , Robert C.Allen
