Economics of the Industrial Revolution
-
- $42.99
-
- $42.99
Publisher Description
Almost a century has passed since the publication of Arnold Toynbees famous Lectures on the Industrial Revolution (1884). Historians of all persuasions have since come to the conclusion that the Industrial Revolution in Britain constituted a new point of departure in human history, an event of such moment to daily life that it compares to the advent of monotheism or the development of language. Consequently, a vast literature has emerged dealing with its various aspects, written by historians, economists, and sociologists, both left wing and right wing, English ,and foreign. Little agreement has emerged among the experts about the fundamental questions. There is, first, the mere question of definition: what exactly was the Industrial Revolution? Of the many attempts to sum up what the Industrial Revolution meant, Perkins is perhaps the most eloquent. In his words, it was a revolution in mens access to the means of life, in control of their ecological environment, in their capacity to escape from the tyranny and niggardliness of nature . . . it opened the road for men to complete mastery of their physical environment, without the inescapable need to exploit each other (Perkin, 1969, pp. 35). More changed in Britain than just the way in which goods and services were produced. The nature of family and household, the status of women and children, the role of the church, how people chose their rulers and supported their poor, what they knew about the world and what they wanted to knowall of these were transformed. It is a continuing project to discover how these noneconomic changes affected and were affected by economic change. The Revolution was, in Perkins irresistible phrase, a more than industrial revolution. By focusing on economics we isolate only a part, though a central part, of the modernization of Britain.
Difficult and ambitious questions have been posed. What were the causes of the Industrial Revolution? Why did it occur when it did? What were the effects on the economic and social welfare of the population? What were the roles played by agriculture, population growth, political elements, transportation, and foreign trade? No consensus had emerged on any of these questions by the early 1960s. Those who seek definitive answers should not venture into economic history. The inherent importance of the subject matter, however, has kept scholars and students interested and the literature dealing with the Industrial Revolution has grown extensively in the last decade. The topic has attracted many lively controversies. This tendency to generate debates is no drawback; the mortal enemy of economic history is not error but boredom. As long as the subject can generate vigorous discussions among some of the finest minds working in economics and history departments, it should consider itself alive and well.