British Industrialization

840 Words2 Pages

British industrialization was concentrated in those areas which

had experienced prior proto-industrialisation. Therefore proto-industry

was necessary for factory industry---discuss.

British industrialization was concentrated in those areas which had

experienced prior proto-industrialisation. Therefore proto-industry

was necessary for factory industry---discuss.

One model, proposed by Mendels, was that proto-industry was

responsible for the rapid expansion in population, in what he called

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, which led to further expansion in rural domestic

industries. It was a self-sustaining proto-industrial spiral, that

generated the labour, capital, entrepreneurship, commercial

agriculture and supra-regional markets required for factory

industrialisation. Ogilvie and Coleman reject this, claiming that

there was no evidence that it was proto-industrialization which led to

the development of commercial agriculture, rather than agricultural

surpluses which led to the growth of both proto-industries and towns

and cities. Empirical case-studies of proto-industrial regions all

overeurope were adduced to show that not all proto-industrial regions

had a higher fertility rate, faster demographic growth, lower ages of

marriage, or a breakdown in the family and gender division of labour.

ItÂ’s unclear that proto-industry provide cheap labour, as in

1760s-1820s, wage rate slowly increased, and the rate of

industrialisation and income growth were also very slow.

Further suggested reasons by Deyon and Mendels that 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 ...

... middle of paper ...

...or

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

and Cerman declare that at no time did a major landless

proletarianized workforce dependent on industrial capital arises.

Clarkson and Snell also claimed that commercial agriculture developed

in many cases earlier than proto-industry, and not always in

neighbouring regions. In many proto-industry regions these mechanisms

even moved back to agriculture.

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. 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.

Open Document