
The industrial revolution: Fire and brimstone; why it started in Britain - mblakele
http://www.economist.com/node/16789318
======
forinti
I've just read most of "Kicking Away The Ladder" (2002, Ha-Joon Chang) and
this work makes it clear that Henry VII started the whole textile business in
the XVI century. He had lived in the Netherlands, saw the wealth that it
created, and put in motion policies geared towards building an industry in
Britain (restricting exports and hiring dutch craftsmen). His successors
continued his work and in the XVIII century this industry accounted for half
of Britain's export revenue.

This book is quite interesting; it argues that those economic policies that
rich countries now sell to developing nations (through the Washington
Consensus, for instance) were actually only put in place after they had become
developed. These policies include IP rights, opening up of markets, less
government intervention (that's laughable), etc.

~~~
Gormo
Looking at IP alone might lead to confusion of causation and correlation. What
factors led to the ability to create effective IP policies in the first place?

Consider the broader context: in the early modern era, England was arguably
the stablest and most evenly-governed country in the world, especially after
1688. There was a common body of law that applied throughout the country,
centuries before legal codification; there were reliable courts of law end
equity; there was a resilient balance between centralized interests and local
ones; there was a deep cultural apprehension to arbitrary power. There was
also the fact that, after the Act of Union, Great Britain had very little
cause to worry about external military threats potentially destroying
investments in physical infrastructure.

Industrialization is about improving production efficiency, and thus scaling
into larger and wider markets. Even if you have the technology to begin
industrialization, if the society at large is unpredictable and its
institutions unreliable, you still have a major impediment to scaling your
enterprise, and so you have a disincentive to industrialization. If you do
have stability and reliable institutions, as the early UK did, you're in a
great position to industrialize.

It makes you wonder what might have happened if Hero of Alexandria had brought
his primitive steam engine to Rome a hundred years earlier, before the
Republic collapsed (which would also have been around the same time as
Spartacus' rebellion).

------
rue
Missing Spoiler Alert: should you be inclined to read the book (this is a book
review, not a full-fledged article) rather than a trivial summary, do not read
past the first paragraphs.

I am disinclined to agree with the assertion and certainly not to the
exclusion of other factors - though I suspect and hope the article glosses
over the relative importances thereof whereas the book may treat them a bit
more sanely. It is an interesting hypothesis, nonetheless, and certainly makes
me want to read the book for the full analysis.

------
rubashov
> his book, in the end, plumps for intellectual property as the biggest single
> spur

"A Farewell to Alms" goes into great detail that very few people involved in
the industrial revolution got wealthy. It's a story of inventors and
industrialists coming away with extremely modest financial gains, despite huge
accomplishment, over and over. Greater fortunes were made in completely low
tech and un-revolutionized businesses like pottery.

The idea that the industrial revolution was a matter of legal frameworks and
financial motivations is not particular plausible in light of the financial
facts. The people who drove the industrial revolution never much profited.

"A Farewell to Alms" argues the industrial revolution happened in Britain
because to a degree unique to Britain, the most productive and responsible
people had the most children for several generations. It is documented in
great detail how this was the true. Through eugenic forces, the British worker
and the British engineer had become driven enough to create the industrial
revolution.

~~~
gaius
The pottery might not have been hi-tech, but mass producing it meant a radical
change in the way it had hitherto been produced.

It's like we say Dell is (or was) an innovative company. How, when they just
made generic PCs? Well, their innovation was not in the technology, but in the
techniques they used to manage their supply chain and inventory.

~~~
rubashov
> a radical change in the way it had hitherto been produced

No, it was made the same way.

~~~
gaius
That's just not true. You can read about it here:
[http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-
po...](http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-pottery-
museum/information-sheets/the-industrial-revolution-and-the-pottery-
industry.en;jsessionid=at3RWdnlrmke)

The innovation was not about something other than clay fired in a kiln; it was
making the process scale from "a potter" to a factory.

