INTRODUCTION

The Industrial Revolution was a transformative period that reshaped human society in unprecedented ways.
Originating in northern England during the mid-18th century. According to traditional European
perspectives this era saw the rise of multinational trading companies, supported by mercantilist policies,
which laid the foundation for the Industrial Revolution in Europe. This view, often depicted as the "Rise of
the West," was challenged by Kenneth Pomeranz in his work "The Great Divergence" (2000), arguing that
the differences between Europe and China only became pronounced in the 18th century. Industrialization is
a key pathway to affluence, marked by changes like the application of modern science to production,
urbanization, capital-intensive production, and the emergence of new social classes based on capital
ownership. The debate over when the Industrial Revolution began highlights differing views on historical
continuity and revolutionary change in economic history.
BACKGROUND
Jan de Vries proposed the 'industrious revolution,' which preceded the industrial revolution in Europe. This
concept highlighted changes in consumption patterns among early modern peasants, leading to increased
demand for goods and contributing to proto-industries. The 'European Marriage Pattern' also influenced
economic strategies, motivating women to engage in income-earning work. Proto-industrialization,
characterized by domestic industries for distant markets, fostered population growth and entrepreneurial
skills. Meanwhile, advancements in book production and literacy expanded knowledge dissemination and
societal roles. Together, these factors facilitated the transition to modern industrial societies in Europe,
setting the stage for the industrial revolution.
GREAT DIVERGENCE DEBATE
The debate over why parts of Europe surged economically ahead while other regions lagged behind,
particularly Asia, Africa, and the Americas, has a long history. It's been analyzed by notable thinkers like
Marx, Weber, and more recent scholars like Pomeranz and Parthasarathi. Scholars have also debated when
the economic divergence occurred. Some suggest it happened earlier, while others argue for a later date,
possibly around 1700-1800. These discussions often revolve around structural factors versus conjunctural
events that led to economic divergence.
 Structural explanations, like those put forth by Marx and Weber, argue that Europe's unique
conditions, such as capitalism or Protestantism's influence on economic rationality, set it apart from
Asia and India, leading to its economic dominance.
 Conversely, scholars like Pomeranz and Parthasarathi emphasize conjunctural factors, such as
ecological relief, technological advancements, state policies, and trade dynamics, as key drivers of
economic development and divergence.
Pomeranz argues that the standard of living and various economic indicators in the Yangtze delta of China
and southern England were quite similar during a certain period. He emphasizes that per capita income,
levels of urbanization, and agricultural productivity were comparable between these regions. What made a
crucial difference in their later economic trajectories, according to Pomeranz, was access to the resources of
the New World. Recent research has supported Pomeranz's assertions regarding agricultural productivity
levels in the Yangtze delta and England being similar. This challenges the previously dominant idea of
"agrarian fundamentalism," which linked industrialization levels in Europe to differences in agricultural
productivity.
However, Pomeranz acknowledges some gaps in his analysis, particularly regarding the role of war and the
rise of the military fiscal state in the process of industrialization. Additionally, he notes the importance of
science and technology, which he had not fully considered in his earlier work. This nuanced understanding
suggests that the divergence between East and West might have begun earlier than traditionally thought,
possibly around 1750 or even 1700, rather than in 1800 as commonly believed.
According to Parthasarathi, the “coal, iron and steam complex” did not emerge in the more advanced regions
of India and China because of differences in economic and ecological pressures and the responses of
economic agents and the state to these challenges. The state in Britain was very supportive of the cotton
industry, businessmen were acutely conscious of the competition from Indian textiles and breakthroughs in
technology enabled Britain to forge ahead. Even Adam Smith had noted the competition from Indian textiles
that British businessmen faced.
Science's role in divergence is contentious, with some arguing that early modern European science was
pivotal, while others emphasize practical knowledge and technical break throughs. The debate also
acknowledges the challenges in interpreting historical data, both quantitative and qualitative, and the
subjective nature of historical analysis, especially when dealing with factors like wages, incomes, and prices.
The role of institutions, including political arrangements, property rights, trade organizations, and fiscal
systems, is also scrutinized for their impact on economic development and divergence.
Living standards in cities like Beijing, Canton, and Suzhou were lower compared to London and
Amsterdam. However, during the eighteenth century, unskilled workers in Chinese and Japanese cities had
relatively similar living standards to those in central and southern Europe, with only England and the Low
Countries surging ahead, highlighting the Great and Little Divergence.
CAUSES/ORIGIN
Britain's abundant and easily accessible coal deposits played a crucial role. Coal was essential for powering
steam engines, which drove industrial factories, trains, and ships. The proximity of coal mines to cities
ensured a readily available workforce and facilitated the transportation of coal via canals. The iron industry
underwent significant technological changes, particularly with the shift from charcoal to coal as a primary
fuel for smelting iron. This transition, facilitated by inventions like Abraham Darby's use of coke in iron
smelting, marked a crucial phase in the industry's development.
Moreover, Britain's long-standing involvement in trade, particularly in textiles, laid the groundwork for
industrialization. The transition from small-scale textile production to large mills was swift, supported by
financial institutions and legal protections that encouraged investment and innovation.
The transition from domestic production to factory-based systems, the role of women and children in labor,
the resilience of traditional hand-loom weavers, and the overall shift towards mechanization emphasizes the
interconnectedness of technological progress, market demand, labor supply, and capital investment in
driving the industrial revolution forward.
The growth of trade networks, facilitated by colonial dominance, brought in wealth and goods from distant
regions. Mercantilist policies, such as the Navigation Acts in Britain, aimed to monopolize trade with
colonies and strengthen the home country's economy.
The rise of machines was also driven by high labor costs, prompting businesses to seek cost-effective
alternatives. This parallels today's trends with AI and robotics replacing human labor. Innovations like
Hargreaves' spinning-jenny and Arkwright's water-frame revolutionized cotton production, leading to
massive economic growth and reshaping Britain's industrial landscape.
CONTRIBUTION OF COLONIAL NETWORKS, EXPLOITATION AND SLAVERY
European powers, particularly Britain, gained capital from their colonies, accessed raw materials, and
expanded markets for manufactured goods. The exploitation of resources and labor in colonies, including the
use of slave-based plantations, contributed substantially to the rise of capitalism and the Industrial
Revolution in Britain. Additionally, the flow of resources from colonies to the metropolis played a crucial
role in economic growth. These resources were invested in industries, infrastructure, and technological
innovations, laying the groundwork for industrial growth. Although it also raised ethical and social concerns
regarding exploitation and inequality.
ROLE OF AGRICULTURE REVOLUTION
Agriculture played a crucial role in the economy, with population growth and technological advancements
shaping its trajectory. During the eighteenth century, England experienced a notable agrarian transformation
due to technological progress, shifting from feudal economic structures to capitalist land relations. This
period saw a decrease in the agricultural workforce but an increase in productivity, enabling England to feed
its growing population while also contributing to industrial development.
The Marxist perspective on the enclosure movement in Britain argues that it led to the consolidation of large
farms, landlessness, and the rise of capitalism in agriculture based on capital investment and wage labor.
Brenner emphasizes class conflicts and changes in the class structure as crucial for capitalism in agriculture
and as preconditions for the industrial. Zmolek emphasized the transformation of class relations and the
growth of an integrated domestic market as key factors preceding the Industrial Revolution.
Allen's perspective highlights the role of urban growth, high wages, and increased demand for food and
labor in driving the agricultural revolution in countries like England and the Netherlands. New cropping
patterns and fertilization techniques contributed to higher productivity, with cities acting as engines of
growth alongside rural changes.
Technological innovations, such as Jethro Tull's advancements in farming tools and Lord Townshend's crop
rotation techniques, further boosted agricultural productivity. These changes led to increased food
production, surplus for exports, and the rise of capitalist farming practices.
Demographically, the population of England and other north-western European regions grew rapidly, driven
by factors like improved agricultural output, reduced mortality rates due to better nutrition and healthcare,
and changes in marriage patterns. Late marriages and birth control methods also played a role in population
control.
CONCLUSION
The Industrial Revolution was probably one of the greatest transformations in human history. Arguably, it
has changed how humans live more than any event since the Agricultural Revolution. Industrialization -
producing goods on a scale beyond what could be made in the home - has helped to shape the kind of work
we do today. It led to fewer farmers, fewer artisans, and more people in wage paid jobs in factories, or in
jobs that support factories. It gave us a world of mass-produced stuff, from clothing, to tools, to iPhones, all
obtainable only with money we earn from our industrial jobs. And increasingly it affects the very air we
breathe and the water we drink. The Great Divergence debate also remains a complex and multifaceted
topic, drawing insights from various disciplines and perspectives to understand the dynamics of economic
development and disparity between different parts of the world. However, it's crucial to recognize the darker
aspects of this transformation, including exploitation, slavery, and environmental impacts. The Industrial
Revolution's legacy is complex, representing a blend of technological progress, economic strategies,
geographical advantages, and ethical dilemmas that continue to shape our world today.