What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #509
The Industrial Revolution: A Very Short Introduction
The Industrial Revolution was a pivotal point in British history that occurred between the mid-eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries and led to far reaching transformations of society. With the advent of revolutionary manufacturing technology productivity boomed. Machines were used to spin and weave cloth, steam engines were used to provide reliable power, and industry was fed by the construction of the first railways, a great network of arteries feeding the factories. Cities grew as people shifted from agriculture to industry and commerce. Hand in hand with the growth of cities came rising levels of pollution and disease. Many people lost their jobs to the new machinery, whilst working conditions in the factories were grim and pay was low. As the middle classes prospered, social unrest ran through the working classes, and the exploitation of workers led to the growth of trade unions and protest movements.
In this Very Short Introduction, Robert C. Allen analyzes the key features of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, and the spread of industrialization to other countries. He considers the factors that combined to enable industrialization at this time, including Britain's position as a global commercial empire, and discusses the changes in technology and business organization, and their impact on different social classes and groups. Introducing the "winners" and the "losers" of the Industrial Revolution, he looks at how the changes were reflected in evolving government policies, and what contribution these made to the economic transformation.
ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
In this Very Short Introduction, Robert C. Allen analyzes the key features of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, and the spread of industrialization to other countries. He considers the factors that combined to enable industrialization at this time, including Britain's position as a global commercial empire, and discusses the changes in technology and business organization, and their impact on different social classes and groups. Introducing the "winners" and the "losers" of the Industrial Revolution, he looks at how the changes were reflected in evolving government policies, and what contribution these made to the economic transformation.
ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
176 pages, Paperback
First published February 16, 2017
77 people are currently reading
591 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
February 27, 2020
Largely based on Robert Allen’s academic work on the economic history of the British industrial revolution, The Industrial Revolution: A Very Short Introduction attempts to provide an accessible overview of Britain’s rapid industrialisation, unprecedented at the time, starting in mid-18th-century.
The book can be roughly divided into three sections. The first gives a quick summary of Britain’s rise in the global economic ladder. In the next section, Allen discusses the dark implications of the industrial revolution for British workers, and their responses to it. These two sections, combined, track what Joseph Schumpeter famously called the process of “creative destruction” in post-medieval Britain. The third deals with the spread (or lack thereof depending on the country) of the industrial revolution to the rest of the world, and is a shorter version of what Allen already analysed in his Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction.
Why did the industrial revolution happen, and why was it British?
Allen, relying on his extensive research on the subject, emphasises Britain’s unique structure of prices and wages in 1750. The combination of high wages and extremely cheap access to coal reserves directed the economic incentives of British firms towards labour-saving, and thus capital-intensive, technological inventions in order to compete in the global market. British overseas holdings, most notably the North American colonies, were key as colonial trade facilitated the expansion of urban areas, kept wages high, provided Britain with cheap raw materials and by increasing the size of its export markets, further increased the incentives to improve worker productivity.
Being a long-standing question to economic historians, however, plenty of alternative explanations exist. Allen acknowledges the significance of social structure (solidification of the capitalist mode of production) and the end of serfdom, a key aspect of the Marxist view of the industrial revolution, seeing it as a pre-requisite of Britain’s industrial revolution.
He is less receptive to scientific, institutional and cultural theories of the industrial revolution. Eric Hobsbawm noticed that in the natural sciences the English were almost certainly inferior to the French. “English education was a joke in poor taste. […] Oxford and Cambridge, the only two English universities, were intellectually null, as were the somnolent public or grammar schools”. Literacy and numeracy were, indeed, very high in Britain, but Allen sees it as an effect, not a cause, of Britain’s success in international trade which naturally increased the gains to education, and high wages which made it possible for a larger portion of the populace to send their children to schools.
To refute the institutional explanations, which heavily rely on the premise of the higher safety of private property in Britain, he contends that, in fact, Britain had higher levels of taxation in comparison to France, Parliament’s sovereignty allowed it to expropriate land from owners to build infrastructure, a power not enjoyed by French “absolute” monarchs. More importantly, he uses historical evidences to point out that as long as a country has access to cheap labour and/or cannot find inexpensive energy sources, presuming that it has a market economy in which firms aim to maximise profits, no amount of “inclusive institutions” (as Acemoglu and Robinson would like to think) would lead to adoption of productivity-increasing machinery.
How did the British working-class fare during this era of the industrial revolution?
In short, the majority of British workers did not benefit from the transformations described above. The classic status of Dickensian novels is a testament to this reality. Lack of public sanitation measures and poor air quality, as a result of the ubiquitous burning of coal, made life short and painful for workers who had no option but to live in polluted urban areas. “In the first half of the 19th century, large towns and cities had a life expectancy in the range of 30 to 33 years, while the average rural dweller lived ten years longer”. The average height of British workers decreased during the first half of the 19th century, implying that their nutrition got even worse in the period.
As Friedrich Engels noticed in The Condition of the Working Class in England, the earnings of the British workers stagnated in this era, despite constant GDP growth. This had a lot to do with the decimation of the handicraft sector by mechanized production, which led to persistent unemployment, pushing down wages. It did not help that “[t]he Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800 prohibited trade unions and collective bargaining”, while capitalists regularly colluded to pay lower wages, as Adam Smith pointed out.
The misery of the poor was exacerbated by rising food prices, as a result of Napoleonic wars, and adoption of the Corn Laws in 1815, which put heavy tariffs on foreign grain imports, to enrich the landholder class which dominated the Parliament at the time.
It is not surprising, given the context, that Karl Marx whose worldview was formed in the 1840s, ended up believing that capitalism would never provide workers with wages beyond subsistence level. He was not alone in his pessimism, however, as middle-class radicals like John Stuart Mill and aristocratic romantics such as Thomas Carlyle shared a similar sentiment. In his essay, Signs of the Times (1829), he deplored the widespread poverty, which Carlyle attributed to the destruction of hand work by machine production. His description of rising inequality sounds particularly familiar to a 21st-century observer.
These trends, given the concentration of workers in crowded factories, could not continue indefinitely, as this new social arrangement made it possible for the working class to organise and fight back. Luddism was an early manifestation of this when workers wrecked and burned machinery, which they perceived to be their cause of unemployment and destitution. As Lord Byron put it in his first speech to the House of Lords:
Although these acts sparked violent government reactions, they ultimately increased the negotiating power of the working-class vis-à-vis capitalists, and were thus described by Hobsbawm as “collective bargaining by riot.” As short-sighted as they might seem, Luddites were not irrational, due to the fact that automation was, indeed, an existential threat to their hand trades, and subsequently their survival. It took generations before the fruits of automation were enjoyed by the workers.
Chartism, another working-class movement, perhaps even more pivotal and definitely less violent than the former, was also born in this period. Acquiring more than three million signatures, the People’s Charter crystallised the political demands of the working-class. It asked for universal man suffrage and the removal of property requirements for MPs. While the movement itself was violently suppressed, and ostensibly defeated, it ended up paving the way for democracy in Britain. The steady empowerment of trade unions, coupled with their shift from revolutionary ideals to social-democratic politics, by 1867 convinced conservative Benjamin Disraeli that it would be safe to extend the franchise to skilled workers. British politics was transformed forever.
I won’t review the last chapter of the book, which discusses the spread of industrial revolution abroad, as I have previously reviewed Robert Allen’s Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction, which studies the same phenomena in more detail. It suffices to say that this book is no less brilliant and insightful than the former, making it a must-read for anyone interested in economic history and the origins of the modern world.
The book can be roughly divided into three sections. The first gives a quick summary of Britain’s rise in the global economic ladder. In the next section, Allen discusses the dark implications of the industrial revolution for British workers, and their responses to it. These two sections, combined, track what Joseph Schumpeter famously called the process of “creative destruction” in post-medieval Britain. The third deals with the spread (or lack thereof depending on the country) of the industrial revolution to the rest of the world, and is a shorter version of what Allen already analysed in his Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction.
Why did the industrial revolution happen, and why was it British?
Allen, relying on his extensive research on the subject, emphasises Britain’s unique structure of prices and wages in 1750. The combination of high wages and extremely cheap access to coal reserves directed the economic incentives of British firms towards labour-saving, and thus capital-intensive, technological inventions in order to compete in the global market. British overseas holdings, most notably the North American colonies, were key as colonial trade facilitated the expansion of urban areas, kept wages high, provided Britain with cheap raw materials and by increasing the size of its export markets, further increased the incentives to improve worker productivity.
Being a long-standing question to economic historians, however, plenty of alternative explanations exist. Allen acknowledges the significance of social structure (solidification of the capitalist mode of production) and the end of serfdom, a key aspect of the Marxist view of the industrial revolution, seeing it as a pre-requisite of Britain’s industrial revolution.
It is hard to believe that these [feudalist] arrangements did not check the growth of the medieval economy or that the response to the possibilities of globalization after 1492 would have been weaker, had half of the population remained serfs. The emergence of capitalist institutions was a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for modern economic growth.
He is less receptive to scientific, institutional and cultural theories of the industrial revolution. Eric Hobsbawm noticed that in the natural sciences the English were almost certainly inferior to the French. “English education was a joke in poor taste. […] Oxford and Cambridge, the only two English universities, were intellectually null, as were the somnolent public or grammar schools”. Literacy and numeracy were, indeed, very high in Britain, but Allen sees it as an effect, not a cause, of Britain’s success in international trade which naturally increased the gains to education, and high wages which made it possible for a larger portion of the populace to send their children to schools.
To refute the institutional explanations, which heavily rely on the premise of the higher safety of private property in Britain, he contends that, in fact, Britain had higher levels of taxation in comparison to France, Parliament’s sovereignty allowed it to expropriate land from owners to build infrastructure, a power not enjoyed by French “absolute” monarchs. More importantly, he uses historical evidences to point out that as long as a country has access to cheap labour and/or cannot find inexpensive energy sources, presuming that it has a market economy in which firms aim to maximise profits, no amount of “inclusive institutions” (as Acemoglu and Robinson would like to think) would lead to adoption of productivity-increasing machinery.
The French government was very active in trying to promote advanced British technology in the eighteenth century, but its efforts failed since the British techniques were not cost-effective at French prices. James Hargreaves perfected the spinning jenny, the first machine that successfully spun cotton, in the late 1760s. In 1771, John Holker, an English Jacobite who held the post of Inspector General of Foreign Manufactures, spirited a jenny into France. Demonstration models were made, but the jenny was only installed in large, state-supported workshops. By the late 1780s, over 20,000 jennies were used in England and only 900 in France. Likewise, the French government sponsored the construction of an English style iron works (including four coke blast furnaces) in Burgundy in the 1780s. The raw materials were adequate, the enterprise was well capitalised, and they hired outstanding and experienced English engineers to oversee the project. Yet it was a commercial flop because coal was too expensive in France.
How did the British working-class fare during this era of the industrial revolution?
In short, the majority of British workers did not benefit from the transformations described above. The classic status of Dickensian novels is a testament to this reality. Lack of public sanitation measures and poor air quality, as a result of the ubiquitous burning of coal, made life short and painful for workers who had no option but to live in polluted urban areas. “In the first half of the 19th century, large towns and cities had a life expectancy in the range of 30 to 33 years, while the average rural dweller lived ten years longer”. The average height of British workers decreased during the first half of the 19th century, implying that their nutrition got even worse in the period.
As Friedrich Engels noticed in The Condition of the Working Class in England, the earnings of the British workers stagnated in this era, despite constant GDP growth. This had a lot to do with the decimation of the handicraft sector by mechanized production, which led to persistent unemployment, pushing down wages. It did not help that “[t]he Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800 prohibited trade unions and collective bargaining”, while capitalists regularly colluded to pay lower wages, as Adam Smith pointed out.
The misery of the poor was exacerbated by rising food prices, as a result of Napoleonic wars, and adoption of the Corn Laws in 1815, which put heavy tariffs on foreign grain imports, to enrich the landholder class which dominated the Parliament at the time.
It is not surprising, given the context, that Karl Marx whose worldview was formed in the 1840s, ended up believing that capitalism would never provide workers with wages beyond subsistence level. He was not alone in his pessimism, however, as middle-class radicals like John Stuart Mill and aristocratic romantics such as Thomas Carlyle shared a similar sentiment. In his essay, Signs of the Times (1829), he deplored the widespread poverty, which Carlyle attributed to the destruction of hand work by machine production. His description of rising inequality sounds particularly familiar to a 21st-century observer.
[H]ow much better fed, clothed, lodged and, in all outward respects, accommodated men now are, or might be, by a given quantity of labour, is a grateful reflection which forces itself on every one […] Wealth has more and more increased, and at the same time gathered itself more and more into masses, strangely altering the old relations, and increasing the distance between the rich and the poor.
These trends, given the concentration of workers in crowded factories, could not continue indefinitely, as this new social arrangement made it possible for the working class to organise and fight back. Luddism was an early manifestation of this when workers wrecked and burned machinery, which they perceived to be their cause of unemployment and destitution. As Lord Byron put it in his first speech to the House of Lords:
These machines were to them [the owners] an advantage, inasmuch as they superseded the necessity of employing a number of workmen, who were left in consequence to starve. By the adoption of one species of frame in particular, one man performed the work of many, and the superfluous labourers were thrown out of employment.
Although these acts sparked violent government reactions, they ultimately increased the negotiating power of the working-class vis-à-vis capitalists, and were thus described by Hobsbawm as “collective bargaining by riot.” As short-sighted as they might seem, Luddites were not irrational, due to the fact that automation was, indeed, an existential threat to their hand trades, and subsequently their survival. It took generations before the fruits of automation were enjoyed by the workers.
Chartism, another working-class movement, perhaps even more pivotal and definitely less violent than the former, was also born in this period. Acquiring more than three million signatures, the People’s Charter crystallised the political demands of the working-class. It asked for universal man suffrage and the removal of property requirements for MPs. While the movement itself was violently suppressed, and ostensibly defeated, it ended up paving the way for democracy in Britain. The steady empowerment of trade unions, coupled with their shift from revolutionary ideals to social-democratic politics, by 1867 convinced conservative Benjamin Disraeli that it would be safe to extend the franchise to skilled workers. British politics was transformed forever.
I won’t review the last chapter of the book, which discusses the spread of industrial revolution abroad, as I have previously reviewed Robert Allen’s Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction, which studies the same phenomena in more detail. It suffices to say that this book is no less brilliant and insightful than the former, making it a must-read for anyone interested in economic history and the origins of the modern world.
October 29, 2024
Decent summary from textiles coal to china's rise. Of course, no mention of any national iqs. From the perspective of standard history, it's a bit of a mystery why all the progress is so clustered.
February 15, 2025
Useful for the History module of my Social Sciences course.
March 25, 2022
Seems like a solid summary. Learned a lot of both general ideas/trends and relevant specific historical details. Author explains the causes of events like the advent of fossil fuel energy and mechanization of industry, which I was only ever previously taught as sort of coming out of the blue. Does a good job of summarizing different views, and clearly separating their own views from consensus positions.
Notes:
• The industrial revolution (IR) was not a sudden sharp change, but rather the result of two centuries' worth of foundations being laid. Roughly:
○ Colonization of the Americas created a large new market for handicraft goods
○ High demand for handicraft goods raised craftsman wages
○ High craftsman wages made it worthwhile to invest in developing methods to save craftsman labor
• "Most agricultural land was owned by perhaps 15,000 families, and members of this group dominated parliament and held most of the high political offices throughout the Industrial Revolution."
• IR involved multiple revolutions:
○ Technological (steel/textile manufacturing tech, steam engine, transportation)
○ Demographic (population boom from 6.5M in 1750 to 50M in 1950)
○ Urbanization (7% urban in 1500, 25% in 1750, 75% 1910)
○ Agricultural (higher yields, better farm tech like crop rotations and selective breeding. Consolidation into larger farms, but effect of that is debatable. Starting to rely more on imported food)
○ Commercial (total export/import volume increased, less self-sufficient)
○ Transportation (better sail ships, canals, railway, steam ships)
○ Financial (mortgages became legal, birth of corporations)
• Revolution really was confined to certain sectors: " Between 1780 and 1860, the ‘revolutionized’ industries (principally textiles) accounted for 31 per cent of the growth in productivity; transport improvements (canals and ocean shipping) accounted for 18 per cent; and agriculture (perhaps surprisingly since this was an industrial revolution), for 29 per cent. That leaves only 15 per cent to be explained by advances in the rest of the economy"
• GDP doubled but real wage only increased 50%. Increases in real wage were delayed relative to increases in growth - roughly, started 1840 vs 1770
• Many possible causes offered for why it happened in England:
○ Capitalism, which allowed for class mobility, creating the incentive to increase pie size, since you get the increase - rather than fighting to increase your allotted slice. This seems plausible to me
○ Capital accumulation from colonies and slavery. This likely contributed, but isn’t enough by itself. England certainly didn't have the greatest capital accumulation in world history
○ Parliamentary government instead of monarchy limited government, securing property rights and reducing taxation. Not sure how plausible this is - especially since author says taxation didn't actually drop, due to need for navy to secure colonies
○ Reformation and Deism led to protestant work ethic and "rationalistic culture". This seems unlikely - maybe contributed, but I doubt the Protestants had a culture that led to historically unprecedented average productivity
○ Scientific revolution in the 17the century, influenced upper classes but not really the lower yet
• The ramp up in craftsmanship work before the IR triggered by colonies + mercantilism led to urbanization, which was followed by increased production
○ Not sure I understand this. What gave farmers the capacity to produce more? If they were always capable of it, why do it now? Is the increased demand really enough to explain this?
• Switch to coal involved figuring out how to deal with dirty-burning coal with sulfur content. This was enabled by deforestation raising wood prices in England. Basically coincidence that coal happened to be so scalable
• Urbanization made literacy and education worthwhile
• Scientific revolution was important - contributed both sci/tech and modern attitudes/practices
• While foreign competition (Indian cotton cloth) was important to drive development, protectionism was actually helpful in that it created a niche for local industries to begin trying to compete, without being fully viable yet.
• Spinning machines were invented in Britain instead of India because of the high cost of labor, which made even the very bad machines that could be designed from scratch by inventors worthwhile. It's basically coincidence that they happened to be scalable from there, using iterative engineering improvements.
○ This reminds me of the story with wood and coal
○ A "revolution farming" economy - pick random goods and tax them heavily to make costs shoot through the roof, force invention to work around it, see if you hit anything scalable. Switch taxed goods every now and then, with a period long enough that innovation is worthwhile
○ Newcomen engine was only developed because of high cost of labor PLUS cheap fuel. So I guess the more general form is just to vary economic conditions periodically.
○ If we think that variation in economic conditions is what produces revolutions, then that's an alternative mechanism for exponential growth besides tech accumulation!
• Between 1800 and 1870, steam engines spread from coal-mine-draining to the rest of the economy
• Steam ships originally had problems because they follow the rocket equation - they have to carry their own fuel. This was overcome by improvements in engine efficiency and the screw propeller
○ As ship gets bigger/longer, drag shifts from inertial to viscous, and rocket equation effect diminishes
• Everyone's real income rose over the course of the IR, but there are more details to be had.
○ Shift from agriculture to industry moved wealth share from landed aristocracy to the new capitalist bourgeoise
○ Farmers got much wealthier per person because of consolidation, high demand, improved practices
○ Workers def got wealthier after 1850, but what happened between 1800 and 1850 is controversial. Author's tables suggest wages remained stationary during that time.
• Because IR was so uneven across industries, inequality among workers of different industries skyrocketed
• Prior to 1740, aristocracy did not have higher life expectancy than anyone else. Following 1740, life expectancy increased from 40 to 60 in 1867. Not clear what happened
• Height of workers decreased 1800-1850, suggesting worse standard of living
• Multiple plausible explanations for workers stagnation/regression during early IR. Some suggest historical coincidences, such as Napoleon, but not very plausibly. Disenfranchisement and regulatory capture in government seems more plausible. Malthusian model might also be relevant - hard to tell without detailed look at demographics. Marxist take says capitalism delivers all of the gains from production improvements to the capitalists, so of course the workers stagnated.
• How did reform in Britain happen? According to my understanding of these things, everything points towards it being impossible - taxes to stifle discussion, anti-assembly laws, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement of the masses, etc. What was the mechanism for that turning around and the Reform Bill was passed? How did the aristocrats lose?
• Author suggests the reason workers' wages stayed flat during early IR is that craftsmen unemployed by mechanization added to the labor pool in other sectors, keeping supply high and wages low. This effect ended when mechanization was complete.
○ I don't buy this explanation. To keep wages flat we would need constant unemployment - meaning each sector's mechanization produces an equal number of jobs to the ones it originally destroyed, with a constant delay time. Or maybe that's me being too strict and not accounting for elasticity and such?
Notes:
• The industrial revolution (IR) was not a sudden sharp change, but rather the result of two centuries' worth of foundations being laid. Roughly:
○ Colonization of the Americas created a large new market for handicraft goods
○ High demand for handicraft goods raised craftsman wages
○ High craftsman wages made it worthwhile to invest in developing methods to save craftsman labor
• "Most agricultural land was owned by perhaps 15,000 families, and members of this group dominated parliament and held most of the high political offices throughout the Industrial Revolution."
• IR involved multiple revolutions:
○ Technological (steel/textile manufacturing tech, steam engine, transportation)
○ Demographic (population boom from 6.5M in 1750 to 50M in 1950)
○ Urbanization (7% urban in 1500, 25% in 1750, 75% 1910)
○ Agricultural (higher yields, better farm tech like crop rotations and selective breeding. Consolidation into larger farms, but effect of that is debatable. Starting to rely more on imported food)
○ Commercial (total export/import volume increased, less self-sufficient)
○ Transportation (better sail ships, canals, railway, steam ships)
○ Financial (mortgages became legal, birth of corporations)
• Revolution really was confined to certain sectors: " Between 1780 and 1860, the ‘revolutionized’ industries (principally textiles) accounted for 31 per cent of the growth in productivity; transport improvements (canals and ocean shipping) accounted for 18 per cent; and agriculture (perhaps surprisingly since this was an industrial revolution), for 29 per cent. That leaves only 15 per cent to be explained by advances in the rest of the economy"
• GDP doubled but real wage only increased 50%. Increases in real wage were delayed relative to increases in growth - roughly, started 1840 vs 1770
• Many possible causes offered for why it happened in England:
○ Capitalism, which allowed for class mobility, creating the incentive to increase pie size, since you get the increase - rather than fighting to increase your allotted slice. This seems plausible to me
○ Capital accumulation from colonies and slavery. This likely contributed, but isn’t enough by itself. England certainly didn't have the greatest capital accumulation in world history
○ Parliamentary government instead of monarchy limited government, securing property rights and reducing taxation. Not sure how plausible this is - especially since author says taxation didn't actually drop, due to need for navy to secure colonies
○ Reformation and Deism led to protestant work ethic and "rationalistic culture". This seems unlikely - maybe contributed, but I doubt the Protestants had a culture that led to historically unprecedented average productivity
○ Scientific revolution in the 17the century, influenced upper classes but not really the lower yet
• The ramp up in craftsmanship work before the IR triggered by colonies + mercantilism led to urbanization, which was followed by increased production
○ Not sure I understand this. What gave farmers the capacity to produce more? If they were always capable of it, why do it now? Is the increased demand really enough to explain this?
• Switch to coal involved figuring out how to deal with dirty-burning coal with sulfur content. This was enabled by deforestation raising wood prices in England. Basically coincidence that coal happened to be so scalable
• Urbanization made literacy and education worthwhile
• Scientific revolution was important - contributed both sci/tech and modern attitudes/practices
• While foreign competition (Indian cotton cloth) was important to drive development, protectionism was actually helpful in that it created a niche for local industries to begin trying to compete, without being fully viable yet.
• Spinning machines were invented in Britain instead of India because of the high cost of labor, which made even the very bad machines that could be designed from scratch by inventors worthwhile. It's basically coincidence that they happened to be scalable from there, using iterative engineering improvements.
○ This reminds me of the story with wood and coal
○ A "revolution farming" economy - pick random goods and tax them heavily to make costs shoot through the roof, force invention to work around it, see if you hit anything scalable. Switch taxed goods every now and then, with a period long enough that innovation is worthwhile
○ Newcomen engine was only developed because of high cost of labor PLUS cheap fuel. So I guess the more general form is just to vary economic conditions periodically.
○ If we think that variation in economic conditions is what produces revolutions, then that's an alternative mechanism for exponential growth besides tech accumulation!
• Between 1800 and 1870, steam engines spread from coal-mine-draining to the rest of the economy
• Steam ships originally had problems because they follow the rocket equation - they have to carry their own fuel. This was overcome by improvements in engine efficiency and the screw propeller
○ As ship gets bigger/longer, drag shifts from inertial to viscous, and rocket equation effect diminishes
• Everyone's real income rose over the course of the IR, but there are more details to be had.
○ Shift from agriculture to industry moved wealth share from landed aristocracy to the new capitalist bourgeoise
○ Farmers got much wealthier per person because of consolidation, high demand, improved practices
○ Workers def got wealthier after 1850, but what happened between 1800 and 1850 is controversial. Author's tables suggest wages remained stationary during that time.
• Because IR was so uneven across industries, inequality among workers of different industries skyrocketed
• Prior to 1740, aristocracy did not have higher life expectancy than anyone else. Following 1740, life expectancy increased from 40 to 60 in 1867. Not clear what happened
• Height of workers decreased 1800-1850, suggesting worse standard of living
• Multiple plausible explanations for workers stagnation/regression during early IR. Some suggest historical coincidences, such as Napoleon, but not very plausibly. Disenfranchisement and regulatory capture in government seems more plausible. Malthusian model might also be relevant - hard to tell without detailed look at demographics. Marxist take says capitalism delivers all of the gains from production improvements to the capitalists, so of course the workers stagnated.
• How did reform in Britain happen? According to my understanding of these things, everything points towards it being impossible - taxes to stifle discussion, anti-assembly laws, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement of the masses, etc. What was the mechanism for that turning around and the Reform Bill was passed? How did the aristocrats lose?
• Author suggests the reason workers' wages stayed flat during early IR is that craftsmen unemployed by mechanization added to the labor pool in other sectors, keeping supply high and wages low. This effect ended when mechanization was complete.
○ I don't buy this explanation. To keep wages flat we would need constant unemployment - meaning each sector's mechanization produces an equal number of jobs to the ones it originally destroyed, with a constant delay time. Or maybe that's me being too strict and not accounting for elasticity and such?
August 30, 2025
Here are the five main takeaways from The Industrial Revolution: A Very Short Introduction by Robert C. Allen, based on its key arguments and insights:
1. Why Britain First: Allen explains that the Industrial Revolution (roughly 1760–1840) began in Britain due to unique economic conditions: high wages and cheap energy (coal). These incentivized the invention of labor-saving technologies like the steam engine and spinning jenny, setting Britain apart from other nations at the time.
2. Technological Innovation as Driver: The book emphasizes that breakthroughs in machinery, metallurgy, and energy use—such as James Watt’s steam engine—propelled industrialization. Allen argues these inventions didn’t just boost productivity but fundamentally transformed how goods were produced, shifting from artisanal to mechanized systems.
3. Economic and Social Transformation: Industrialization spurred urbanization, factory systems, and a rise in living standards over time, but Allen notes it also brought immediate hardships—child labor, poor working conditions, and inequality. He frames it as a dual-edged process, with long-term gains emerging from short-term disruption.
4. Global Spread and Divergence: Allen traces how the Industrial Revolution spread beyond Britain to Europe, North America, and eventually elsewhere, creating a "great divergence" in wealth between industrialized and non-industrialized regions. He ties this to imperialism and trade, noting how Britain’s head start shaped global power dynamics.
5. Roots of Modern Economy: The book positions the Industrial Revolution as the foundation of today’s economic world, introducing mass production, capitalism’s expansion, and technological progress as ongoing forces. Allen underscores its legacy in shaping modern debates about growth, sustainability, and inequality.
Published in 2017 as part of Oxford’s Very Short Introductions series, Allen’s work draws on his expertise as an economic historian, notably his earlier book The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. It’s lauded for its clarity and data-driven approach, though some might find its brevity sacrifices depth on social or cultural impacts. It’s an accessible entry point to understanding this transformative era.
1. Why Britain First: Allen explains that the Industrial Revolution (roughly 1760–1840) began in Britain due to unique economic conditions: high wages and cheap energy (coal). These incentivized the invention of labor-saving technologies like the steam engine and spinning jenny, setting Britain apart from other nations at the time.
2. Technological Innovation as Driver: The book emphasizes that breakthroughs in machinery, metallurgy, and energy use—such as James Watt’s steam engine—propelled industrialization. Allen argues these inventions didn’t just boost productivity but fundamentally transformed how goods were produced, shifting from artisanal to mechanized systems.
3. Economic and Social Transformation: Industrialization spurred urbanization, factory systems, and a rise in living standards over time, but Allen notes it also brought immediate hardships—child labor, poor working conditions, and inequality. He frames it as a dual-edged process, with long-term gains emerging from short-term disruption.
4. Global Spread and Divergence: Allen traces how the Industrial Revolution spread beyond Britain to Europe, North America, and eventually elsewhere, creating a "great divergence" in wealth between industrialized and non-industrialized regions. He ties this to imperialism and trade, noting how Britain’s head start shaped global power dynamics.
5. Roots of Modern Economy: The book positions the Industrial Revolution as the foundation of today’s economic world, introducing mass production, capitalism’s expansion, and technological progress as ongoing forces. Allen underscores its legacy in shaping modern debates about growth, sustainability, and inequality.
Published in 2017 as part of Oxford’s Very Short Introductions series, Allen’s work draws on his expertise as an economic historian, notably his earlier book The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. It’s lauded for its clarity and data-driven approach, though some might find its brevity sacrifices depth on social or cultural impacts. It’s an accessible entry point to understanding this transformative era.
February 8, 2023
Very basic introduction to the industrial revolution. Some good data and basic description of the changes in the key industries. Quite superficial on political history and not enough social/cultural history of the period. For example, there is no discussion of the Factory Acts or the factory commissions and the conditions they exposed. Nor is there much discussion of the extensive use of female and child labour in key industries like textiles. The relationship between the industrial revolution and British imperialism is also not that well analysed - Hobsbawm's 'Industry and Empire' is much better on this. Allen is a leading economic historian and gives over much of the book to his 'high wages' explanation of why the industrial revolution was British and a quantitative analysis of living standards. But his interpretation has been (in my view very effectively) challenged by the work of Jane Humphries and her colleagues. Allen doesn't acknowledge or respond to that critique though he does manage to cite one of his own journal articles published in response to that critique. Therefore, whether this book is really a good guide is doubtful on four counts: (a) as a comprehensive guide to the period, (b) as a convincing explanation of why the industrial revolution was British, (c) as an account of what happened to living standards in the late 18th/early 19th centuries and (d) as a guide to the current debates about (b) and (c).
June 24, 2018
Disappointingly focused on Britain as though there was no industrial revolution elsewhere. The book also emphasises peripheral issues at the expense of core.
Particularly egregious from a historiographic perspective, are the sections dealing with the relationship between the industrial revolution's inventors and the scientific establishment. Allen echoes the now discredited idea that inventions flowed from scientific discoveries. Far from Newcomen having ties to the Royal Society as Allen claims, its gentlemen refused to communicate with a provincial ironmonger and religious dissenter. The reality is that scientists tended to become interested in the science behind inventions after the inventions come into common use. Roughly 120 years separate Newcomen's steam engine and Carnot's formulation of the Second Law of thermodynamics.
Trinder's "Britain's Industrial Revolution: The Making of a Manufacturing People, 1700-1870" is a much better (though much bigger) introduction.
Particularly egregious from a historiographic perspective, are the sections dealing with the relationship between the industrial revolution's inventors and the scientific establishment. Allen echoes the now discredited idea that inventions flowed from scientific discoveries. Far from Newcomen having ties to the Royal Society as Allen claims, its gentlemen refused to communicate with a provincial ironmonger and religious dissenter. The reality is that scientists tended to become interested in the science behind inventions after the inventions come into common use. Roughly 120 years separate Newcomen's steam engine and Carnot's formulation of the Second Law of thermodynamics.
Trinder's "Britain's Industrial Revolution: The Making of a Manufacturing People, 1700-1870" is a much better (though much bigger) introduction.
January 10, 2026
مقدمة قصيرة جدا للثورة الصناعية، الكتاب جزء من السلسلة المعروفة و التي تسعى لتوفير
مداخل الى عدد من المجالات و المواضيع بصورة وجيزة لغير المشتغلين بهذه المجالات.
وجدتُ الكتاب بشكل عام جيد، مع ظهور واضح للنفس الاكاديمي في اسلوب الكتابة.
يجيب الكاتب على عدد من الاسئلة خلال فصول الكتاب ابتداء بالتعريف بالثورة الصناعية و الحالة التي نشأت فيها؟ و لم بدأت في بريطانيا بالرغم من وجود عدد من الدول الاخرى و التي عرفت اشكالا اولية من الصناعية و لكنها لم ترقى للابتداع فيها؟
يتوسع الكاتب في شرح هذه النقطة و أوجزها في؛ منافسة المنتجات الاجنبية للمحلية، ارتفاع الاجور في المملكة المتحدة مقارنة بالهند مثلا، ادت هذه العوامل الى ظهور صناعات جديدة لمنافسة المنتج الاجنبي و من ثم محاولات تحسين الانتاج و بعدها التجارب المختلفة لتقليل التكلفة العالية للعمالة، الى اختراع الآلة.
و هنا يؤكد الكاتب على فكرة ان الثورة الصناعية لم تكن نتيجة عالم او اثنين من الافذاذ و انما استمرت و تطورت بناء على التجربة التحسين المستمر من عدد من المؤسسات و الافراد على مر السنين و التي كانت مدفوعة بشكل اساسي بالحافز الرأسمالي. كما أنه يعرض لان الثورة لم تكن دائما من انتاج المنتمين الى المجتمع العلمي ٱنذاك
لم تنشأ الثورة و تصنع ما صنعت بين كبار الملاك و الرأسماليين فقط و انما كانت آثارها اكثر و ضوحا على العاملين في المجالات التي تم غزوها من قبل الآلة، مع ظهور و توسع الطبقة الوسطى مع ازدهار الصناعة.
يوضح الكاتب ان الطبقات الدنيا من المجتمع تأثرت بشكل اكبر من نظيراتها العليا - مع ازدياد الأثرياء ثراء -لم يزدد الفقراء فقراً بشكل مستمر؛ ففي بداية الشرارات الاولى للثورة الصناعية، تم تحفيز الصناعة عبر منافسة المنتجات المستوردة مما أدى الى استعمال عدد من الحرفيين المهرة مع ارتفاع في اجورهم، تلتها مرحلة من انخافض الاجور في بداية القرن التاسع عشر نتيجة لتمدد الآلة و من ثم ارتفاع في الاجور لم يصل الى نظيره الاول من منتصف القرن نفسه. هذا و يضيف الكاتب ان التغير لم يتبع نفس الوتيرة بين كل فئات الطبقات الدنيا فمثلا المزارعين و الحرفيين لم يختبروا نفس الدرجات من الانخفاض في الاجور.
يعرض الكتاب بعدها عدداً من الاحداث السياسية في التاريخ البريطاني و الاوربي و التوسع الاستعماري لخلق اسواق جديدة و سرقة الموارد. و يختتم الكتاب بسؤال اخير لم نجح البعض في التحول الصناعي في حين فشل الكثير؟
بايجاز: يعزو الكاتب الاجابة الى سببين، احدهما ان التصنيع industrlisation عند المستعمِر كان مبنيا على وأد اشكال الصناعة و الاسواق المحلية عند المستعمَر و مع اتساع الفجوة بين السوقين و تقدم المقدرة الصناعية عند الاول، ادى هذا لتراجع التصنيع de-industrlization عند الثاني.
أما السبب الثاني فهو اتباع خطة واحدة للجميع مشيراً الى سياسات البنك الدولي و الخزينة، كما أن السير على مسارات القرن التاسع عشر لبلوغ التصنيع ليستا السبل الأمثل لإحداث ثورة صناعية بمعطيات القرن الحادي و العشرين.
مداخل الى عدد من المجالات و المواضيع بصورة وجيزة لغير المشتغلين بهذه المجالات.
وجدتُ الكتاب بشكل عام جيد، مع ظهور واضح للنفس الاكاديمي في اسلوب الكتابة.
يجيب الكاتب على عدد من الاسئلة خلال فصول الكتاب ابتداء بالتعريف بالثورة الصناعية و الحالة التي نشأت فيها؟ و لم بدأت في بريطانيا بالرغم من وجود عدد من الدول الاخرى و التي عرفت اشكالا اولية من الصناعية و لكنها لم ترقى للابتداع فيها؟
يتوسع الكاتب في شرح هذه النقطة و أوجزها في؛ منافسة المنتجات الاجنبية للمحلية، ارتفاع الاجور في المملكة المتحدة مقارنة بالهند مثلا، ادت هذه العوامل الى ظهور صناعات جديدة لمنافسة المنتج الاجنبي و من ثم محاولات تحسين الانتاج و بعدها التجارب المختلفة لتقليل التكلفة العالية للعمالة، الى اختراع الآلة.
و هنا يؤكد الكاتب على فكرة ان الثورة الصناعية لم تكن نتيجة عالم او اثنين من الافذاذ و انما استمرت و تطورت بناء على التجربة التحسين المستمر من عدد من المؤسسات و الافراد على مر السنين و التي كانت مدفوعة بشكل اساسي بالحافز الرأسمالي. كما أنه يعرض لان الثورة لم تكن دائما من انتاج المنتمين الى المجتمع العلمي ٱنذاك
لم تنشأ الثورة و تصنع ما صنعت بين كبار الملاك و الرأسماليين فقط و انما كانت آثارها اكثر و ضوحا على العاملين في المجالات التي تم غزوها من قبل الآلة، مع ظهور و توسع الطبقة الوسطى مع ازدهار الصناعة.
يوضح الكاتب ان الطبقات الدنيا من المجتمع تأثرت بشكل اكبر من نظيراتها العليا - مع ازدياد الأثرياء ثراء -لم يزدد الفقراء فقراً بشكل مستمر؛ ففي بداية الشرارات الاولى للثورة الصناعية، تم تحفيز الصناعة عبر منافسة المنتجات المستوردة مما أدى الى استعمال عدد من الحرفيين المهرة مع ارتفاع في اجورهم، تلتها مرحلة من انخافض الاجور في بداية القرن التاسع عشر نتيجة لتمدد الآلة و من ثم ارتفاع في الاجور لم يصل الى نظيره الاول من منتصف القرن نفسه. هذا و يضيف الكاتب ان التغير لم يتبع نفس الوتيرة بين كل فئات الطبقات الدنيا فمثلا المزارعين و الحرفيين لم يختبروا نفس الدرجات من الانخفاض في الاجور.
يعرض الكتاب بعدها عدداً من الاحداث السياسية في التاريخ البريطاني و الاوربي و التوسع الاستعماري لخلق اسواق جديدة و سرقة الموارد. و يختتم الكتاب بسؤال اخير لم نجح البعض في التحول الصناعي في حين فشل الكثير؟
بايجاز: يعزو الكاتب الاجابة الى سببين، احدهما ان التصنيع industrlisation عند المستعمِر كان مبنيا على وأد اشكال الصناعة و الاسواق المحلية عند المستعمَر و مع اتساع الفجوة بين السوقين و تقدم المقدرة الصناعية عند الاول، ادى هذا لتراجع التصنيع de-industrlization عند الثاني.
أما السبب الثاني فهو اتباع خطة واحدة للجميع مشيراً الى سياسات البنك الدولي و الخزينة، كما أن السير على مسارات القرن التاسع عشر لبلوغ التصنيع ليستا السبل الأمثل لإحداث ثورة صناعية بمعطيات القرن الحادي و العشرين.
August 27, 2019
Answers deep historical questions
Allen deserves much praise for tackling some of the deepest historical questions, such as why the industrial revolution first happened in Britain. He prioritizes the role of manufacturing in economic growth, which is what we might expect, until we notice that he does not fully explain the role of the environment, both as source of growth through increased energy extraction (which he does address briefly) and as a repository for wastes and byproducts (which he does not address). These environmental components of industrialization must be treated alongside manufacturing and its related historical themes of growth and progress. Allen barely problematizes these themes, except when discussing relative change across class and nation, but rather depends on current economic thinking to define them. Overall, this is necessary reading for those interested in how technology works at the scale of global economies.
Allen deserves much praise for tackling some of the deepest historical questions, such as why the industrial revolution first happened in Britain. He prioritizes the role of manufacturing in economic growth, which is what we might expect, until we notice that he does not fully explain the role of the environment, both as source of growth through increased energy extraction (which he does address briefly) and as a repository for wastes and byproducts (which he does not address). These environmental components of industrialization must be treated alongside manufacturing and its related historical themes of growth and progress. Allen barely problematizes these themes, except when discussing relative change across class and nation, but rather depends on current economic thinking to define them. Overall, this is necessary reading for those interested in how technology works at the scale of global economies.
May 17, 2021
Succinct history of the original industrial revolution and how some countries copied it
The reasons why the industrial revolution happened in Britain first has been debated by many scholars at length. You have to read multiple longer books to understand all the proposed causes. But this book is a good way to get started and is written by an expert on the subject.
The most interesting part of the book is nearer the end where Allen describes how Britain's success led to deindustrialization in countries outside of Britain because they could not compete. Then he describes how some countries used tariffs and other strategies to build up their own industries. This did not work everywhere. His explanations why are too brief and left me dissatisfied on that question.
China'srise has driven deindustrialization in some countries and industries. The results are a mixed bag that deserves a book of it's own.
The reasons why the industrial revolution happened in Britain first has been debated by many scholars at length. You have to read multiple longer books to understand all the proposed causes. But this book is a good way to get started and is written by an expert on the subject.
The most interesting part of the book is nearer the end where Allen describes how Britain's success led to deindustrialization in countries outside of Britain because they could not compete. Then he describes how some countries used tariffs and other strategies to build up their own industries. This did not work everywhere. His explanations why are too brief and left me dissatisfied on that question.
China'srise has driven deindustrialization in some countries and industries. The results are a mixed bag that deserves a book of it's own.
July 29, 2023
The Industrial Revolution : A Very Short Introduction (2017) by Robert Allen provides a solid short introduction to the Industrial Revolution. Allen is a professor of economic history at NYU.
The book first assesses the rise of Northern Europe, why the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain first, how Britain was at the time, the reforms that happened during the 1800s in England and then how the Industrial Revolution spread through the world.
The book talks about the importance of coal, how many of the leading lights of the industrial revolution were craftsmen and not nobility or scientists and how living conditions were at the time.
The Industrial Revolution : A Very Short Introduction is a solid, short introduction to one of the most important changes in human history.
The book first assesses the rise of Northern Europe, why the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain first, how Britain was at the time, the reforms that happened during the 1800s in England and then how the Industrial Revolution spread through the world.
The book talks about the importance of coal, how many of the leading lights of the industrial revolution were craftsmen and not nobility or scientists and how living conditions were at the time.
The Industrial Revolution : A Very Short Introduction is a solid, short introduction to one of the most important changes in human history.
July 4, 2025
This book is a very short introduction to the Industrial Revolution and indeed, it does give a strong overview of of this period of English economic change.
However, it in fact gives a much broader story and explanation as to how capitalism and alternative economic policies work (or in many instances don’t work). It explains in straightforward language why the rich are rich and what drives income within developed countries. In the final chapters it goes further and explains on a global level some of the factors that make the affluent countries of the world more wealthy than others.
Give this book to your favourite socialist (or favourite ultra capitalist) to enlighten them as to the complexities of the economic system of the modern world.
However, it in fact gives a much broader story and explanation as to how capitalism and alternative economic policies work (or in many instances don’t work). It explains in straightforward language why the rich are rich and what drives income within developed countries. In the final chapters it goes further and explains on a global level some of the factors that make the affluent countries of the world more wealthy than others.
Give this book to your favourite socialist (or favourite ultra capitalist) to enlighten them as to the complexities of the economic system of the modern world.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 27, 2020
Great summary text
This was a great book to start my reading on the industrial revolution. It explained the history well and in an interesting way. The references are a great list of other books to read.
This was a great book to start my reading on the industrial revolution. It explained the history well and in an interesting way. The references are a great list of other books to read.
November 25, 2021
As a qualitative researcher, seeing the author stating over and over again that "the averages of data don't really mean much" somehow makes me feel the author is very cute lol... Yet indeed, average is the devil that makes lost all the details and contexts.
January 23, 2023
Read for phdba 279pd. Pretty reasonable argument for why IR happened/was British. He sticks to the facts, and for the most part draws relatively careful conclusions- mostly a historical account. Allen is a good writer and this was a pretty quick read.
July 8, 2021
A small introduction to the industrial revolution with a very English point of view.
March 26, 2023
A very brief explanation on how the Industrial Revolution started and how it is continuing.
December 28, 2024
A great summary of the Industrial Revolution, and is perfect to be used as background knowledge for many other areas of modern and early modern history
September 18, 2025
Very informative
The book was very informative, starting from 18th century up to the late 20th century. The focus of the book was not just Beitain but all industrialized countries
The book was very informative, starting from 18th century up to the late 20th century. The focus of the book was not just Beitain but all industrialized countries
December 15, 2025
horribly monotonous prose
June 16, 2025
Far too academic; mostly a review and analysis of very few economic case studies from the time period, not so much a history of the revolution.
November 4, 2024
The American Economic Historian Robert Carson Allen published Industrial Revolution: A Very Short Introduction in 2017. The book has illustrations, which include graphs. The book has a section entitled “further reading” (Allen 135-142). The book is focused on the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. The Oxford Languages writes the Industrial Revolution was “the rapid development of industry that occurred in Britain in the late 18th and 19th centuries, brought about by the introduction of machinery. It was characterized by using steam power, the growth of factories, and the mass production of manufactured goods” (Allen 31, 39, 44, & 57). The Industrial Revolution lasted between the late 18th Century and 1870 in Great Britain (Allen 39-42, 57-59). The last chapter examines industrial revolutions in the United States, France, Germany, Mexico, Russia, and Egypt under Muhammad Ali (Allen 117). The book also briefly covers the industrial revolutions in India, Japan, the Soviet Union, Latin America outside Mexico, and China. In 2017, Allen wrote, “China is in the midst of an industrial revolution. China’s economic growth rate increased in the 1980s, which is conventionally attributed to the market-oriented reforms introduced by Deng Xiaoping in 1978” (Allen 125). I read the book on my Kindle. The book has a section of references and an index. Allen’s book is a well-done introduction to the concept of the Industrial Revolution.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews