Why did it take so long for humans to have the Industrial Revolution?

Marginal Revolution: Why did it take so long for humans to have the Industrial Revolution?

… More generally, extended periods of economic growth require that technologies of defense outweigh technologies of predation.  They may also require that the successful defender, at the same time, has good enough technology to predate someone else and accumulate a sizable surplus.  Parts of Europe took a good deal from the New World and this may have mattered a good deal.

Building a strong enough state to protect markets from other states is very hard to do; at the same time the built state has to avoid crushing those markets itself.  That's a very delicate balance.  China had wonderful technology for its time and was the richest part of the world for centuries but never succeeded in this endeavor, not for long at least.

England was fortunate to be an island.  Starting in the early seventeenth century, England had many decades of ongoing, steady growth.  Later, coal and the steam engine kicked in at just the right time.  English political institutions were "good enough" as well and steadily improving, for the most part.

Christianity was important for transmitting an ideology of individual rights and natural law.  As McCloskey and Mokyr stress, the Industrial Revolution was in part about ideas.

There are numerous other factors, but putting those ones together — and no others — already makes an Industrial Revolution very difficult to achieve.  It did happen, it probably would have happened somewhere, sooner or later, but its occurrence was by no means easy to achieve.  The Greeks had steam engines, proto-computers, and brilliant philosophers and writers, but still they did not come close to a breakthrough.

One question is how long the Roman Empire would have had to last to generate an Industrial Revolution and don't mention the Eastern Empire smartypants.

If you are asking why the Industrial Revolution did not occur in the Mesozoic age, or other earlier times, genetic factors play a role as well.

As one commenter notes, let us not forget scientific-rationalism. The West arrived at the idea that nature operates in an ordered way. The West stopped anthropomorphizing  nature. Natural processes were not the workings of capricious gods or of fate. 

Another frequently overlooked aspect of Christianity was the valuation of human labor. More than 1,000 years ago Benedictine monks began fanning throughout Europe, functioning as economic development catalysts. They helped improve farming methods and in the development things like waterwheel technology. This valuation of the individual and his/her labor as opposed to seeing people merely as fodder for the King's agendas was critical.


Comments

2 responses to “Why did it take so long for humans to have the Industrial Revolution?”

  1. JMorrow Avatar
    JMorrow

    Interesting thesis. As to your comments, I’ve heard the influence of monasteries mentioned before as an important part of the history of economic development. Any good books or articles you’ve read on the subject?
    One thing I’d add about scientific-rationalism is that Western societies were not the first ones to realize that nature doesn’t have to be anthropomorphized. Nor were they the first to realize that nature had an order and those processes could be learned, then manipulated for human benefit. For example, the Polynesian navigators of the Pacific had an incredibly sophisticated knowledge of water currents, oceanic behavior and celestial navigation. They treated it as science, but only for the benefit of populating islands or exploration. What Western societies did do was exploit scientific knowledge on a massive scale and institutionalize it to a degree not found in other societies.

  2. I’m away from home and my library but it strikes me that “Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages” has something about the Benedictines but I’d need to check references when I’m home.
    Yes, many cultures made great technological achievements but none successfully managed to institutionalize a scientific method with in the culture. The inability to separate God from nature was one challenge. Another challenge was the use of autocratic power.
    China was far ahead of Europe in technology in the early 1400s. Their ships dwarfed the size of Western ships and were superior in many other ways. The problem was that the merchants who controlled the ships were making to much wealth and becoming too much a threat to the rulers’ functionaries. They had the ships destroyed and the society turned inward, just as the New World was discovered. Because of the geography the rulers controlled the entire region and there was no place for dissidents to escape to.
    Europe experienced some of the same problem from autocrats but because of the geography and the cultural diversity Europe could never be united. Thus, if an autocrat tried to suppress developments, dissidents moved elsewhere in Europe where they had more freedom.
    Thus, proto-capitalism emerges in the Northern Italian City states in the 12th century, shifts to Holland by the 14th century, chased out by oppression, and then on to England at he end of the 17th Century, once again escaping oppression.
    I think Europe’s geography and diversity is another big contributing factor to industrial revolution.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading