A Farewell to Alms triggers a lots of attention, too. In the “Survival of the Richest” written by Robert M. Solow, he posts several questions. As Clark thinks that preindustrial societies had most of the institutional prerequisites for a long time before the industrial revolution, he points out that even medieval historians would view the economy at that time as a place where land was held by right of occupation instead of owned privately; the allocation of production factors like labour was controlled by customary rights and obligations. Clark’s dismissal of the institution-centred view is too restricted even on logical grounds. The examples he shows are trying to prove that mere “right” institutional practices are not sufficient to cause an industrial revolution and economic …show more content…
growth. Solow thinks that no examples could prove that sustained economic growth could appear without basic institutional prerequisites. Thus the importance of institutions is not negligible. Also, Clark states that the mercantile consciousness of the children of the rich is “potentially also genetic”. It is not rigorous that no biological evidence could actually prove that. Solow suggests that Clark’s story of diffusion of middle class has built a very heavy structure on a very narrow base because there is no direct evidence showing the trait of responsiveness to pecuniary incentives had more widely spread in English society than it had earlier or elsewhere. And only the most minute micro-research could try to demonstrate that this was caused by the diffusion. “If a factory in a poor country produces less than an essentially identical factory in a rich country, how can that be attributed to institutional failure?” Written by Clark. However, in Solow’s opinion, cronyism at the top, failure of the enforcement of laws, promotion by favouritism, inequitable taxation, capricious hire and dismissal—all of those practices could affect employees’ disaffection or even sabotage, thus lead to an inefficiency. On the other hand, Clark’s pessimism about diminishing gaps between rich and poor countries may depend on the belief that these gaps could only be fixed by the spread of middle class consciousness through the society, which demands a long period of time. Then it is contradictory to the economic growth in China and India which have been set off by institutional changes from centralized control to an open-market economy. Additionally, the McKinsey Global Institute finds that major disadvantages in efficiency are caused more often by fails of internal organization than to deficiencies of technology and workers, different from Clark’s findings. By comparing these two books, wo could find some clashes of ideas from two authors and some data which are questionable. As contrasting longevity, birth rate, energy taken in and capital stocks, Pomeranz states that Europeans were not living longer or better than people in core areas in Asia before the Industrial Revolution. Clark, however, suggests that “in terms of wages, stature, diet, and occupations, Japan, China, and India seem much poorer in 1800 and earlier than Europe.” He compares labourers’ wages in wheat equivalents in 1800. In England, it was 13 pounds while in Yangzi Delta was only 6.6 and in Kyoto was 4.5. Also, by showing the table of shares of food expenditure devoted to cereals, sugar, animal products and alcohol, the diet of farm workers in England was more diverse than it was in Japan or India, thus reflecting a higher standard of living. The stature which is determined by both childhood nutrition and the incidence of childhood illness, actually reflects material living standards. The Indian indentured servants were significantly smaller than those recruited in England for service in North America in the eighteenth century. Chinese heights taken from immigrants to Australia who were later imprisoned were significantly less than those of English convicts at that time. However, these samples he takes here are not representative enough, failing to show the average. Additionally, the lack of the ability to digest lactose has been seen as an evidence of that milk was never a large part of the Chinese diet, reflecting the low living standards. This point mentioned by Clark is quite not strong, because the milk is not necessarily a symbol of nutrition or luxuries. It could also be caused by the difference in the surrounding environments or even climates, which affects people’s preference of food. Also, in Chapter 7 of A farewell to alms, Clark states that “Before 1800 there were also long periods in which technology either showed no advance at all or even regressed”. He then applies examples of Aboriginals, the Inuit and Chinese. When Macro Polo visited China in the 1290s, he found that the technical prowess of China was far ahead of that of Europe. The oceangoing junks were larger and stronger than European ships which help the Chinese sailed as far as Africa. However, they had lost the technology to build such powerful ships when the Portuguese reached China in 1514. Similarly, the deep coal mines which had impressed Polo were still shallow affairs which relied completely on manual power. The same happened to the water clock used by the Chinese in the eleventh century. When the Jesuits arrived in China in the 1580s, they found that there were only the most primitive methods of time measurement. Though the last two examples used by Clark are more tend to prove the stagnation of technology, but the oceangoing ships is a relatively strong evidence. Pomeranz argued that there had no superior technology in Europe compared with in China in the eighteenth century. Margaret Jacob pointed out that the “scientific culture” which accelerated the diffusion of innovations had emerged in England by increased literacy, the spread of scientific societies and so on. To respond it, Pomeranz states that though institutions did help Europe, they were not that unique. There were also increasing interests in the physical sciences and mathematics in the seventeenth century in China, especially after the Manchu conquest in 1644. And in many areas, like the agricultural technologies, non-European societies remained ahead. However, according to what Clark has found, though such factors were advanced at a specific time, it could regress and thus showed little advantages before the night of Industrial Revolution. And there indeed exist such activities like the Cultural Revolution and Burying Confucian in China which could push back the economy or the civilization level. Then the difference in technology between Europe and China could not be neglected. When Clark wants to show that the nineteenth-century China was only at the level of England in the seventeenth century, apart from the level of education, he also applies Buck’s finding that the average return on land ownership over a variety of locations in 1921-25 averaged 8.5 percent. Through the data, he suggested that it is another evidence which makes China seem more similar to earlier societies than to England in 1800. However, it is meaningless to use data in the twentieth century to show why China was not comparable with England in the nineteenth century. Or evidence should be provided to show that there were no significant changes in the return on land ownership during such a period of time. In conclusion, A Farewell to Alms written by Gregory Clark focuses on the differences between lives of 1800 and that of the Palaeolithic.
Clark believes that the middle class consciousness is the key of the Industrial Revolution, though it is hard to measure. However, Clark underestimates the power of institutions. While The Great Divergence written by Kenneth Pomeranz emphasizes that there is little difference in societies in the core areas of Europe and Asia before 1800, though the conclusion might be somewhat improper according to Clark’s opposition with clues. The fortuitous location of coals and the access to colonies help Britain to carry out the Industrial Revolution. Yet this point of view has been criticized to have insufficient attention to other factors like technology and military. Each of these books successfully creates its own novel explanations with plenty of evidences, though they still clash with each other or actually act as complementary to each other. The Industrial Revolution, as one of the vital turning points of economic history, could not be interpreted by single aspects like geography or culture. It would not come until every accidental and prepared factors mix
up.
The mid 19th century is one of the major turnaround in the history of the United States. That is the time when America became an Industrial giant and emerged as one of the powerful countries in the world. Industrial revolution changed the people’s way of living in the whole world especially the United States from hand and home productivity to machine and factory. America rose from rural and agricultural country to an urban-industrial that introduces new technologies. United States has been through a lot of ups and down in spite of its emergence and three books tells the story of the Industrial America in three different perspectives. Each of these perspectives creates the whole idea of what Industrial Revolution is all about.
The Industrial Revolution was a fundamental change in the production of goods that altered the life of the working class. Similar to most other historical turning points, it had skeptics, or people that doubted the change, and fanatics, people who saw the value in the change being made. The Industrial Revolution and the period that followed shortly after highlight these varying opinions, as people were more conflicted than ever about the costs of industrialization. While industrialization started in England as an attempt to capitalize on the good fortune they had struck, it quickly developed into a widespread phenomenon that made the production of goods more exact and controlled by higher level people. Many industries, such as the cotton and textile businesses, were previously run through organizations called “cottage industries”.
The era that marked the end of civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century in the united states of America was coupled with enormous economic and industrial developments that attracted diverse views and different arguments on what exactly acquisition of wealth implied on the social classes in the society. It was during this time that the Marxist and those who embraced his ideologies came out strongly to argue their position on what industrial revolution should imply in an economic world like America. In fact, there was a rapid rise in the gross national product of the United States between 1874 and 1883. This actually sparked remarkable consequences on the political, social and economic impacts. In fact, the social rejoinder to industrialization had extensive consequences on the American society. This led to the emergence of social reform movements to discourse on the needs of the industrialized society. Various theories were developed to rationalize the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Various reformers like Andrew Carnegie, Henry George and William Graham Sumner perceived the view on the obligation of the wealthy differently. This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations.
In an era where industrialization was king,
Societies do not always benefit from self interest and self reliance, this could lead to corruption and exploitation of workers. This was the case during the the Industrial Revolution in Britain occurring in 1760 to 1840. The Industrial Revolution was a time of change to Britain's economy, creating ideas of economic freedom, private property, and competition. However, this did not benefit everyone in society and instead creating a larger gap between classes. This lead to the working class the majority of citizens being exploited, which the middle and upper class gained more wealth. The ideas of individualism in Britain created an even larger gap, resulting in majority of individuals unable to gain their own self interest and proving enough for
O'Brien, Patrick, and Roland Quinault, eds. The Industrial Revolution and British Society. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. Print.
Gaynor Ellis, Elisabeth, and Anthony Esler. ""New Economic Thinking"" World History: The Modern Era. Prentice Hall. 186. Print.
Smith's formulation transcends a purely descriptive account of the transformations that shook eighteenth-century Europe. A powerful normative theory about the emancipatory character of market systems lies at the heart of Wealth of Nations. These markets constitute "the system of natural liberty" because they shatter traditional hierarchies, exclusions, and privileges.2 Unlike mercantilism and other alternative mechanisms of economic coordination, markets are based on the spontaneous and free expression of individual preferences. Rather than change, even repress, human nature to accord with an abstract bundle of values, market economies accept the propensities of humankind and are attentive to their character. They recognize and value its inclinations; not only human reason but the full panoply of individual aspirations and needs.3 Thus, for Smith, markets give full expression to individual, economic liberty.
The industrialization era is one of the most important and wonderful events that have occurred in the past 400 years. Industrialization has had an over all ripple effect upon the world. “Industrialization led to a better quality of life for most people” (Beck, 723). While it may seem to some that Industrialization only impacted Great Britain, it is actually true that industrialization many characteristics and consequences that had a worldwide impact. Industrialization had its up’s and down’s such as economic prosperity, jobs, and innovation. On the downside, unhealthy working conditions, pollution, and child labor issues.
...frastructure and factories that heralded the onset of modern capitalism. The only other source with the resources available to commit to this type of investment would have been the state, which would not necessarily have seen the need to invest in this manner when they already had possession of large quantities of wealth.
The development of the industrialisation is outcome of the advancement of agriculture. Agriculture has played very important role in the development of human civilisation. Nearly 90 percent of the population lived in rural area during the 18th century. These rural families produced most of the food, clothing and other useful commodities. Talking about the advancement of agriculture, no other name comes to mind except of England. It is to be noted that farmers in England were among the most productive farmers of the world. The new methods of farming brought mass production in early 18th century leading to the Agricultural revolution. “In the early eighteenth century, Britain exported wheat, rising from 49,000 quarters in 1700 to a massive peak of 950,000 quarters in 1750” .The whole benefit of the Agricultural revolution was shared among aristocratic landholders. They were the only top authorities, as English throne was already overthrown by aristocratic class in 1688 during the Glorious Revolution. Landholders started enclosure movement to end the traditional rights of land and to gain full control over the benefits from agricult...
The Industrial Revolution was a transformation from agrarian and handicraft-centered economies into economies distinguished by industry and machine manufacture (Bentley and Ziegler 652). It first began in Britain during the mid-eighteenth century and lasted through the nineteenth century (Bentley and Ziegler 652-653). Although the Industrial Revolution was a drastic and ongoing process, does not mean it was an unproblematic change. Many people during this time period experienced positive and negative effects throughout this development.
Stone Age Economics. London: Tavistock University Press, Inc.
The Industrial Revolution was a time of great change in the world and changed the way many products were manufactured. Originating in England and Great Britain, its effects spread across the globe and influenced the way people lived and worked and lead to the modern world known today. While it did not always have positive effects, through imperialism, Britain’s Industrial Revolution brought about technological innovations that transformed the world and its economies.
Industrialization is the process in which a society transforms itself from an agricultural society, farming, to a society based on manufacturing goods and services, using machinery. The Industrial Revolution acquired a colossal impact on societies, making forceful changes in the lives of individuals, and changing the social classes drastically, but not all classes benefited equally. Those who were lucky enough to be business owners or had the opportunity to obtain a better profession, were able to enjoy leisure time and comfort in many ways. Those who were uneducated and were limited to unskilled labor work, remained at the bottom of the economic ladder. Furthermore, the two classes that benefited from the Industrial Revolution were the “upper” and “middle” class, leaving the “lower” class to be the only one who suffers. In other words, the rich got richer, the middle class grew, and the poor remained poor. The deeper the Industrial Revolution grew, the more powerful the “upper” and “middle” class became. To remain at the top of the social ladder, the upper class had to continue being the wealthiest and most powerful.