Economic History Association

Two Views of the British Industrial Revolution Author(s): Peter Temin Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 63-82 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2951107 Accessed: 05/11/2010 10:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Economic History Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Economic History.

http://www.jstor.org

of Revolution TwoViews theBritishIndustrial

TEMIN PETER today.The Revolution the literature in Therearetwoviewsof theBritishIndustrial Revolution a broadchangein the as moretraditional description the Industrial sees has Revolution been view of the Industrial British economy society.Thisbroad and Revolution the resultof as challenged CraftsandHarleywho see the Industrial by a in Thisarticlepresents test of theseviews technical change only a few industries. modelof intemational withmanygoods.Britishtradedata trade usingtheRicardian betweenthe two views of the are used to implementthe test and discriminate Industrial Revolution.

in Industrial Revolution theliterature There aretwoviewsof theBritish

is by description represented the views of today.Themoretraditional Revolutionas a T. S. AshtonandDavid S. Landes.It sees the Industrial broadchangein the Britisheconomyandsociety.In Ashton'smemorable This phrase,"A wave of gadgetssweptoverEngland."2 broadview of the has and recently N. F.R. Crafts C. by Industrial Revolution beenchallenged KnickHarley. sees Revolution as Thisnew schoolof thought the Industrial as a much narrower phenomenon, the resultof technicalchangein a few The werecottonandiron.All others obviously, industries. new industries, weremiredin premodem backwardness.3 It mayseemas if thechoicebetween thesetwo views is a matter taste, of since the literature almostexclusivelyaboutthe two modemindustries is view of theIndustrial Revolution. Thatappears to singledoutby thenarrow in In be how this choiceis treated the literature. fact,the loosenessof our has a current conception encouraged few peopleto takethe views of Crafts that to RondoCameron notedby andHarley theextreme. argues the change theseauthors so smallrelativeto the wholeeconomythatit no longer was Revolution.4 deservesthe title of Industrial

The Journal of EconomicHistory,Vol. 57, No. 1 (Mar. 1997). c The EconomicHistory Association. rightsreserved. All ISSN0022-0507. of Peter Temin is Professor, Department Economics,Massachusetts Instituteof Technology, Cambridge, 02139. MA, Thisis a shortened version theworking of of paper thesametitle,NBERHistorical Paper (March 81 1996).I thankWilsonW.Thaiforresearch assistance participants seminars Harvard, and in at Yale, of andthe University BritishColumbia helpfulcomments. for 2Ashton, Industrial Revolution, 42. p. 3Mokyr, "Editor's Introduction," 6-7, distinguishes views of the Industrial pp. four Revolution. My divisioncorresponds to roughly his macroeconomic technological and schools. 4Cameron, ConciseEconomic History, 16567. pp.

63

64

Temin

But it is seldom that an empirical question cannot be tested. True, productivity indexes are hard to calculate for obscure industries. It is necessary to search for other data that will let the historiandiscriminate between these two views. Tradedata provide the informationneeded to discriminate betweenthese two views. I will use a Ricardian tradeto formulate testable a modelof international Revolution.In this model, the hypothesisaboutthe natureof the Industrial view of the Industrial traditional RevolutionimpliesthatBritainshouldhave been exportingothermanufactures-thatis, manufactured productsother than cotton textiles and iron bars. In the more modernview, by contrast, Britainshouldhave been importing these samegoods in the earlynineteenth century.Tradedataallow us to see which is the case. Theplanof this articleis as follows. The firstsectionarguesthatthereare two distinctviews of the Industrial The second Revolutionin the literature. sectionwill describethe Ricardian model of international tradewith many goods and formulatethe hypothesisto be tested. The third section will describe the British trade data and implement the test of the previous section. A final section concludes.
TWOVIEWSOFTHEINDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

The traditional view of the BritishIndustrial Revolutioncan be found in countlesstexts. T. S. Ashton'sclassicexpositionclearlydescribed general a change in British economy and society. He was very expansive in his descriptionsof technicalchange:"Inventors, and contrivers,industrialists, entrepreneurs-itis not easy to distinguishone fromanotherat a period of rapid change-came from every social class and from all parts of the the country." Expanding statement quotedaboveabout"awave of gadgets," Ashtonsaid, "Itwas not only gadgets,however,but innovationsof various kinds-in agriculture,transport,manufacture,trade, and finance-that for surgedup with a suddenness whichit is difficultto find a parallelat any othertime or place."5 This view was widespreadduringthe 1950s and 1960s. David Landes expressed it well in an authoritativebook.6 The well-known growth estimates of Phyllis Deane and W. A. Cole confirmedthe view of widespread change and appearedto provide a firm basis for the qualitative Morecurrent workby Joel Mokyrsupportsthe pervasiveness expositions.7 of technological changein Britainat this time.8But in a recentsurveyof the
5Ashton, IndustrialRevolution, 13, 42. pp. 6Landes, PrometheusUnbound, 41, 105. pp. 7Hartwell,Industrial Revolution;Matthias,First Industrial Nation; Deane, First Industrial Revolution;and Deaneand Cole, BritishEconomicGrowth.
8Mokyr, Lever, chap. 10.

Two Viewsof the IndustrialRevolution

TABLE1

65

GROWTH,1780-1860 CONTRIBUTIONS NATIONALPRODUCTIVITY TO (percentage annum) per Sector Cotton Worsteds Woolens Iron Canalsand railroads Shipping Sum of modernized Agriculture All others Total McCloskey 0.18 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.14 0.52 0.12 0.55 1.19 Crafts 0.18 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.14 0.52 0.12 0.07 0.71 Harley 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.34 0.19 0.02 0.55

Revolution," 114; Crafts,BritishEconomic Growth,p. 86; and p. Sources: McCloskey,"Industrial the Revolution,"p. 200. Harley,"Reassessing Industrial

economic history K. literature, Patrick O'Brienlabeledthis view "old-hat" but that "is still being read and continuesto be writtenby an unrepentant economichistorians."9 elderlygenerationof Anglo-American The growthrateof the Britishnationalproductwas adjusteddownward in a gradual process.C. KnickHarleyrevisedthe growthrateof manufacturing downwardin 1982. N. F. R. Craftsextended these estimates into a productin his revisionof DeaneandCole's estimatesof the Britishnational 1985 book. Craftsand Harleypresentedtheir"final"version in 1992.10 of The implicationsof the new estimatesfor the conceptualization the IndustrialRevolution can be seen in an exercise introducedby D. N. He McCloskey."1 calculatedthe productivitygains of what he called the modernizedsectorsfrom industrysources.Then he weightedthe gains by the share of the industries in gross production and added them. The productivity gain of all other sectors (except agriculture,which was was this estimatedseparately) obtained subtracting total from the rateof by in are growthof production the economyas a whole. The calculations shown in the first columnof Table 1. Craftsreproduced McCloskey'scalculationsin his book and noted that the bottom line, the estimatedrate of growthof the economy as a whole, came from Deane and Cole. Since Craftswas revisingthese estimates,he substitutedhis new estimatesas shown in the second column of Table 1. None of the industryestimates were changed; only the growth of the unidentified,residual sector. As can be seen, the contributionof "other
90'Brien,"Introduction," 7. O'Brien'sexpositionfocusedon the growthrateduringthe British p. IndustrialRevolution, but estimatesof income growth cannot be separatedfrom the underlying conceptionof the Industrial Revolution,as shown below. '0Harley, "BritishIndustrialization"; Deane and Cole, BritishEconomic Growth;Crafts,British Economic Growth; Crafts,and Harley,"Output Growth." "McCloskey,"Industrial Revolution," 114. p.

66

Temin

sectors"to economic growthfell from 0.55 percenta yearto 0.07 percent. Revolution'. . . should not be In Crafts's words: "[T]he term 'Industrial in taken to imply a widespread,rapidgrowthof productivity manufacturing.
pl2

Quite the contrary.As Craftsrepeatedthroughouthis discussion, the IndustrialRevolution in this view was a decidedly localized affair. The All industriesaffectedwere textiles, iron, and transportation. else-other for and stagnant the first manufactures otherservices-were technologically half of the nineteenthcentury.This conclusioncontrastsstronglywith the assertionsof Ashton and Landes. Crafts recognizedthat his new estimatescreateda paradox.If British manufacturingwas in general so backwardand British agricultureso progressive-as we know from other sources-then why did Britainnot in goods and importmanufactures the earlynineteenth export agricultural
century?13

the to It is important understand natureof this paradox.The traditional view implied that Britainhad a comparative advantagein manufacturing. view by assertingthatmost Craftshaddeniedthe premiseof this traditional was and Britishmanufacturing backward inefficient.EvidencethatBritish then impliedthatBritain was agriculture moreproductivethancontinental It had a comparativeadvantagein agriculture. is no wonderthatprevious this it had economichistorians not confronted paradox; does not exist in the view of the Industrial Revolution. traditional The resolutionof the paradoxcame in two propositions.First, Crafts that confirmed existenceof paradox reiterating most Britishindustry the by "experienced low levels of labor productivity and slow productivity growth-it is possible that there was virtually no advance during 1780-1860." Second, he resolved the problem by assertingthat "rapid
growth in key manufacturing sectors . . . gave Britain a substantial

in In advantage those activities."14 otherwords, industrializing comparative in cottonand iron,not manufacturing Britainhada comparative advantage as a whole. were not The clearimplication Crafts'sview is thatothermanufactures of advantagein manufacturing exportedbecauseBritainlackeda comparative in general.In fact,thejuxtaposition evidence of a productiveagriculture of with thatof backward outsideof textiles and ironprovided manufacturing evidence that Britain had a comparative disadvantagein these other of That manufactures. is, Crafts'sresolution theparadoximpliesthatBritain
"2Crafts, BritishEconomicGrowth, 86, emphasisin the original.Crafts'sestimatesreducedthe p. impliedrateof productivity changein all othersectorsfrom0.65 percentper yearto 0.08 percentper year.He addedin a footnotethateven this new, low estimatecould be an overestimate. 13Crafts,"BritishIndustrialization." I4lbid., 425. p.

Two Viewsof the IndustrialRevolution

67

should have been importingother manufactures along with agricultural goods. Craftsand Harleyrecentlyrevised and restatedtheirnew views in light of the ensuing discussion. Their definitive views reduced the rate of economicgrowthduring Industrial the Revolutioneven further thanCrafts's initial estimates.15 Harleyincorporated these estimatesinto McCloskey's exercise, as shown in the third column of Table 1. Harley revised McCloskey'sestimates productivity of growthin themodemsectoras Crafts hadnot done,reducing theiraggregate contribution economicgrowth.But to becausethe rateof growthof the totaleconomywas estimatedto be so low, the contributionof other sectors fell to the vanishing point, from 0.07 percentper yearto 0.02 percentper year.16 Harley embedded the Crafts-Harley view into a computablegeneral equilibriummodel of the Britisheconomy in the earlynineteenthcentury. He distinguished producing four sectorsin Britain:modem manufacturing, agriculture, services,and otherindustry. (The lattertwo sectorsare the "all other"sectorof Table 1). Britainexportsthe productsof modernmanufacturing and imports agricultural goods in this model; services and other 17 manufactures not traded. are Harley asserted that this model demonstratesthe consistency of the view. But manyproductsof othermanufactures Crafts-Harley were easily traded,as will emergebelow. Unless othermanufacturing startedout from a position of great comparativeadvantage-a presumptionbelied by the abundant historical evidenceof the eighteenth centuryand explicitly denied by Crafts-the ability to export other manufacturing would have been rapidlyerodedby technical progressin cotton,iron,andeven agriculture. If agricultural in goods were imported the earlynineteenthcentury,therefore, then othermanufactures shouldhave been as well. In the literature surveynotedabove,O'Brienseemedto concludethatthe gap between "old-hat"and new-fangled economic history can never be bridged. The problemis thatthe dataneededto constructnationalincome aggregates do not exist for many parts of British industryin the early nineteenthcentury.Microeconomicand macroeconomicstudies, O'Brien to appeared assert,will just have to go theirown ways.

"Craftsand Harley,"Output Growth." "6Crafts recentlyrevised downwardeven furtherhis estimateof productivitychange by taking account of the growth of humancapital. If Harley estimatedthe rate of productivitychange of individual in industries Table1 fromprices(as McCloskeydid), these estimateswould not be affected by the consideration human of capitalin the overalltotal.Thiswouldturnthe residual category other of activitiesnegative.This changemakesthe test proposedbelow even sharper thanwith the estimated ratesin Table 1. Crafts,"Exogenousor EndogenousGrowth?" 17Harley,"Reassessing Industrial the Revolution."

68

Temin

Insteadof bangingour head againstthe stone wall of unavailabledata,I proposeto shift the termsof debateto a differentkind of data.18Craftsand Harley have suggested some implicationsof the new view for Britain's international trade.Tradedataareavailablein greatdetail;can they help us Revolution? to disentanglethe natureof the Industrial
A RICARDIAN MODEL OF INTERNATIONALTRADE

view for Britain's international The implicationsof the Crafts-Harley trade can be used to formulatea test of these views. A model is needed to derive a test, more formal than Crafts's verbal exposition and more transparentthan Harley's computablegeneral equilibriummodel. The Ricardianmodel of international tradewith many goods poses the issues clearly. A Ricardian model with many goods was analyzed by Dornbusch, Fischer,and Samuelsonin 1977, and I follow theirexpositionhere.19They arguedthatthe manygoods can be seen as spreadout along a continuumof comparativeadvantageand dealt with by their location along this continuum.The historical of application this modelwill be to identifythe location in this continuum. of specific goods Imagine two "countries":Britain and everywhere else. For ease of exposition,I will referto the rest of the world as if it were a single foreign country. Since this is a Ricardianmodel, there is only one factor of labor.This factorcan be seen as a Hicksiangood by assuming production: factorsof production thatthe relativepriceof different does not change.The model therefore does not say thattherewere no otherfactorsof production but only thatchangesin the relativeprice of these factorscan be ignored.20 This would not be suitablefor consideration say, the repealof the Corn of, but it provides a good way to focus on the effects of productivity Laws, changesover almosta century.2' Eachcountry bothproducesandconsumesa largevarietyof goods made fromthis single factorof production. These goods can be numberedfrom 1 to N. The technologyof each countrycan be describedby the laborneeded to produce each good. The laborrequirement producethe nth good in to
"8Berg Hudson,"Rehabilitating Industrial and the Revolution," also recommend shiftingthe terms of debateaboutthe Industrial Revolution,albeitin a differentdirectionthandevelopedhere. 19Dornbusch, Fischerand Samuelson,"Comparative Advantage." is 20It worthnotingthatBritainwas not pressingagainstland scarcityat this time. Acres of arable rosealmostby half in the firsthalf of the nineteenth centurywhile the agricultural laborforce stayed constant.Allen, "Agriculture," 104-07. pp. 2"More formally,the assumption a single factorof production changingtechnologyis more of and appropriate the questionat handthana model with severalfactorsand stabletechnology.A model to with manyfactorsand changingtechnologywould have so manydegreesof freedomthatno useable test could be derivedfromit.

Two Viewsof the IndustrialRevolution

69

Britain is an, where an is the numberof hours of British labor needed to produce a single unit of the nth good. Following the convention of internationaltrade, a*n representsthe hours of foreign labor needed to producethe nth good in the foreigncountry. The ratioof the laborneededto producethe good in the foreigncountry andin Britainis a *n/an. The goods can be re-indexedby this ratio,starting with the good for which the relativequantityof foreign laborneeded for productionis the highest (so the ratio,a *n/an, is the highest).
al /al>a2 la2>a3 /a3>>aN/aN

(1)

goods by of Thepattern tradeis detennined the relativecosts of producing modelcosts aresimplythe wages And in this Ricardian in the two countries. labor.Let w be the Britishwage; w*, the of the sole factorof production: foreign wage. Then the cost of producinggood i in Britainis wai;the cost in the foreign country,w *a*. Any good for which w *a* > wai will be producedin Britainbecause its productioncosts are cheaperin Britain. costs for this as can This inequality be rewritten a*i/ai > w/w*.Production in the good arelower in Britain; good will be produced Britainandexported any Conversely, good,j, for which a7*jaj < w/w* will country. to the foreign be producedin the foreigncountryand importedinto Britain.The numberlist ing schemefor goods ensuresthatthereis a pointin the ordered of goods such thatall goods to the left with lower numbersareproducedin Britain. All the goods with highernumbersareproducedabroad.This is illustrated in Figure 1, where the downward-slopingcurve,A, shows a */a for each good. It also shows the index of the last Britishexportat any w/w*. The model needs a demand side to determinewages. Assume that consumersspend a constantshareof their income on each good and that tastes are the same in both countries.The wage in each countryis deterin minedby the demandfor labor,which is determined turnby the rangeof goods producedin thatcountry.If the rangeof domesticgoods increasesat any relativewage, thenthe demandfor domesticlaborrises. This raises the ratio of domestic to foreignwages, leadingto a positive relationbetween This is shownas B, the domestically. w/w* andthe rangeof goods produced between upwardsloping curve in Figure 1. CurveA shows the interaction curveB, in the numberof exportsand relativewages in the goods market; the labor market.The division between exportedand importedgoods is where curvesA andB cross, at xo.22
costs and movementsdo not affectthe allocationof productionin this model. Transport 22Capital a goods between they only introduce band of nontraded uniform tariffsdo not affect the argument; exportsandimports.The patternof tradedid not varymuchat a time thattariffswere falling rapidly, tariffshadlittleeffecton the overallpatternof trade.Exportsof servicesare that suggesting individual ignored,following Harley.

70
a
/a,w/w 5

Temin

BB

exports

x2

xO

xI

imports

index

1 FIGURE

Consider now the effectof technicalchangein Britain.I assumethatthere is no technical change outside of Britain, that is, no change in labor productivityin the foreign country.Alternatively,one could say that the IndustrialRevolutiondid not spreadoutsideBritainin the first half of the nineteenth century. This is roughly correct-at least for continental Europe-and it connectsthe model to the estimatesof productivitychange reportedin Table 1.23 Therearetwo cases. If the technicalchangeis general,thatis, it reduces A a ai for all i, thenit increases *,/a,for all i. Curve in Figure1 shiftsupward, the rangeof goods exported Britainat the samerelativewage. by increasing This is shownas A 'in Figure1. The point dividingimportsand exportson curve A, now A moves to the right. This increasein the range of goods producedin Britainincreasesthe demandfor laborin Britainand reduces rise Britishwages consequently the demandfor laborin the foreigncountry. is A relativeto wages in the foreigncountry. new equilibrium reachedwhere
231fproductivitywas growinguniformlyin othercountries,then this rate of change needs to be deductedfromthe ratesderivedfromthe final columnof Table 1 to get relativerates.This does not changethe orderof changein thevarioussectorsof the Britisheconomy. LikeCrafts'srecentreduction in the overallrateof productivity changein Britain,it only strengthens argument the here. Since there is only one factorof production, factorproductivity laborproductivity the same.As noted total and are above, I am assumingthat laborstandsfor a Hicksiangood and thatthe relativeprices of different factorsof production not changesubstantially. note 20. See did

Two Viewsof theIndustrial Revolution

71

curveB intersects new A 'curve,atx,. At the new equilibrium, the Britain is exporting goodsthathadpreviously beennontraded imported. or If, by contrast, technical changeis restricted a few goods,thepicture to is more complicated. The simplestcase is when productivity changeis to confined a goodalready exported Britain. by Assume,for example,that advancesin the Britishcotton textile industriescausedpeople to shift demandfromothergoods to Britishtextiles.24 Thenthe B curveshiftsup andto theleftbecause trade balance anyw/w*is achieved at withtheexport of fewerBritish goods.Thenew curveis shownas B 'in Figure1;the new is equilibrium to the left of the original pointon curveA, atx2. A more complexcase is when the changein productivity changesthe order goodsalongcurve movinga goodfrom,say,the imported of A, range to the exported.This changeforces us to renumber the othergoods, all givingthemall higher numbers. thosegoodscloseto the intersection For of A and B, this changein the ordercould move them out of the rangeof into of exports therange imports nontraded (or goods).Intermsof thegoods the themselves, equilibrium movedto the left as in Figure1. has if Conversely, a Britishsectorhasnegativetechnical change-that is, if it stagnates whiletherestof the economyprogresses-then it will move to the rightin the array. on Depending its starting pointandthe extentof its technicallag, it couldcrossthe dividingline in Figure1 andchangefrom or exportto nontraded import.This case describesthe Craftsand Harley conclusionshownin the last columnof Table1. The rateof productivity was change in other manufacturing not only slower than in modem industries also thanin agriculture. we assumethatproductivity but If was then the absenceof productivity rising in othercountries, changefor 80 years shown in the final columnof Table 1 surelywould have eroded whatever Britain comparative advantage mighthavehadin thesegoods. All of the subcasesof restricted technicalchangemove in the same direction. Britain the exportsfewernontextile goodsthanbefore,although in representation Figure1 is too simpleto describeall of the subcases.It followsthatif thereweremorethanone of thesedevelopments underway, the effects would cumulate.Rapidadvancesin Britishtextiles and no then productivity changein othermanufacturing aretwo separate causesfor the number Britishexported of goodsto fall. uniformand restricted Summarizing, technicalchangehave opposite for implications the movementof dividingpointsin equation1. General technicalchangemoves the dividingline betweenexportsand nontraded restricted technical goodsto theright; technical change,to the left. General
24Since modelhasassumed the constant of shares incomespenton eachgood,this is equivalent to for sayingthatthedemand Britishtextileswas elastic.

72

Temin

change causes the list of exportsto rise, while restricted technicalchange causes it to fall. This differenceprovidesa test of historicalviews. Thetest is whichgoods areexported imported, how muchof each and not good is traded. The conclusions reached just referto changesin the location of equilibria of alongthis continuum goods. The empirical evidenceneeded to discriminatebetween the two kinds of productivitychange consists of listing exportedand importedgoods, not calculationsof theirmagnitudes. To discover changes in the lists of exports and imports,lists need to be compiledfor differentdatesduringBritain'sindustrialization. To createthis test we need to identifygoods in the arrayof equation1. Thereare threecategoriesof Britishgoods: exports,nontraded goods, and imports. Following Harley, we identify exports with modem British goods with services not relatedto trade,and imports industry,nontraded with agriculture. Harleyhas a fourthgood in his model thatis the one But of most interest here.The questionis whereto put Harley'sfourthcategory, othermanufactures. The discussion of the preceding section implies that there are two differentanswers. In the broad view of the IndustrialRevolution, other were similarto modem manufactures; technicalchangewas manufactures widespread. Exports of many manufacturedgoods should have been In othermanufactures were doing expanding. the narrow view, by contrast, far worse than agriculture. Harley assumed they were not tradedin his computable generalequilibrium model,but as notedabove,this is implausiin view shouldhavebeen imports the Crafts-Harley ble. Othermanufactures of the economy. There are several reasons why the Crafts-Harley view implies other As manufactures were imports. cottonchangedfroman importto an export in the eighteenthcentury,the rangeof othermanufactures exportedshould have fallen.25Furthertechnical progress in cotton textiles that greatly increased consumption theirproductsin the nineteenthcenturyeven the of after cotton textiles had moved to be first in the index of British goods magnified this effect. And as the residual sectors stagnatedrelative to agriculturein the nineteenthcentury,their costs of productionin Britain musthaverisensharply relativeto the cost of growingfood in Britain.Since the of agricultural goodswereimported, products theseothersectors-to the extentthattheyweretraded all-should havebeen imported well. Even at as if other manufactureswere not importedat the start of the nineteenth the century, ratesof productivity changeshown in the last columnof Table 1 surelywould have madethem importsby midcentury. The Ricardian modelconsequently a generates simpletest to discriminate between the two views of the British Industrial Revolution. Were other
25Ashton, EconomicHistoryof Britain,p. 154; and Cameron, ConciseEconomicHistory,p. 160.

Two Viewsof the IndustrialRevolution

73

thenthe view thattechnical If exportedor imported? exported, manufactures change was widespreadamong British industriesin the early nineteenth were imported,then the But centuryis confirmed. if the othermanufactures conclusion that technical change was restrictedto a very few modem industrieswhile other industriesstayed mired in premodem production techniquesis confirmed. also gives information.In the The path of tradein other manufactures view shown in the last column of Table 1, these activities Crafts-Harley were not experiencingtechnicalchange in the first half of the nineteenth and agriculcentury. The productivitygap between other manufactures ture-not to mention modem industry-was growing rapidly. Other Revolution, should even if exportedearly in the Industrial manufactures, have foundtheirrelativecosts rising andtheirexportsfalling. They should aboutthe relative have gone fromexportsto imports.This is not a statement rate of growth of these exports; it rather is whether individual goods changedfrombeing exportedto being imported. Revolution,therefore,can be tested by The two views of the Industrial looking at marginalBritishexports.I do not claim thatthe patternof trade in thesegoods describesthe Industrial only thatit providesa test Revolution, between two views of this event. Was Britain losing its comparative it? exportsat the marginor maintaining advantagein othermanufacturing had for After industrialization progressed a while, were othermanufactures exportedas the AshtonandLandesview implies or importedas the CraftsHarleyview implies? It may seem odd to test major views of the IndustrialRevolution by activities.Not only shouldmajorhistoricalevents have lookingat marginal largecauses,but the tests aboutthem,it seems, shouldinvolve the principal activitiesas well. Unhappily, is not the case. Differentstorieshave been this presented to explain the same events. To be plausible, they all have to explain the majoraspectsof these events. It is only in the detailsthatthey differ, although, as describedabove, these differencesmay imply other, The more important disagreements. devil, as they say, is in the details.26
TO BETWEEN TWOVIEWS USINGTHEMODEL DISCRIMINATE

Some dimensionsof Britishtradeas summarized RalphDavis appear by in in Table2.27The dominant place of manufactures Britishexportsis easily and fromthe firstrow. The important initiallygrowing shareof apparent
I 26Thisis the same argument used in a very differentcontext in Did MonetaryForces Cause the GreatDepression? intermediate decades,with resultsclose to those Davis also surveyed Revolution. 27Davis, Industrial shown in Table2.

74

Temin
TABLE 2 SHARES OF TOTAL AND MANUFACTURING EXPORTS

Sector Manufacturing/total Cotton/manufacturing Woolens/manufacturing Iron/manufacturing Other/manufacturing

1794-1796 86 18 27 11 44

(percentage) 1814-1816 82 49 21 2 28

1834-1836 91 53 17 2 28

1854-1856 81 42 15 7 36

Source: Davis, Industrial Revolution, pp. 95-101.

in is cottonmanufactures totalmanufactures clearfromthe next row.Iron in of for manufactures, all theirimportance the narratives the Industrial werenevera major exports. Revolution, partof Britishmanufacturing outsideof these dominant The questionhere is what was happening industries. Manufacturing exportsotherthancotton,woolens,andironare 2. shownin thelastrowof Table Theywerequitesubstantial, theyshow and no evidenceof beingpushedasideby cottonexports-as woolenswere. I went to the Parliamentary to Papers finddataon exportsof individual in commodities.Not every year containedtrade information detail. I had consequently to choseyearsforwhichI founddetaileddata,whichdid to The not alwayscorrespond the yearsDavishadsurveyed. trendsshown in Table 2 were very clear in my data as well, and I do not think any information was lost in the changeof dates. I used data for three-year periodsaround1810, 1830, and 1850,anda few otheryearsbetweenthe first two to investigate and changesin the earlystagesof industrialization the Wars. during Napoleonic of Table3 showsexports othermanufactures threeyearscentered for on shownin Table1. 1850, close to the end of the periodof the calculations Thetablelistsall manufacturing otherthanthoseidentified Table in exports 2. Theyaresorted themagnitude exports. quantities of The exported are by shown for information were used to check my data against only. They to here.The evidence Davis's butthey arenot relevant the test performed to be citedin Table3 is the list of different products. Linenwas a major exported. export.Silkmanufactures weresteadily also Turningto metals, we find hardwareand cutlery,brass and copper and to manufactures, tin andpewtercontinuing be exported. Otherexports includeearthenware, of haberdashery, apparel, soap,andhats.The interest this list is the absenceof an organizing principle.Therewere exportsof manydifferent sorts. 4 Table showsthecorrelation between exports individual the goodsfor of categoriesthatexistedin bothyearsfor severaldifferent years.Thereis a of suspicionthatthe composition otherexportschangedmorein the two

Revolution Two Viewsof theIndustrial

3 TABLE

75

1850-1852 OF EXPORTS OTHER MANUFACTURES, Export

Linens

Value (poundssterling)
4,694,567

and Hardwares cutlery manufactures Brassandcopper and Haberdashery millinery Silkmanufactures of Earthenware all sorts and Machinery millwork Tin andpewterwaresandtin plates slops,andNegroclothing Apparel, Beerandale Armsandammunition of Stationary/stationeryall sorts wares Apothecary Leadandshot of Glass/glass all sorts jewelry,andwatches Plate,platedware, Soapandcandles colorsandmaterials Painters' Books,printed wares and Cabinet upholstery
Cordage

2,556,441 1,830,793 1,463,191 1,193,537 975,855 970,077 904,275 892,105 513,044 505,096 373,987 354,962 339,773 296,331 286,738 275,200 237,880 234,190 155,407
155,127

and saddlery harness Leather Hatsof all othersorts Musicalinstruments and Umbrellas parasols of Carriages all sorts
Spirits

121,401 106,933 85,006 72,928 57,018

52,843

Fishingtackles Hats,beaverandfelt and Mathematical opticalinstruments and wrought, unwrought Spelter, Breadandbiscuit and Tobacco(manufactured) snuff Papers,1852 (196), vol. 28, pt. 1. Source:U.K.,Parliamentary

41,607 34,351 34,289 22,097 15,529 14,762

before1831thanafter.Theevidencedoes not confinnthis view.28 decades Breakingup the earlier period-critical years in both the Industrial to Revolutionandthe conversion a peacetimeeconomy-into subperiods in the lower partof Table4. With the possible gives the resultsshown of exception the initialyearsof peace,thereis no evidenceof muchchange of in the structure otherexports.This is truedespitethe inclusionof Irish exportsin the totalsafter1826. was industry not backward, that Beforeconcluding muchof otherBritish if it tumsoutthatthesesamearticles For imports. we needto lookat British in and werebeingimported, especiallyif theywerebeingimported greater wouldnot follow. the wereexported, conclusion than quantities they
the 28The datafrom1811to 1813 arein officialvalues,whereas laterdataarein realvalues.This There arefewerobservations also to but the doesnotseemto haveaffected correlation, it is hard know. wereidentified. exports in thedatafrom1811to 1813becausefewerindividual

76

Temin
TABLE 4

EXPORTS AMONGOTHERMANUFACTURING CORRELATIONS Years 1811-1813 and 1830-1832 1830-1832 and 1850-1852 1811-8113 and 1816-1818 1816-1818 and 1821-1823 1821-1823 and 1826-1828 1826-1828 and 1830-1832 Numberof Observations 18 28 15 21 21 28 Correlation 0.95 0.93 0.78 0.90 0.97 0.98

Papers, 1812-13 (100), vol. 11, pt. 1; ibid., 1818 (147), vol. 12, pt. 1.; Source:U.K.,Parliamentary ibid., 1823 (220), vol. 12, pt. 1; ibid.,1828(130), vol. 16, pt. 1; ibid., 1831-32 (310), vol. 26, pt. 1; ibid., 1852 (196), vol. 28, pt. 1.

Table 5 shows the compositionof British importsin the same years as outsidethe modem sector and productivity Table3. The effect of stagnating shouldhave beenmost evidentby 1850. But therewas, as noted agriculture for exportsin Table4, little variationin the compositionof Britishimports over the first half of the nineteenthcentury. It can be seen easily thatthe importsarenot of the same goods thatwere being exported, with a few exceptions. Silk was imported in greater quantitiesthan it was exported.This was not an activity in which Britain Linenwas importedin the years 1811 advantage. a maintained comparative but Irishlinens were no longer countedas importsby 1830, and to 1813, therewere few otherlinenimports.Most of the flax shown as importsmust have gone to Ireland. sugar,tea, or indigo.They,and Thereis no mysterywhy Britainimported consumedin Britain,would not have been the manyothertropicalproducts The set exportedunderanyreasonable of prices or changesin productivity. importsfor the test performedhere are corn, hides, agricultural important and wool (sheep's). They were importedfrom westernEuropeand could These productsare the productsthat have been exportedfrom Britain.29 in Britainshould have exportedbefore othermanufactures the nineteenth view.30 centuryaccordingto the Crafts-Harley exportswere imported None of the myriadotherBritishmanufacturing in advantage a wide varietyof a at all. Britainmaintained clearcomparative the throughout firsthalf of the nineteenthcentury. industries manufacturing growthof cotton-textile They held theirown in the face of the spectacular exports duringthose years. Thereis no hint that these other commodities were being pushedoff the list of exportsby the growthof cotton exports. Exceptfor the NapoleonicWarperiod,they keptpace with cotton exports.
29Davis, IndustrialRevolution,pp. 114-24. do 30Not,however,accordingto Harley'sCGE model since othermanufactures not tradein that model.

Revolution Two Viewsof theIndustrial

TABLE 5 1850-1852 VALUEOF IMPORTS,

77

Import Wool,cotton Sugar Corn,meal,andflour Tea Silk Coffee Flax,andtow or codillaof hempandflax Wool,sheep's Hides,rawortanned and Cochineal, granilla, dust Oil madder root,andgarancine Madder, Guano Tallow Indigo Woodandtimber Dye andhardwoods or Hemp,dressed undressed Spelter Wines Spirits Seeds Woollenmanufactures Rice,cleanedor in thehusk Bacon Potatoes Currants Cottonmanufactures Cheese and Copper, unwrought partwrought Butter Brimstone Tobaccoandsnuff SkinsandFurs and Saltpetre cubicnitre Ironin bars,unwrought Gum Oil seedcakes Glass Lard Ashes,pearlandpot Bark Turpentine Pork,saltedor fresh Quicksilver Tin Sago Raisins Lead,pig andsheet Borax Terra japonicaandcutch Hairor goats'wool, manufactures of husksandshells,andchocolate Cocoa,cocoa-nut Tar Bonesof animals fish (exceptwhalefins) and Cinnamon Beef, saltedor fresh and Embroidery needlework ore Copper andregulus

Value (pounds sterling) 23,670,472 10,762,045 9,167,600 5,796,086 5,163,865 3,480,594 3,123,329 2,049,348 1,999,233 1,909,848 1,793,320 1,687,568 1,476,940 1,333,889 1,191,495 1,153,477 1,104,308 990,917 957,540 927,721 902,351 719,017 710,414 668,585 653,214 562,595 559,919 548,065 537,322 477,778 466,357 383,691 367,685 367,269 355,564 336,706 298,147 296,993 270,110 258,790 238,077 213,708 213,561 210,692 201,669 200,801 178,329 170,443 169,024 164,565 150,035 148,473 145,973 142,819 140,049 132,648 122,855 114,999 113,166

78

Temin
5-continued TABLE Import Value (poundssterling) 106,630 103,463 95,928 94,911 94,779 93,744 82,816 81,441 80,320 74,845 73,690 73,661 70,912 69,277 66,799 63,159 60,405 60,144 59,705 57,562 57,222 54,153 53,452 53,196 49,140 46,160 44,661 44,048 43,735 41,082 40,639 35,144 33,865 28,935 25,468 24,685 22,812 2,122

Cloves Animals,living;viz. oxen, bulls, cows, andcalves Watches Safflower Boots, shoes and calashes,and boot fronts Pepp.er Lace, thread,and cushionor pillow lace Leathergloves Shumac Orangesand lemons Yarn,worstedor silk andworsted Clocks Rhubarb Whalefins Valonia Hair,horse Fish, of Britishtaking Nutmegs Almondsof all sorts Linens Pimento Liquorice juice and paste Senna Cork Rags, &c. for paper Wax, bees' Teeth,elephants' Bristles Cassialignea Mace Ginger Animals,living; viz. sheepand lambs Books, boundor unbound Hams Annatto Isinglass Figs Barillaand alkali Source:U.K., Parliamentary Papers, 1852 (196), vol. 28, pt. 1.

to It is not surprisingthat Britainsold a wide variety of manufactures in advantage tropicalexportswas so tropicalcountries.Theircomparative Thereis littlesurprise, therefore,that largethatthey specializedcompletely. in exchange for wool. It is important, Britain exportedhats to Australia however,thatBritaindid the same for westernEurope.31 The shaping of hats was still done by hand at midcentury,but this well before then. A hathandicraft been surrounded mechanization had by of makerin Londonemployed1,500people in 1840. Thepreparation the fur andwool to makethe felt for hatswas thoroughly mechanized, using steampowered machinery.And the dyeing of the finished hat was done on
and garments, pp. Revolution, 101, 125. Davis's categoryis Hats,haberdashery, 31Davis, Industrial so forth, so it is not absolutelycertainthat hats were exportedto WestemEurope.I use it as my example,althoughotheritemsof Davis's list could be cited as well.

Two Viewsof the IndustrialRevolution

79

that machinery allowedover 100 hatsto be dyedat once. Laborproductivity consequentlywas high.32 Thereis an exceptionthatprovesthe rule. Table5 shows thattherewere woolens andcotton.But they were approxismall importsof manufactured of the matelyone-tenth amounts the exportsof those commoditiesshown in down the list in Table 5 2. They are hardlythe exception.Further Table the come watchesandclocks.As Landesnotedin his book on thatindustry, were fallingbehindtheircontinental and Englishclockmakers watchmakers Productivitystagnated in this competitors in the nineteenth century.34 by and industry, it hadbecome an importindustry midcentury.35 merrily however,was continuing The exportof most othermanufactures, along. The lesson of the constantrank orderof these exports is that the various industrieswere keepingpace with each other.The shareof cotton exports peaked in the 1830s as shown in textiles in total manufacturing Therewas a slightfall in the sharefromthe period 1814 to 1816 to Table2. exportsas a whole kept pace the period 1854 to 1856. Othermanufacturing with cotton exports during these 40 years, and exports of individual industriesdid so as well. evidencein this test is the identityof exportsand Althoughthe empirical imports as shown in Tables 3 and 5, the productivityadvance in British They should have lowered theirprices relativeto imnports. manufacturing in "severedeterioration" the net recognizedthis did. Albertlmlahcorrectly barterterms of trade as a signal of British success, not distress. It is no fell surprisethat the price of cotton manufactures rapidlyin response to which productivitygrowth. But even the price of woolen manufactures, were decliningas a shareof Britishexports(Table2), fell almost as rapidly as the price of exportsas a whole.36 view of the Industrial "old-hat" It follows, therefore,thatthe traditional Revolution is more accuratethanthe new, restrictedimage. OtherBritish or were not inefficientandstagnant, at least,they were not all manufactures extendedalso thatmotivatedcottonmanufactures so backward.The spirit arms,and apparel. and to activitiesas variedas hardware haberdashery, It follows also thatthe calculationsshown in the last column of Table 1 The low rate of productivitychange cannot be acceptedas authoritative. shown for otheractivitiesis too low. Theremust have been more technical progressoutside the listed sectors in Table 1 to producethe results shown here.
Days. 32Dodd, IndustrialRevolution,p. 101. 33Davis, Revolution. 34Landes, earlierin the yearsthanin Table5 show thatclocksandwatcheswerenot imported for 35Data earlier nineteenthcentury. EconomicElements,pp. 93-102, 211-12. 36lmlah,

80

Temin
CONCLUSIONS

Thistestconfirms traditional thatthe Industrial the view Revolution saw changes in more than a few industries.Technicalchange was hardly uniforim-a point concededby every historian-but it was widespread. Britain becametheworkshop theworld,notjustthecottonfactoryof the of world. Scattereddescriptionssuggest the existence of a patternin other With few exceptions,there were no factorieslike the manufactures.36 factories. there wereneworganizations workalong of famous cotton Instead the lines identifiedby CharlesSabel and Jonathan Zeitlin.37 "Flexible of of industrializaspecialization" beenthought as a description French has Revolution tion.38 Perhaps alsodescribes significant of theIndustrial it a part in Britain. will like Moreresearch be neededto confirmor refutesuggestions this. The test performed hereshowsthatincreases Britishproductivity in were notconfined cottonandironin thefirsthalfof thenineteenth to The century. view be Revolution cannot banished callingit "old-hat" of theIndustrial by to names.It lives amongus, andit deservesmoreattention fill in its all too evidentgaps.
36For example, Berg,Age. 37Sabel Zeitlin,"Historical and Alternatives." 38Piore Sabel,SecondIndustrial and Divide.

REFERENCES Allen, Robert."Agriculture during Industrial the Revolution." TheEconomic In History of Britain since 1700, Second edition, edited by RoderickFloud and Donald McCloskey,I, 96-122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. London:Methuen, Ashton, T. S. An EconomicHistoryof England:The18th Century. 1955.
. The Industrial Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971 [1948].

in Berg, Maxine. The Age of Manufactures: Innovationand Work Britain, Industry, 1700-1820. Ottawa, BamesandNoble, 1985. NJ: Berg, Maxine, and Pat Hudson."Rehabilitating Industrial the Revolution." Economic HistoryReview45, no. 4 (1992):24-50. A Rondo. Concise Cameron, Economic History the Worldfrom of PaleolithicTimesto the Present,Secondedition.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993. Crafts,N. F. R. British EconomicGrowthduring the IndustrialRevolution.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
. "BritishIndustrialization an International in Context."Journal of Interdisciplinary

History19, no. 3 (1989):415-28. . "Exogenous Endogenous or Growth? Industrial The Revolution Reconsidered." Journalof Economic History55, no. 4 (1995):745-72.

Two Viewsof the IndustrialRevolution

81

Crafts, N. F. R., and C. K. Harley. "OutputGrowthand the IndustrialRevolution: A Restatement the Crafts-Harley of View."EconomicHistoryReview45, no. 4 (1992): 703-30. Davis, Ralph.TheIndustrialRevolutionand British OverseasTrade.Leicester:Leicester UniversityPress, 1979. Deane, Phyllis. TheFirstIndustrial Revolution.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1965. Deane, Phyllis, and W. A. Cole. British Economic Growth, 1688-1959. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1962. Dodd, George. Days at the Factories. London: Charles Knight, 1843. Reprintedby AugustusKelley, 1967. Dornbusch, R., S. Fischer and P. Samuelson. "Comparative Advantage, Trade, and Paymentsin a RicardianModel with a Continuumof Goods."AmericanEconomic Review 67, no. 5 (1977): 823-39. Harley, C. Knick. "BritishIndustrialization before 1841: Evidence of Slower Growth during the IndustrialRevolution."Journal of Economic History 42, no. 2 (1982): 267-89. . "Reassessing Industrial the A Revolution: MacroView."In TheBritishIndustrial Revolution: EconomicPerspective,editedby Joel Mokyr, 171-226. Boulder,CO: An WestviewPress, 1993. Hartwell, M. TheIndustrial R, Revolution EconomicGrowth. and London:Methuen,1971. Imlah, Albert H. Economic Elements in the Pax Britannica. Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1958. Landes,David S. PrometheusUnbound:TechnologicalChangeand IndustrialDevelopmentin Western Europe from 1750 to thePresent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. . Revolutionin Time:Clocks and the Makingof the Modern World.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1983. Matthias,Peter.TheFirst IndustrialNation. London:Methuen, 1969. McCloskey, D. N. "TheIndustrial Revolution 1780-1860: A Survey."In TheEconomic Historyof Britainsince 1700, editedby R. C. FloudandD. N. McCloskey,I, 103-27. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1981. McKendrick, Neil. "Josiah Wedgwood: An Eighteenth-Century Entrepreneurin and EconomicHistoryReview 12, no. 3 (1960): Salesmanship Marketing Techniques." 408-24. Mokyr,Joel. TheLeverof Riches:Technological and Creativity EconomicProgress. New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1990. . "Editor'sIntroduction: New Economic History and the IndustrialRevoluThe tion."In TheBritishIndustrialRevolution: EconomicPerspective,editedby Joel An Mokyr, 1-131. Boulder,CO: WestviewPress, 1993. Modem Conceptionsof the Industrial O'Brien,PatrickK. "Introduction: Revolution."In The Industrial Revolution and British Society, edited by PatrickK. O'Brien and Roland Quinault,1-30. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1993. Piore, Michael, and CharlesSabel. TheSecondIndustrialDivide. New York:Free Press, 1984. Zeitlin."Historical Sabel, Charles,andJonathan Alternatives MassProduction: to Politics, and in Markets, Technology Nineteenth-Century Past Industrialization." and Present 108, no. 1 (1985): 133-76. Temin, Peter. Did MonetaryForces Cause the GreatDepression? New York:Norton, 1976.

82

Temin

UnitedKingdom. Houseof Commons. "Finance An Accounts: Account theValueof the of Importsinto and the ExportsfromGreatBritain," Parliamentary Papers 1812-13 (100) Vol. l1.Pt. 1.
_____.*

"FinanceAccounts: An Account of the Value of the hnports into and the Exports

fromGreatBritain," Parliamentary Papers 1818(147) Vol. 12. Pt. 1.

. "FinanceAccounts: An Account of the Value of the Imports into and the Exports

fromGreatBritain," Parliamentary Papers 1823(146) Vol. 13. Pt. 1.

______-.

"FinanceAccounts: An Account of the Value of the Imports into and the Exports

fromGreatBritain," Parliamentary Papers 1828(139) Vol. 16. Pt. 1.

. "FinanceAccounts: An Account of the Value of the Imports into and the Exports

fromGreatBritain," Parliamentary Papers 1831-32 (131) Vol.26. Pt. 1.

. "FinanceAccounts: An Account of the Value of the Imports into and the Exports

fromGreatBritain," Parliamentary Papers 1852(196) Vol.28. Pt. 1.