Article Review The Industrial Revolution by Eric Hobsbawm

The rise of the British, was not only merely limited to scientific and technological prowess. With
regard to the natural sciences the French were superior to the British; a gain, probably from the
French Revolution. Even in the social sciences the British lackgged behind, which made
economics a predominantly Anglo-Saxon subject; but the Industrial Revolution propelled them
into the fore amongst the league of the developed nations.
The French probably had more inventions, such as the Jacquard loom in the early 18 th century,
an intricate device than anything invented in Britain, and of course superior ships. The Germans
had great institutions of vocational training and Britain had none to match them, and the French
Revolution shaped a similar and a notable institute, such as the Polytechnic schools. In
comparison the standards of British education was a low quality. However the liberal universities
of Scotland, in the cCalvin tradition produced many creative people. Even Oxford and
Cambridge, the only two British universities, were intellectually lagging behind, as were the
grammar schools. The only exclusion to the above, were the institutes initiated by the Dissenters
who were barred from attending the educational system administered by the Anglicans. Even the
elite wanted their children to be educated in the Scottish universities. There was complete
absence of primary education before the Quaker Lancaster formed a type of voluntary massproduction of elementary education in the early stages of the 19 th century, but this led to sectarian
disputes. This demotivated the financially disadvantaged to seek education.

The main reasons of the economic development as seen in Britain during the Industrial
Revolution, has a variety of reasons as per the different scholars. However, the above paragraph
from Hobsbawms book does give some historical understanding on the reasons of cultural and
economic change. France and Prussia were way ahead of Britain in matters of culture and
education (science). But the economy of Britain continued to flourish. Even during the armed
conflicts between the British and the French, it the former which dominated. The British also
managed with relative ease the organization and financing of these wars, compared to the
monarchy in France, which was not only larger but wealthier than Britain.
As Hobsbawm notes on page 26, that it wasnt just cultural or scientific breakthroughs that led to
Britains fast economic development in the late 18th century, but it was political and institutional
change, which led the foundations for such development.
The main aims of the British government continued to focus on private profits and economic
growth. In this time, a few money minded landlords took control of the vast amounts of land,
which were cultivated by the tenant farmers. But the enclosure acts and private property were

soon to engulf such farms. Hence, this peasantry was far different than to the French/German
peasants.

It was the reengineering of the Britains political institutions after King James II was executed
during the Glorious Revolution that we should focus on. The limited political meddling with
common law courts, the formation of a politically independent judiciary, the distinction of
powers, and a novel central administration that stopped the random trespassing of property
rights, helped to form stable political conditions, an important prerequisite for economic growth.
This remarkable change affected realms beyond political institutions. The new power of the
Parliament control taxes lead to a continuous flow of money that helped the government to
borrow, whenever it needed it. This created in the expansion of a secure market for public
borrowings. As growth kept on happening, the Bank of England encouraged private companies
and other new banks to start their business. The new forms of financial instruments like
securities and negotiable tools helped the government and the public to finance and venture in to
a host of activities. This novel form of financial structure created an institutional mechanism
which led to a better transaction (financial dealings) system between borrowers and financiers,
which was a great step forward. It was these, groups of formal institutions that paved the way for
the formation of norms (prohibitions, customs, etc..) and laid the foundations for well stable
markets, economic growth, and finally the Industrial Revolution.
This is totally contrary to what was happening in France and other European countries, who were
still relying on ancient institutions, e.g. one can become a monarch by way of inheritance only.
They were not able to deal with the required changes for socio economic growth. Infact
Hobsbawm notes that Supreme monarchy, however free to do whatever it wanted atleast in
theory), but in reality was from a world which the enlightenment had baptized feudalism.

It was interesting to note how social and political institutions fuel economic development. We
should also take culture in account for its role in economic development but only after it has
been analyzed from the perspectives of geo politics and social institutions.
The origins of the French Revolution may be due to an abrupt crisis, as also in the longer
historical course of time; but it is not so clear in the context of the industrial revolution in
England except in the prosaic form that change of any sort has to happen, only when there is a
crisis. A crisis in 1750s is used by the author to explain for the Industrial revolution towards the
1870s. (The Industrial Revolution of England is commonly believed to have commenced from

the 1750s onwards. But you think it came in the 1870s. It spread to Europe in the 1870s. We
need to check this again?)
A law passed in the 17th century that the monarchs had to act as per the law and the will of the
people, a crisis, and then the Industrial Revolution. Is it too simplistic an account created to fit
the Marxist framework, or rather looking at history through a Marxist perspective. Is it so simple
that the required ingredients (global markets, private entrepreneurs, the British government
always trying to increase private profit, the inventions in science and technology, rationalist
thinking etc) were automatically there at the right time, place and in the right proportions ?
Nonetheless, it was an insightful read, however, I am still not sure, as to why the right conditions
cropped up only in Britain and not anywhere else.