Why is the history of the industrial revolution in Britain and not in other countries?

From14th century to15th century, there is no indication that Britain will be the first country to break out the industrial revolution, although in the next three centuries, Britain began to stand out from the competition of western European countries and prepared for the industrial revolution. /kloc-since the 0/8th century, Britain has undergone a series of changes in the fields of commerce, finance, agriculture and even politics, which we call the "industrial revolution". However, why did the industrial revolution first occur in Britain? Is it a causal relationship of historical development or an accidental result? Based on chaos theory, this paper analyzes the causes of industrial revolution from another angle.

First, the traditional explanation of the causes of the industrial revolution

In addition to the theoretical debate on the starting time of the industrial revolution, the traditional view is that the industrial revolution occurred in Britain and then spread to Europe and America because a series of natural social and economic factors made Britain have unique social conditions at that time, and then under the influence of some key factors, Britain finally became the cradle of the industrial revolution.

The following author simply analyzes some "decisive factors":

1. Maritime trade: The opening of new air routes is the beginning of maritime trade. 150 1 year later, due to the pioneers of Portugal and Spain, Europe's contact with the outside world moved from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic coast, and then1Antwerp in the middle of the 6th century and1Amsterdam in the 7th century also became the economic centers of Europe [1]. Until the end of 17 and the beginning of 18, Britain won the maritime trade and colonial hegemony. At that time, world trade was divided into two major trade circles: the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. Pacific trade is mainly concentrated in Europe and Asia. Europe obviously prefers to import, and the types of imported goods are becoming more and more popular. The vast market of American colonies provided conditions for the diversification of British workshops, handicrafts and foreign trade to a greater extent. /kloc-in the middle of the 0/7th century, the Atlantic trade circle developed into an important subsidiary part of "Africa-Europe-Asia" trade and world economic division. Population trade and colonial trade not only provided the necessary capital accumulation for the industrial revolution, but also formed a world market with trade as the main content and Europe as the center, which was the lasting power of the industrial revolution. "World trade and world markets opened the capital in the16th century.

2. Agricultural Revolution: With the development of the market, the population dropped sharply due to the Black Death in14th century and the currency rent prevailed. At the end of14th century, serfdom ceased to exist in Britain, and it was replaced by the development of small-scale peasant economy, that is, the land was held by tenant farmers, but its lease right and land ownership were not clearly defined between the holders and lords; Farmers who hold land freely own their own land; There is also a part of public land, the ownership of which has been controversial. Therefore, at the end of 15, the development of wool industry directly promoted the religious reform and enclosure movement, and the commons and land became the first objects of erosion, and the big tenant farming system gradually dominated the British countryside. The release of agricultural labor and the improvement and application of agricultural technology provided labor, consumer goods and raw materials for the industrial revolution, and also provided the domestic market for industrial development.

3. Free and relaxed political and economic environment: first, the construction of property rights system. The chaotic economic situation makes the rich and the poor unite to strive for a clear definition of property rights. Therefore, in the 17 and 18 centuries, the British government made great efforts in protecting property and contracts, protecting consumers' commodity inspection system and price control system, protecting inventors' patent system, protecting investors' system, protecting workers' wage evaluation system, factory law and poverty relief law. Second, the construction of a free trade system. This is related to the political power and prevailing economic thought at that time. In the 1455- 1485 Red and White Wars of Roses, "the Tudor dynasty with centralization and absolute monarchy was strongly shaken by the old feudal nobles, and the new nobles and bourgeoisie were not strong enough to become the ruling class" [2]. As a result, from 17 to 18, due to the strength of all parties, the policy fluctuated greatly, and parliamentary democracy and royal monopoly on economic activities coexisted. It was not until 1642 that the House of Commons had the right to levy taxes and abolished the royal monopoly. Due to the influence of mercantilism, the government still intervenes in the market to some extent. From the 1920s of 19, the restrictions on exports, the East India Company's trade monopoly on India, the grain regulations and the gradual abolition of the navigation act made Britain truly realize the free market system. However, it is undeniable that compared with Spain's autocratic rule, Britain has provided a sufficiently relaxed political and economic stage for the bourgeoisie.

4. Prosperity of financial securities market: British insurance companies manipulate foreign trade, and their political power cannot be ignored because of their monopoly on international market information. With the development of British banking and foreign exchange market, London became a financial market that attracted Europeans [3], and the central position of Amsterdam's multilateral payment system was gradually replaced by the Bank of England in the18th century. London has become the center of the world financial market, and interest rate liberalization, securities market and central banking system have all made important progress at this stage. Financial capital has gradually become a powerful pillar of the industrial revolution.

5. Population: In the early stage of industrialization, the population began to grow after a period of stagnation in 65438+1940s, and accelerated in 65438+1940s, and then increased in181-1. Britain's full participation even represents the third population growth in Europe, and the sustained population growth provides the possibility for industrialization. Moreover, in the18th century and the early19th century, due to the large number of employees in the industrial sector and the lack of labor supply, the urbanization around the industrial zone developed rapidly, and the large number of immigrants accepted by Britain also greatly changed the geographical distribution of the population, resulting in two changes: the population density changed from southeast to northwest, and urbanization accelerated [4]. The increase of potential employment population brought by urbanization, the adjustment of domestic consumer goods market structure and the change of employment structure have all become the factor reserves of British industrial revolution.

6. Natural resources: Coal has been used as fuel as early as Roman Britain, but it didn't become the main energy source until17th century. Many people use coal instead of charcoal as fuel for wine making, rinsing, salt making and cooking soap. According to the statistics of J.U. Naff, the coal output of major mining areas in Britain in 155 1560 is about 2 10000 tons, and169/691year has reached 2.96 million tons [to/] In addition, Britain's rich coal reserves have also opened up broad prospects for increasing iron production, which in turn has led to the rapid development of the entire industrial field. In addition, Britain, as an island country in the Atlantic Ocean, has a long coastline and many excellent ports. There is no place in the territory that is more than 90 kilometers away from the coastline and there are many rivers. Coupled with several newly dug canals connecting inland cities, the country's water conservancy conditions and transportation are quite convenient. Moreover, many colonies also provided raw material support for the development of British industry.

7. Foreign trade promoted Britain's exports:/kloc-Before the 8th century, Britain's foreign trade mainly depended on wool and entrepot trade. /kloc-In the middle of the 0/8th century, Britain developed into an industrial country, exporting all kinds of manufactured goods to emerging markets such as America, Africa and Asia. In 1780, Britain exported eight times as many industrial products as in 1770.

8. Technological progress: it is concentrated in the textile and metallurgical industries, and it is also the most direct driving force to promote the industrial revolution. For example, the use of coal and coke in the smelting process greatly reduces the cost of various metal products, and the use of chemistry produces a large number of new synthetic materials. I won't go into details.

Scholars can't agree on the decisive factors of industrial revolution, and tend to classify the above factors in different ways, but generally speaking, most of them focus on the accumulation of capital and labor, technological progress, population growth and relaxed political environment. However, with the improvement of econometric methods and the continuous enrichment of data, the traditional view is inevitably challenged.

Second, refuting the traditional view.

The refutation of the traditional view can be proved by the following questions: Why did the industrial revolution first occur in Britain, but not in other European countries such as France? Why did the industrial revolution take place in the second half of the18th century, not earlier? Some scholars believe that the industrial revolution has nothing to do with the country, but with the region. The reason why we see the rise of Britain is that there are more areas in Britain that are more suitable for the industrial revolution. Others think that the industrial revolution should be a random event, and various seemingly decisive factors are neither sufficient nor necessary; Of course, some scholars say that all kinds of arguments are more about the lack of ability to systematically observe and logically reason about the industrial revolution. The author will further summarize the scholars' refutation of traditional views from the following aspects.

1. resource factors: there is no doubt that coal mines and iron mines are indispensable for the development of the British industrial revolution. But from the point of view of heat energy and power energy, wood, charcoal and water were substitutes for coal at that time, and iron had been widely circulated among countries before the invention of steam engine. 1794- 1796 British iron ore was mainly imported from Switzerland. As for the British cotton textile industry, its raw materials are completely dependent on raw material imports. In contrast, Switzerland and France, which are rich in mineral resources, seem to have more reasons to promote their industrialization.

2. Scientific and technological factors: Different from the traditional view, more and more scholars begin to agree that Britain lacks scientific and technological creativity and education. First of all, many inventions originated in other countries, such as jacquard machine, bleaching, soda production, canned food, mechanical flax loom, gas lamp, continuous paper making and so on. To be exact, Britain should be an importer of technological innovation and an exporter of technological improvement. Secondly, the British public education system is based on rigid apprenticeship and limited university education. Compared with the elite and university education in Spain, the innovation and dissemination of scientific knowledge in Britain has become difficult. Therefore, more technological innovation is not due to the accumulation of natural knowledge, but more to the labor saving brought by the internal improvement of practical knowledge and technical jobs. In Britain, the relationship between science and practical application is much closer. Then, if paying attention to the application of knowledge and the development of technology was the comparative advantage of Britain compared with other countries at that time, but France and Germany missed the popularization of technological innovation, it would deny the "decisive" role of scientific and technological factors to some extent.

3. Social and institutional factors: Perkin believes that judging whether a society is more conducive to the industrial revolution depends on the relationship between wealth and social status. Britain is the best answer to this question: in Britain, the amount of wealth is closely related to social status rather than completely separated, and the pursuit of wealth or social status is accompanied, which means that everyone can change their original social status through their own diligence. However, compared with Britain, the Dutch Nederland Revolution happened earlier. It can be said that the Netherlands is also a citizen, bourgeois or middle-class society, which also gives the bourgeoisie a relaxed social environment, but at the same time it gradually declines in Britain. In France, titles of nobility can be bought and sold, and many so-called nobles only come from the middle class, but the tradition of "nobility" in France makes these new noble people have to adapt to some more extravagant consumption habits and lifestyles. This is a departure from the traditional view. In addition, according to North's definition of property rights, clear property rights are conducive to the innovation incentives and returns of economic entities and to social and technological progress. The British patent system was established in 1624, and other continental European countries were the earliest after 179 1 year. The French government recognizes technological innovation through the Royal Academy of Sciences and the chief official appointed by the state, and the British patent system also needs a discount, because the inventors have not given enough equality in patent infringement cases, and the identification of patents depends more on trivial technical issues than the identification of the invention itself [7]. Moreover, even if there is no patent system protection, such as richard arkwright (the court declared that its invention does not belong to the scope of patent protection), it will not bring great confusion to the use of its "patent right"; Sometimes, parliament will go beyond the court to apply for patents for some inventions; Because of the vague definition and incomplete implementation of the law, it is difficult to judge a large number of litigation cases quickly, or to invent more applications in the form of trade secrets without resorting to patent system protection [8]. Although these examples can't reflect all the social reality at that time, and the patent system is still in its infancy, it is inevitable that it is imperfect, but it is a powerful refutation of the "natural" and "excellent" patent protection system in Britain.

However, from the analysis of the second and third parts of this paper, we can obviously feel the following defects:

First of all, if the industrial revolution is determined by a key factor, then the view we summarized in the second part is a strong refutation, that is, Britain has almost no reason to show its obvious, outstanding and unique advantages, while other countries do not have this condition.

Secondly, if the industrial revolution is caused by a series of factors, then as the discussion deepens, there will be more and more possible decisive factors. However, if we don't do more research on the deep-seated operation mechanism of the industrial revolution, we can only find the relevant factors, not the decisive factors. It is hard to imagine that these factors will definitely lead to an all-round social change. And the economic phenomenon cannot be simulated, so how to judge whether a certain factor is decisive or the role of Hong Kong? The answer is not yet known.

The third and most important question is, can we really find the so-called decisive factor? From the analysis of the second part, it seems that there is no one or several factors that can make Britain far superior to other countries, that is to say, there may be no factor that can play a decisive role in the occurrence of the industrial revolution.

Finally, in the third part, with the constant revision of new data, it seems that the industrial revolution before us is not an exciting "take-off" stage, but a long-term slow growth process. In such a long-term process, if no one factor can play a decisive role or have a decisive influence on other factors, then the place and time of the industrial revolution will be random.

For the explanation of this problem, N.F.R Kraft tried to rely on another angle-chaos theory. The so-called chaos refers to a certain randomness, and "certainty" is because it is caused by internal reasons rather than external noise or interference; And "randomness" refers to irregular and unpredictable behavior. In economic activities, disequilibrium is a more frequent reality, and periodic fluctuations and irregular random changes of rules cause various gradients and fluctuations of economic phenomena. In the stretching and folding operations, chaotic attractors quickly raise the fluctuation from micro-scale to macro-scale, that is, the internal mechanism of the economic system rather than external shocks in the process of irregular macroeconomic fluctuations.

With the help of chaos theory and noise phenomenon, we might as well look at the industrial revolution from another angle: in the long and slow accumulation process, the time period represented by the industrial revolution should undoubtedly be lengthened. With the development of economy and the progress of technology, some industrial or local improvements have been accumulated, and other factors have finally brought about comprehensive economic and technological innovation. The whole process does not mean that Britain is superior or advanced than other countries (France is the most commonly used comparison), nor does it mean that one or several factors determine the time and place when the industrial revolution took place in Britain. We can even assume that some factors promoting the process of industrial revolution did not occur in Britain, but because of the conduction and encouragement of other factors, the positive role was constantly amplified, and the improvement was finally radiated to Britain and further strengthened. Perhaps what is more meaningful than "why the industrial revolution first occurred in Britain" should be "why the industrial revolution is a slow process" or "whether the industrial revolution is a gradual change or a sudden change", because the latter two means that perhaps the concept of nature mentioned in chaos theory is more suitable for the study of the industrial revolution process.