Industrious Revolution Flashcards
Exam Qs: What was the industrious revolution
Did the industrious revolution cause the Industrial Revolution?
2 demand-led notions of industrialisation
To determine whether Industrial Revolution was a demand-side phenomenon
Consumer revolution (based on consumption habits)
Industrious revolution (consumption through trade empire expansion and choices)
Consumer revolution features (5)
“Taught to spend, not to mend”
Focused on 19C consumption of manufactured goods.
Households demanded goods to indicate status and defend against purchases of others.
Luxury imports created domestic subs
Marketing and commercial skills developed.
Income earning opportunities increased for women and children, increasing women’s household power as consumers. (Women & children work more)
What was the Industrious revolution?
Why did consumption patterns change?
1.Household increase consumption, so have to work more-increased working hours. (Links back to being demand-driven)
- Expanding trade empire and consumption choices.
Expanding trade empire and consumption choices:
How did they come about?
Great discoveries created new products, increased choices led to households consuming goods beyond their budget constraints, so this drove supply side. (Women and children enter labour force to fund their purchases)
Implications of the demand-side revolution (2)
What did the demand-side revolution have an impact on? (2)
1.Consumer demand still grew regardless of wages. (Consumer revolution)
Households increased supply of money earning activities (consumption v leisure)
- Impacted market for children (quality v quantity), and women’s labour.
Industrious revolution cycle (3 steps)
And what theory do we look at to see if it stands? What causes the change (the demand?)
Increased demand for industrial goods> increased employment> increased total output.
- Theories of Households.
Theories of Households
Displays 2 views on nature of households: reactive and interactive
Interactive view
Endogenous households
Family creates implicit contracts between parents and children.
Contracts must meet common consumption objectives
Reactive view (Marx & Engels, and Feminist perspective )
Marx & Engels-
Family acts as a unit of consumption and reproduction. Women relegated to unpaid domestic roles e.g childcare, which was key to a cheap & constant supply of labour.
Feminist
Builds upon ideas, emphasising unequal distribution of roles and household power.
Theory of the Allocation of Time (Becker)
Household is an entity dedicated to consumption.
Firms are dedicated to production
Households must balance time between home production (using market supplied inputs e.g using tea bags to make tea), market production (income generating), and leisure.
What does the Becker model predict?
Falling prices or rising wages increase opportunity cost of home production or leisure, thus shifting labour to markets. (E.g opportunity cost of sitting at home is more)
Coordination problem- division of labour depends on extent of the market, but extent of market depends on division of labour. The industrious revolution solved this problem (more people working)
Evidence that shows the industrious revolution occurred (Did working hours actually increase? Look at Eng, Ned, and Catholic countries)
Yes
Before IR, people worked 250-260 days in 15C.
17C people reduced their leisure time and give up holidays.
England (Protestant/Calvinist) abolished 49 holy days (1536)
Netherland ALL holy days (1574).
Whereas catholic countries were slower
Protestant attack on Saint days: e.g
Explain Saint Monday, and compare 1750-1800 figures.
1750- <3000 hours of labour
1800>4000 hours of labour (50 years-big change)
Thompson argued it was common to avoid working on Mondays to recover from the weekend. (Sunday drinking)
So Saint Monday slowly eliminated.
So do these labour market hour results support the industrious revolution or not?
Yes
Supports the concept of industrious revolution happening before Industrial Revolution. (Consumers working more to fund consumption)
De Vires view
Argued for an even earlier industrious revolution (from 17C)
Requires labour supply response to be demand led.
Evidence to support De Vrie’s even earlier demand-side revolution. (2)
1.Inventory increases more than wages (consumption rise regardless of wages)
Eval: poor under represented since less data, but where they do exist there is still a rise in goods
- More households owning luxury goods
Critics of De Vries demand led thesis (2)
No consumer revolution - Muldrew, Allen & Weisdorf, Horell
No industrious revolution
No consumer revolution- main idea. (Muldrew)
Hours increased but not in response to consumerism (not buying more luxury goods etc) , but by necessity.
This was because real wages fell and supply response was due to sticky consumption (essential goods) needed to stay above poverty threshold.
Consumer revolution didn’t exist, Industrious revolution born due to women remaining in labour markets
Muldrew’s evidence arguing for no consumer revolution, just increased consumption by necessity.
Looked at workers diets- as real wages fell, have to work more, so eat more.
(AGAIN, REMEMBER, NO CHANGING CONSUMERISM!)
No consumer revolution- Horell view
Household budget shows large portions of income spent on necessities.
3/4 on food in 18C 2/3 in 19C (fell but still a lot)
6/7 on necessities in 18C and 19C
Allen and Weisdorf also reject consumer resolution; why?
Found days worked in order to survive increased.
Through assuming a fixed bare bones basket (the welfare ratio to assess purchasing power 1=can just afford)
Horell also rejected consumer Revolution, like Allen & Weisdorf and Muldrew: why? (3) include stats
Large portion of income spent on necessities (6/7 of income in 18C &19C)
Only some new goods purchased- showing no consumerism- non-necessity expenditure only 6% of growth 1801-1851
Evidence does not agree with Old Bailey records
Evidence does not agree with old Bailey records
Little change in goods stolen early 18C. So not much to steal, suggesting no consumerism of buying new goods!
No Industrious Revolution- Clark and Van der Werf
3 points
Hours worked were high according to food consumed (higher before, so suggesting work was a lot too)
And evidence on wheat threshed shows no increase in work (grain wages no change)
Women and children made up a too small share of income to explain industrious revolution (counter-factual-if there were no women/children=only 8% fall in total income!)
