A major reason why the Dutch specialized in the wrong industries and the British in the right industries is that Britain happened to have large deposits of coal and iron, while the Dutch had none. This is a major factor of luck enabling Britain. Another is Watt's insight in making a steam engine. Just as Einstein enabled the atom bomb, Watt enabled a new flexible source of power.
This makes me wonder where the Dutch obtained wood to build their sailing chips—I assume primarily from Scandinavia.
Yes, I think the geographic distribution of coal played a major role as well. I should have mentioned that.
There has been a huge debate among economic historians as to whether the UK could have industrialized via coal imports from Belgium or wood imports from Scandinavia. And also whether the Dutch could have done the same. I tend to think so, but we will never know for sure.
In the long run, however, I believe that coal was essential for industrializing entire continents because there is far more of it than wood or peat.
The Dutch energy sector was largely powered by wind (windmills and sailing ships) and peat, which is essentially "baby coal." but less energy-efficient.
Yes, Scandinavia played a key role in exporting wood at the time, and the Dutch dominated the Baltic trade so it was easy for them to acquire this critical resource.
The fact that the Dutch dominated the Baltic trade, taking over from the Hanseatic League, gives me an insight as to why the North American colonies were so important for England. It gave them their own uncontested source of ship stores, and they didn't have to fight their way past the Dutch, who were their sometime enemies.
Since Watt developed his steam engine to pump water out of coal mines, the connection between coal and steam power is historically cheek by jowl. People tend to import only when they run out of local supplies— like the Dutch and timber for ships.
A strong structural analysis. Also appreciate surfacing the softer societal factors "financial technologies" and inclusive institutions. The Industrial Revolution was also a revolution in how society uses expert and capital networks to focus the allocation of resources along with the legal mechanisms to manage distributed risk.
Britain's geographically unique, easy access to quality coal has been brought up.
Also indicates how vested interests can hold one era's winner captive. The British capitalized on coal for Industry 1.0, but then missed Electrification in Industry 2.0, probably because of sunk capital into steam blindsided their future. The US made Industry 2.0 by copying the British, converting to better energy sourcings (electricity, oil, and coal) to scale - propelled by North and South America's natural resource bounty.
The complex ecosystem nature of innovation breakthroughs is key. Breakthroughs most often don't happen exactly where the last cycle did, because the driving factors are different.
Edison and GE could never have happened in London, Manchester, or Glasgow simply because he'd been laughed out of town during the height of the British Empire. It required J.P Morgan, New York City, and a new era altogether.
Seems logical enough. The most likely point in the past would be the heyday of the Roman Empire say 96-180, and the problem there was too little technological innovation. If we look at that, we might make the observation that Roman lack of innovation had something to do with labor supply. As long as they kept on capturing slaves and using them as a labor force, they didn't have to mechanize much. They got as far as a water mill and stopped.
So maybe 'labor shortage' is a key precondition for mechanization. After all, we can see the Romans' activity in ice cores. If they'd had the drive to innovate it might have altered history.
There is a key theory of industrialization by Robert Allen that focuses on labor supply and incentives to create labor-saving investments and innovations.
I do not happen to agree with Allen's theory for all the reasons that I mentioned in the article. In general, I do not think that labor shortage is a critical precondition for mechanization. Many societies have had labor shortages without experiencing industrialization.
I think the Roman Empire was a long way from industrialization. It would take many centuries of technological and institutional innovations by Commercial societies for that to happen. Britain benefitted greatly from that previous innovation.
A major reason why the Dutch specialized in the wrong industries and the British in the right industries is that Britain happened to have large deposits of coal and iron, while the Dutch had none. This is a major factor of luck enabling Britain. Another is Watt's insight in making a steam engine. Just as Einstein enabled the atom bomb, Watt enabled a new flexible source of power.
This makes me wonder where the Dutch obtained wood to build their sailing chips—I assume primarily from Scandinavia.
Yes, I think the geographic distribution of coal played a major role as well. I should have mentioned that.
There has been a huge debate among economic historians as to whether the UK could have industrialized via coal imports from Belgium or wood imports from Scandinavia. And also whether the Dutch could have done the same. I tend to think so, but we will never know for sure.
In the long run, however, I believe that coal was essential for industrializing entire continents because there is far more of it than wood or peat.
The Dutch energy sector was largely powered by wind (windmills and sailing ships) and peat, which is essentially "baby coal." but less energy-efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat
Yes, Scandinavia played a key role in exporting wood at the time, and the Dutch dominated the Baltic trade so it was easy for them to acquire this critical resource.
The fact that the Dutch dominated the Baltic trade, taking over from the Hanseatic League, gives me an insight as to why the North American colonies were so important for England. It gave them their own uncontested source of ship stores, and they didn't have to fight their way past the Dutch, who were their sometime enemies.
Since Watt developed his steam engine to pump water out of coal mines, the connection between coal and steam power is historically cheek by jowl. People tend to import only when they run out of local supplies— like the Dutch and timber for ships.
you can't mine coal in quantity without iron
and you cant make iron in quantity without coal
i would have this would be the key factor in any discussion about the industrial revolution
A strong structural analysis. Also appreciate surfacing the softer societal factors "financial technologies" and inclusive institutions. The Industrial Revolution was also a revolution in how society uses expert and capital networks to focus the allocation of resources along with the legal mechanisms to manage distributed risk.
Britain's geographically unique, easy access to quality coal has been brought up.
Also indicates how vested interests can hold one era's winner captive. The British capitalized on coal for Industry 1.0, but then missed Electrification in Industry 2.0, probably because of sunk capital into steam blindsided their future. The US made Industry 2.0 by copying the British, converting to better energy sourcings (electricity, oil, and coal) to scale - propelled by North and South America's natural resource bounty.
The complex ecosystem nature of innovation breakthroughs is key. Breakthroughs most often don't happen exactly where the last cycle did, because the driving factors are different.
Edison and GE could never have happened in London, Manchester, or Glasgow simply because he'd been laughed out of town during the height of the British Empire. It required J.P Morgan, New York City, and a new era altogether.
Seems logical enough. The most likely point in the past would be the heyday of the Roman Empire say 96-180, and the problem there was too little technological innovation. If we look at that, we might make the observation that Roman lack of innovation had something to do with labor supply. As long as they kept on capturing slaves and using them as a labor force, they didn't have to mechanize much. They got as far as a water mill and stopped.
So maybe 'labor shortage' is a key precondition for mechanization. After all, we can see the Romans' activity in ice cores. If they'd had the drive to innovate it might have altered history.
There is a key theory of industrialization by Robert Allen that focuses on labor supply and incentives to create labor-saving investments and innovations.
https://techratchet.com/2021/06/22/book-summary-the-british-industrial-revolution-in-global-perspective-by-robert-allen/
I do not happen to agree with Allen's theory for all the reasons that I mentioned in the article. In general, I do not think that labor shortage is a critical precondition for mechanization. Many societies have had labor shortages without experiencing industrialization.
I think the Roman Empire was a long way from industrialization. It would take many centuries of technological and institutional innovations by Commercial societies for that to happen. Britain benefitted greatly from that previous innovation.
Thanks for the pointer to the book. I think he might just have a point, but i'll save that for more reading.
The classical world had some surprises in it.
Seems like what had to happen!
*Stuart Britain. Not “Stewart”.
Oops. Good catch. Corrected.