Origin stories

Industrialization changed a lot about the world—sometimes quickly, sometimes gradually. New production and distribution methods are some of the most obvious examples, but the effects were even more far-reaching. Society, the way government worked, how people thought about time and distance, the family, the workday, how kids spent their time, how long people lived, what they ate… all of it changed.

One of the biggest debates about the Industrial Revolution is about where it all began. Surely, we just have to look for the first steam-engine factories! That part is easy. But two big questions about the Industrial Revolution’s birthplace remain. The first is the “scale” of the “where” industrialization actually happened first. If we wanted to study the first industrial change, would we be looking at one city? At one country? At a specific continent? The second question is “why” industrialization happened there. Would those reasons be local or global?

Let’s examine these two questions, the first one briefly, and the second one in greater detail.

The scale of the first industrialization

Industrialization is an abstract concept in many ways, but one that is visible to the eye. We can see the first steam-powered machines doing the work previously performed by people and animals. We can see James Watt’s steam engine and the breakthrough device that it powered—Richard Arkwright’s machine for spinning thread. We can see the first steam-powered factories, like the Coalbrookdale and Wilkinson’s ironworks, and the Lancashire textile works. We can see the first steam locomotive and railroads in the cities of Leeds and Swansea. Interestingly, all of these developments happened in the small island state of Great Britain, with most taking place over the course of the eighteenth century.

Soon after, similar changes happened elsewhere. They happened especially in North America (the British North American colonies, later the United States) and in other parts of Europe. Thus, historians have sometimes argued the Industrial Revolution started in Europe or in the North Atlantic. In some cases, these arguments were really being used to support bigger points that people wanted to prove. Some European scholars argued for European superiority. US scholars, in particular, wanted to suggest the United States had a part to play in this important innovation. In general, most historians now agree Great Britain was the place where the Industrial Revolution began.

Local causes of the first industrialization

Historians, though, frequently disagree about why it happened first in Britain. We will focus on two positions in this debate: local factors versus global factors.

Let’s begin with the argument that it was Britain’s unique local conditions that caused the country to be the first to industrialize. Consider the island nation’s geography. As an island, Britain was easy to defend and relatively peaceful—at least in the modern era. It was also pretty flat, making it easy to transport goods and to build canals and railroads. Transportation is an important factor in successful industrialization. Canals and railroads were needed for transporting coal to the cities and factories where it was used as fuel. Plus, Britain’s land was lucky to have a lot of coal available. Contrast these conditions to the vast area of China. That country’s coal was impractically far from cities where factories were likely to be built.

Britain also had a favorable demographic situation. The British population was expanding rapidly in the eighteenth century, as death rates fell and birthrates rose. In other words, there were available workers for factories, once those were built. Why? Partly because farmland, where most people had lived until this period, was being bought up by merchants. They were raising sheep. Sheep’s wool was then used to make cloth and clothing to sell to this growing population. We call this process “enclosure.” It was happening faster in Britain than in other parts of the world, even mainland Europe.

With so many people switching to factory work, you might wonder how they were still growing enough food. The answer is the agricultural revolution when improved productivity on farms came before modern factories. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, advances in farming brought improved tools and new practices. They included better plows and improved practices, like crop rotation. Such innovations made it possible to grow a lot more food using less labor. These developments took place in Britain earlier and faster than in many other parts of the world.

These economic and social changes caused a big shift in how people’s needs were met. Workers who worked in factories all day—instead of on farms—no longer had time to make their own clothes, furniture, etc. They had to buy stuff that was made in—you guessed it—factories. This sparked more industrialization. But factory workers’ demand for stuff was nothing compared to the demand of a growing middle class. This group consisted mostly of merchants and people who owned some property. They had more money and wanted even more factory-made goods.

Importantly, this British middle class of merchants and professionals also had political power. Because they had representation in parliament, they passed laws that protected property and encouraged more investment in industries in Britain than elsewhere. The bottom line? Laws and government now favored industrialization. The wealthier classes also had money to invest in innovation, and they funded many of the companies and inventors who created the machines that drove industrialization.

Global causes of the first industrialization

These local factors may have made industrialization more likely in Britain. However, some scholars still argue that it was Britain’s global presence that helped it to industrialize first.

Certainly, Britain’s global empire played a role. British merchants and leaders had made a lot of money from the Atlantic trade in enslaved people and the plantation system. They could invest that money in inventions and factories.

British colonies were also important sources of raw materials for British industry and food for the British people. Would the Industrial Revolution have been different without lumber from North America or wool from Australia? Would Britain have been able to feed workers without the calories from Caribbean sugar and North Atlantic cod? These colonies were also convenient markets for British-made products.

Finally, trade drove British industrial production. By the early nineteenth century, Britain was probably the world’s greatest trading power. It boasted a large navy to protect its massive trading fleet. British textile exports, in particular, contributed to the growth of the industry. To handle the growth in trade, British ports expanded rapidly in Liverpool, London, Glasgow and elsewhere. Railways also grew to move goods and raw materials between these ports and British industrial centers.

As often happens in debates like this, the comprehensive answer is a combination of these and other factors. Considering historical events and movements from different scales and perspectives leads to a more complete understanding of the past.