Skip to main content

What are the factors of production that allowed the Industrial Revolution to begin?

The "four factors of production" in classical economics are land and natural resources, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship. Like much of classical economics, this concept was actually developed in the midst of the early stages of the Industrial Revolution in England, and it forms a handy explanation for the development of industry there. 


Britain was replete with the natural resources necessary for early industry. It had swift-moving streams to provide water power for early mills and transportation. It also had a large supply of coal in places like Wales that fired the engines of the industrial revolution. Great Britain also had far-reaching colonies that supplied natural resources, as well as the wealth to purchase cotton, for example, from the United States. As far as labor, Britain had a large class of farmers that were being driven from their lands by a process known as enclosure. This made it more difficult for small farmers to make a living, and made many of them into landless laborers. As such, they were mobile, flexible, and in need of work, an ideal labor force for the increasingly regimented sweatshops, cottage industries, and factory floors of the Industrial Revolution. Britain also had a large class of landowners with tremendous amounts of capital to invest in industry, and more important, they had a government with a centralized banking system. This enabled the creation of networks of credit that could finance the creation of heavily capital-intensive industries and the construction of infrastructure like railroads and canals. Finally, the political economy of Great Britain, which emphasized entrepreneurship in a relatively unregulated (but certainly not unsupported) environment encouraged capitalists to take risks by investing their money in industrial projects. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more