What led to Britain's emergence as the leader of the Industrial Revolution?
What will be an ideal response?
Answers will vary. There are six important factors that made Britain the breakout leader of the Industrial Revolution: High agricultural production, skilled workers, excellent transportation infrastructure, natural resources, political stability, and available capital for investment. All of these factors worked together to create the necessary environmental and social factors to propel a successful transition to mechanized production. The high agricultural productivity level was necessary to feed workers who transitioned to the new methods of industry. Britain had the advantage of having experienced both Atlantic trade through entrepreneurs, as well as having refined the putting out system which would now be reconfigured to a system such as that modeled by Wedgewood, a division of labor. Significant for running the mechanized production was coal for fueling the machinery, which was in abundance in England, as well as rivers, both for hydrotechnology and transportation of goods. Political stability in a constitutional monarchy meant that they were not subject to the kind of political upheavals experienced in other parts of Europe (particularly France and the coming revolution). Finally, by virtue of their colonial experience, as well as participation in Atlantic trade, and the creation of a centralized banking system, Britain had the available capital to spur investment into a new way of producing goods.
You might also like to view...
Attempts to build canals in ________ often resulted in financial disaster
A) the South B) the Tidewater C) the West D) New England
The institutionalized political factionalism of the 1790s is known as the "________."
Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).
Which of the following had the highest average wealth per freeholder in Anglo-America by the time of the American Revolution?
A. Virginia B. South Carolina C. Pennsylvania D. Massachusetts
An investigating committee in the 1930s concluded that selfish economic interests had pressed the United States into war in 1917. Does this sound plausible to you? Why or why not?
What will be an ideal response?