"Urbanisation was not central to industrialisation, and indeed by the eighteenth century towns had become a conservative influence which had to be by-passed." Discuss.
"English urbanisation in the early modern period was more rapid than elsewhere in Europe ... [T]he level and the pace of urban growth in England in particular was remarkable."[1] It takes no more than a few statistical figures to impressively demonstrate the above: Whereas, in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, urbanisation in Europe as a whole experienced no more than a slight advance, the share of England's total population living in towns quadrupled. In the second half of the eighteenth century, English towns made for 70 percent of the overall European urban growth - a number that is all the more remarkable when considering that, by 1800, England had less than an 8 percent share of the total European population. By 1840, nearly half of all Englishmen and -women were living in towns.[2] "It is this high urban share rather than the speed of growth of towns during industrialisation which set the English experience aside and made it unique."[3]
There is enough evidence to assume that the world's "First Industrial Nation" was also its "First Urban Nation,"[4] and that this is no coincidence: "The complexity and contingency of any relationship between economic growth and urban growth should need no stressing."[5] Yet in spite of the large number of scholars believing in the vital importance of English urbanisation for the "take-off into self sustained [economic] growth" held by many as a defining criterion for the industrial revolution,[6] there are also voices opposing this view. "... [I]t could be argued that by the eighteenth century the established towns had become a conservative influence which had to be bypassed," and that urbanisation was not central to industrialisation.[7] Which of these two vastly opposing points of view is closer to reality?
A closer examination of England's changing urban hierarchy between the years 1600 and 1801 seems to strengthen the case of those doubting or denying urban influence on industrialisation. During this period, the importance of the old, long established towns like Norwich, York, Bristol and Newcastle declined drastically. Whereas, in 1600, the aforementioned were the second- to fifth biggest towns in England, they cannot be found in the "Top 5" English towns of 1801 - Bristol (fifth biggest town in 1801) being an exception.[8] "If the seventeenth century saw a notable acceleration of growth within an urban system still consisting largely of towns with long-familiar names, the eighteenth brought radical reordering of the urban hierarchy and further rapid urban growth."[9] The benefactors of this reordering process were new industrial towns like Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. It is thus possible to state that "[T]he old towns [formerly] at the head of the urban hierarchy - including London whose supremacy was never challenged - appear as spectators in the process of industrialisation."[10]
Why did this change in the urban hierarchy occur? A possible explanation might be that the established towns were not flexible enough to adapt to new conditions, and that they suffered from conservative influences which made them rather ill suited for the requirements of industrialisation. For example, institutions like "self-elective corporations and the restrictive guilds developed rigid controls, opposing new techniques which threatened traditional skills and social structures."[11] The logical consequence for ambitious entrepreneurs, then, was to avoid these obstacles by choosing locations other than the established towns for their new companies and factories. As a result (though rather simplistically spoken), new towns emerged. Like this, "[i]t seems likely ... that industrialization led urbanization in eighteenth-century England", and not vice versa - a view that can be justified by statistics, weak as sometimes they may be: "According to Dean and Cole, the proportion of the population living in towns doubled over the [eighteenth] century, whilst the order of increase in industrial output was three to fourfold."[12]
Another point to be made against the importance of urbanisation for industrialisation is "the advantage of rural production". Closeness to raw materials and "avoidance of urban taxes and guilds" made non-urban settings rather attractive for entrepreneurs. Proto-industrial production outside the cities with part-time workers otherwise employed in agriculture granted "labour with low opportunity costs." [13] Moreover, it helped to avoid a disadvantage of towns in general: "[O]ne of the foremost characteristics of urbanization is its expense," caused by (among others) high costs for urban construction of residential homes, offices, other buildings, and infrastructure.[14]
Though this criticism may be valid, it needs to be taken into account that the high construction costs in urban building were also part of an impressive upswing in urban construction industry.[15] And as to the effects of guilds and corporations, the success of newer towns such as Liverpool proved that they needed not necessarily be negative influences on economy. There were, as in Liverpool, corporations which held rather progressive views and were open for change.[16] Even in towns where the local guilds were of the conservative kind, they often could not escape their gradual decline: Over time, "in the majority of trades [and towns], gilds disappeared or turned into drinking clubs."[17]
For contemporaries of the eighteenth century, the question of the role of towns in society and economy was quickly answered: They often regarded the steady growth of towns, especially that of the "Metropolis" London, with considerable contempt. Not only did they view towns as places where "anarchy, drunkenness and thievery" reigned freely, but also as places where capital was wasted for "luxury". In their eyes, towns were parasitic entities that lived at the expense of the countryside by consuming its money and population.[18] Historical research, however, clearly casts doubt on the validity of these contemporary anxieties towards the towns. As for social unrest, they do not seem to be fully justified: "In spite of the accelerating pace of urbanization and the powerful economic changes ..., the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries did not witness any great upsurge of social instability in towns ..."[19] At most, "[p]opular protests and disturbances occurred sporadically ..."[20]
Other than the fear of social unrest, contemporary claims of the countryside losing population to towns are valid: The major amount of town growth in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and even well into the later nineteenth century, was caused by migration.[21] Epidemic and endemic diseases and other factors contributed to the urban rate of mortality being considerably higher than that of rural areas.[22] Even the establishment of the first general hospitals in the eighteenth century did not alter this drastically.[23] "Urban mortality was well above that for rural regions, and urban fertility also exceeded rural fertility. But the difference was far greater in mortality rates than in fertility rates and this made the towns an area of natural decrease of population..."[24] Though precise numbers of the overall extent of migration are hard to get,[25] scholars generally agree that "immigration was the principal locomotive of [urban] demographic expansion."[26] Whereas, in the sixteenth century, this migration seems to be largely influenced by "push" factors like rural poverty, its major cause in later centuries lies in "pull" factors like the prospect of a better standard of living.[27] "[T]he picture of a mobile country population incessantly engaged in the process of moving for the purpose of improving their condition, above all seeking their fortune in the towns, is now firmly established."[28]
Yet even though the movement of population from rural to urban areas cannot be denied, it is not actually an argument against the importance of urbanisation for the industrial revolution. On the contrary, many scholars point out that the towns with their high rate of mortality were indispensable "safety valves preventing too rapid an increase of population which might have led to a major fall in real incomes and an aborting of economic growth."[29] Though too slow a population growth can lead to a shortage of labour or of demand of goods and services, thus inhibiting economic growth, the effects of too fast a surge in population are equally negative. Simply expressed, it may lead to a surplus of labour, which in return causes a reduction of real wages and destroys the basis of demand. Furthermore, a surplus of cheap labour may lead entrepreneurs to postpone modernisation: Why introduce new machines, why seek for new, more effective means of production, when it is much cheaper simply to employ lots of new workers?[30]
Equally important as the protective function of urbanisation against the negative effects of overpopulation is its role in raising agricultural productivity, which is, by most accounts, a prerequisite for industrial growth: "Only if resources can be spared from the task of ensuring an adequate supply of foodstuffs can a larger scale of industrial production be attempted."[31] Moreover, a rise of agricultural productivity often results in lower food prices, which in turn allows people to spend a larger share of their income on industrially manufactured products.[32] The concentration of a large number of people in a comparatively small space - the towns - created centres of demand for agricultural products: The English urban sector was, by and large, "well able to afford food but producing none itself."[33] The logical consequence for the English peasantry was, then, to seek new ways to increase their output, such as employing new means of production and to increasingly specialise on certain products.[34] This process can, unsurprisingly, be first observed in the rural areas around London, but subsequently also occurred around other towns.[35] In fact, the productivity of English agriculture rose in such an extent that England became "a substantial food exporter in the early eighteenth century."[36]
The new urban markets did not only stimulate economic growth by buying agricultural produce - the profits made by selling to the urban markets also enabled the rural population to buy industrially manufactured products both of urban and rural industry. It needs to be noted that rural industry and urban industry were not in fact opponents but influenced each other in manifold positive ways.[37] "The expansion of proto-industry and of the rural non-agricultural population ... was not at the expense urban growth."[38] A decline of heavy industry in towns, for example, may well go along with the stimulation of rural industry.[39] "In certain rural areas in the eighteenth century the growth in non-agricultural employment was so great as to dwarf the remaining agricultural population."[40]
The increasing number of people living together in towns did, of course, do more than just provide an enormous new market for agricultural products. Not only were wages in towns generally higher than those in the rural areas.[41] They were also spent differently, following new patterns of consumption.[42] Whereas the traditional way of life "for an Englishman [was] to work until he has got his pocket full of money, and then go and be idle, or perhaps drunk, till 't's all gone"[43], living in towns provided reasons for saving some of the income, and to spend it on manufactured goods or services. One of those reasons was a new sense of social competition. The belief that "fine feathers make fine birds," and the wish to look more elegant than other people, certainly led to an increased demand in manufactured goods such as clothes.[44]
This, of course, affected primarily the relatively small number of the well-off. Yet the lower classes of urban society were certainly watching, and often sought to imitate new fashions and patterns of behaviour of those at the upper end of society. London and other towns experienced "[t]he spread of the practice of aping one's betters," often driven by an increased feeling that "a change in one's pattern of life," an upward social mobility was not only possible, but also desirable.[45] The emergence of specialised, new shops with a formerly unseen range of products contributed to a wide-spread interest in spending the hard-earned money not only for drink, but also for new products. "There were obviously greater opportunities to buy new commodities ... in the towns than in the countryside."[46] Certainly, there were also new forms of entertainment such as theatre, music, and horse racing competing for the city-dwellers' wages, but they could not consume all the new-earned surplus capital.[47] In addition to the evident changes of patterns of consumption in the towns, "[t]he urban way of life also influenced the rural areas," slowly transforming patterns of spending in the whole country.[48] The secondary and tertiary sectors of industry increased, for example, not only in London itself but also in the rural areas around the town. It is unlikely that 100 percent of the products of these sectors were solely destined for consumption in the metropolis.[49]
In addition to the obvious and vast influences of urban life on spending habits, thus creating new impulses for economic growth, life in towns also had beneficial effects on the workforce. "Towns were important centres of literacy."[50] At least from the late eighteenth century, there emerged a "sophisticated, literate urban culture," with new schools, newspapers, and an increased interest in science. There is no denying that towns were not merely geographical, but also "intellectual spaces."[51] Unfortunately, the limited room for discussion provided in this essay does not allow for a thorough examination of the extent to which the lower social classes, i.e. the majority of urban population, were influenced by these developments. Still, it is more than likely that improved education and increased literacy, along with a "new social discipline" induced by new patterns of employment, resulted in an increased number of skilled workers, and an overall better trained workforce.[52]
Apart from affecting the way of life of its population both in terms of spending habits and education, the English town also provided major impulses on technological innovation. "The first beginnings of the new technology of the steam engine and the railway lay in the eighteenth-century coal-mining industry, and one of its chief supports in turn was the large and steadily growing demand for coal afforded by the London coal market."[53] Increased trade between towns, the need to bring the products of rural industry and agriculture into the urban markets, and a growing volume of overseas trade running mainly via urban ports, forced major changes in transport technology. There had to be "a better transport network to reduce the cost of moving goods from place to place; to make it possible for goods to move freely at all seasons of the year in spite of inclement weather; to shorten the time involved and so to economize in the capital locked up in goods in transit ..."[54] Roads, canals and railways had to be built, and there was also a "major expansion of shipping capacity", causing an expansion of the shipbuilding industry.[55] Apart from the employment of new machines as the steam engine, and the immense advances in transport technology, urbanisation also pushed forward new developments in communication means and water supplies.[56]
The last, but most certainly not least, influence of urbanisation on industrialisation that is going to be briefly examined in this essay is the part it played in building one of the most important prerequisites for economic growth, a system of trade and commerce. "The banking and general commercial facilities of London were available to men throughout England and played some part in financing the agricultural and industrial changes which occurred in many parts of the country."[57] There is no doubt that the towns, as places where to meet and to do business, were essential in organising commerce.[58] They had a key role in creating a single national market, or at least much larger regional markets.[59] Furthermore, the towns also forced change in another field affecting not only trade, but England as a whole: Their existence and the large number of new challenges in keeping them functional led to improvements in both government and bureaucracy, often prerequisites for further economic development and industrialisation.
It is now time to sum up the discussion above and to come to a conclusion. There certainly are a number of arguments making it impossible to ignore the voice of those denying a strong, positive urban influence on industrialisation: There is the change of urban hierarchy in favour of new towns and the possibly conservative influence of established urban institutions such as guilds and corporations; there are the obvious benefits of rural production such as closeness to raw materials and cheaper labour costs; there are the high costs of urban construction and the negative opinions of contemporaries on the towns of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The arguments speaking in favour of urbanisation, however, are even more numerous: Towns, scholars argue, helped in regulating population growth, they induced the rise of agricultural productivity and created new patterns of consumption which led to a demand for new products. Towns were closely interconnected with rural industry and most probably inspired changes in proto-industry there as well. In addition to all these points, towns also boosted education, forced vital innovations in transport and technology, and helped organise commerce and trade. Considering all these points, a complete denial of the beneficial effects of urbanisation on industrialisation and economic growth seems not plausible anymore. Certainly urbanisation was not the only force driving industrialisation. Yet it definitely was a crucial factor in the process. Thus, it seems justifiable to say that urbanisation indeed was essential for industrialisation - and not just a conservative influence which had to be overcome.
[word count without footnotes: 2854]
Borsay, Peter, "The English urban renaissance: the development of provincial urban culture 1680-1760", in Social History No.5 (May 1977), pp. 581-603.
Chambers, J. D., Population, Economy, and Society in Pre-Industrial England (London: Oxford University Press, 1972).
Clark, Peter (ed.), The Transformation of English Provincial Towns 1600-1800 (London: Hutchinson, 1984).
Daunton, M. J., "Towns and Economic Growth in Eighteenth-Century England", in Abrams, Philip, Wrigley, E. A. (eds.), Towns in Societies. Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 245-277.
Deane, Phyllis, Cole, W. A., British Economic Growth 1688-1959. Trends and Structure, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: University Press, 1967).
Hudson, Pat, The Industrial Revolution (London: Arnold, 1992).
Mathias, Peter, The First Industrial Nation. An Economic History of Britain 1700-1914, 2nd edn. (London: Routledge, 1987).
Vries, Jan de, European Urbanization 1500-1800 (London: Methuen and Co., 1984).
Wrigley, E. A., "A Simple Model of London's Importance in Changing English Society and Economy 1650-1750," in Past and Present, No. 37 (1967), pp. 44-70.
Wrigley, E. A., "Urban Growth and Agricultural Change: England and the Continent in the Early Modern Period", in Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Spring 1985), pp. 683-728.
[1] Pat Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (London: Arnold, 1992), p. 150.
[2] Just as in many works on British economic history, the term "urban" is, in this essay, applied to all towns with a population count exceeding 5000. As Wrigley rightfully points out, this dividing line is rather arbitrarily chosen. A more precise definition of "urban" and "non-urban" conditions, however, cannot be undertaken in the limited space provided. - E. Anthony Wrigley, "Urban Growth and Agricultural Change: England and the Continent in the Early Modern Period", in Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Spring 1985), p. 684. In the following referenced as "Wrigley, Growth".
[3] Figures taken from Hudson, pp. 150-1. Quote from Hudson, p. 151.
[4] The term "First Industrial Nation" is taken from the title of Peter Mathias' textbook on British economic history: Peter Mathias, The First Industrial Nation. An Economic History of Britain 1700-1914, 2nd edn. (London: Routledge, 1987).
[5] Wrigley, Growth, p. 683.
[6] The term "take-off into self-sustained growth" was first used by Professor W.W. Rostow. Quoted from Mathias, p. 2.
[7] M.J. Daunton, "Towns and Economic Growth in Eighteenth-Century England", in Philip Abrams, E. A. Wrigley (eds.), Towns in Societies. Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 250.
[8] Daunton, pp. 246-7.
[9] Wrigley, Growth, 690.
[10] Daunton, p. 248.
[11] Daunton, p. 261.
[12] Daunton, p. 249, Phyllis Deane, W. A. Cole, British Economic Growth 1688-1959. Trends and Structure, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: University Press, 1967), pp. 78, 103.
[13] Jan de Vries, European Urbanization 1500-1800 (London: Methuen and Co., 1984), p. 240.
[14] De Vries, p. 241.
[15] Clark, pp. 42-3, Peter Borsay, "The English urban renaissance: the development of provincial urban culture 1680-1760", in Social History No.5 (May 1977), p. 589.
[16] The enormous difference between local organisations is pointed out by Daunton: "Liverpool corporation was 'ambitious and capable', constructing a dock system, Bristol corporation was marked by a 'supine neglect of all the public interests of the city', in particular over harbour improvements. There is no denying that political forms were archaic and could be frustrating, but perhaps more on the level of petty annoyances than as crippling barriers to development." - Daunton, p. 263.
[17] Peter Clark (ed.), The Transformation of English Provincial Towns 1600-1800 (London: Hutchinson, 1984), p. 24.
[18] Daunton, p. 246. De Vries also describes (and dismisses) the parasitic town model on pp. 247-8.
[19] Clark, p. 30.
[20] "The absence of large-scale social instability in our towns before 1800 was testimony to the way that agricultural expansion and specialization and the advances in marketing and food provisioning helped sustain urban growth." Clark, p. 35.
[21] Hudson, p. 155.
[22] J. D. Chambers, Population, Economy, and Society in Pre-Industrial England (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 135.
[23] Clark, p. 16-7.
[24] Daunton, pp. 255-6.
[25] De Vries, p. 200, Deane/Cole, pp. 110-3.
[26] Clark, p. 17.
[27] Wrigley, Growth, p. 694.
[28] Chambers, p. 45.
[29] Hudson, p. 155. One might, of course, point out that the metaphor of a "safety valve" in conjunction with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings demonstrates a considerable lack of taste. This rather literary criticism, though, does not invalidate Hudson's point. Similar views, and use of language, can be found in Daunton, p. 155, Clark, p. 16, and E. A. Wrigley, "A Simple Model of London's Importance in Changing English Society and Economy 1650-1750," in Past and Present, No. 37 (1967), p. 48, pp. 66-7. In the following referenced as "Wrigley, London".
[30] Hudson, p. 159.
[31] Wrigley, Growth, p. 722.
[32] Wrigley, London, pp. 57-8, p. 65.
[33] Wrigley, Growth, p. 723-4.
[34] Clark, pp. 19-21.
[35] "The importance of the London food market in promoting change in the agriculture of Kent and East Anglia from an early date has long been recognized." - Wrigley, London, p. 55.
[36] Wrigley, Growth, p. 699.
[37] Daunton, p. 256.
[38] Hudson, p. 154.
[39] Daunton, p. 266, De Vries, p. 220-1.
[40] Wrigley, Growth, p. 696.
[41] Daunton, p. 251, Hudson, p. 160, Wrigley, London, p. 60-1.
[42] Daunton, p. 250, Hudson, pp 156, 160.
[43] Daniel Defoe, quoted from Daunton, p. 253.
[44] Borsay, p. 593-4.
[45] Wrigley, London, p. 67.
[46] Daunton, p. 254.
[47] On new leisure activities: Borsay, pp. 583-4.
[48] De Vries, p. 255. Also see Clark, p. 23.
[49] Wrigley, London, p. 60.
[50] Clark, p. 44. Also Wrigley, London, p. 51.
[51] Borsay, pp. 587, 597.
[52] Daunton, p. 254.
[53] Wrigley, London, p. 59.
[54] Wrigley, London, p. 66.
[55] Wrigley, London, p. 58-9.
[56] Communication: Clark, p. 23; water supplies: Borsay, p. 588.
[57] Wrigley, London, p. 62.
[58] Daunton, p. 251, Clark, p. 25, Wrigley, London, pp. 62-3, 66.
[59] Daunton, p. 251, Wrigley, London, p. 65.