One advantage of reflecting on the much-vaunted Fourth Industrial Revolution is that we can approach it with a certain degree of discernment, given the three previous revolutions.
With this in mind, the first question we should ask ourselves is whether we are actually witnessing an industrial revolution. When you consider the scope and impact of the previous revolutions, you begin to question whether what we are experiencing now is comparable. In the productive sphere, for instance, various innovative industries emerged, such as steel manufacturing and the chemical industry, which produced fertilisers, medicines, and synthetic materials like plastic (Mokyr & Strotz, 1998). In the social sphere, the prevailing system was shaken to its foundations, generating new ways of living and working. Alongside this change, urban areas grew and established themselves as vital spaces for human living and interaction because an industrial revolution is a significant event.
In any case, we have sufficient evidence to conclude that we are indeed facing a fourth industrial revolution, particularly if artificial intelligence reaches the levels of sophistication predicted by some experts. A key question in understanding the nature of industrial revolutions is analysing the fundamentals that explain their spread. In previous revolutions, countries with remarkable scientific and technical capabilities could have led the way, but they lagged behind. Russia is a prime example, andas Kranzberg (1986) points out, the reason for this lies not in the mental prowess or inventive capacity of the Russian people, but in the complex social and political circumstances in which invention and innovation can flourish.
Based on this approach, we must ask how an industrial revolution unfolds. Kranzberg himself identified the factors that led to the first industrial revolution taking hold in Great Britain. These are outlined briefly below:
1. Capital for industrial development: Capital to invest in machinery was necessary for industrialisation. In addition to the cost of the machinery itself, the expense involved in turning an idea into a usable process or piece of machinery must also be considered.
2. Labour for industry: One of the main obstacles to the rapid spread of Watt's steam engine was the chronic shortage of skilled labour. Maintaining or repairing the engines in use was beyond the capabilities of most mechanics until about twenty years after the new machinery had been introduced. Since the machinery was first developed in Britain, British workers gained an advantage in acquiring these technical skills.
3. Markets for mass-produced goods: Britain could not compete with France's well established trade in handmade luxury goods. Therefore, they sought to meet the demands of the mass market, whose needs could only be satisfied by cheaper products, which could only be produced using machines. Once England began manufacturing and supplying low quality products in large quantities, its industrial leadership inevitably increased.
4. Raw materials: Raw materials and natural resources are essential for industrialisation. Great Britain had the two main raw materials used by industry: coal and iron, which were accessible and close to each other.
5. Transport: Raw materials, producers and markets must be connected. Transport is essential even for the most basic production processes. In the industrial era, providing means of transport also stimulated the development of engineering skills and transport itself, creating an industry in its own right.
6. Inventors: Britain had many great inventors, as did its great competitor, France. However, Britain's economic, social and technical opportunities proved more favourable for technological innovation. Consequently, British inventors had more and better opportunities to turn their ideas into reality than their French counterparts.
7. Breaking with industrial tradition: As we have already mentioned, Great Britain fell behind in the manufacture of luxury goods during the 18th century, continuing to use low-profit craft techniques. Therefore, when the opportunity arose to make profits by introducing new machines and methods, British entrepreneurs seized it. Industrial innovation would not have taken place without a break from traditional attitudes and the disintegration of rigid patterns of behaviour from the past.
8. Entrepreneurs: Building on the previous point, entrepreneurial spirit was crucial. However, much of the technological progress of the time lay in adapting traditional skills, such as those of watchmakers, millers and blacksmiths, to new organisational and productive forms, as well as to emerging needs that entrepreneurs were able to foresee.
9. Agricultural change: The growth of large manufacturing centres in the 18th century would not have been possible without sufficient advances in agricultural production to support a large industrial workforce.
10. Government industrialisation policies: Industrial progress is greatly affected by government policies and institutions. The government must either take direct action or adopt a deliberate passive approach to provide a favourable environment for industry. It must respond to the needs of industrial growth, as England did in the crucial middle decades of the 18th century when the Industrial Revolution began.
11. Attitudes towards industrialisation in society: Not only the government, but society in general developed values, attitudes and institutions that were favourable to industrialisation. These included a desire for material progress, approval of social mobility, acceptance of new ideas and techniques, and appreciation of technological advances as a means of improving material conditions.
12. Technological level and social need: Undoubtedly, many discoveries have disappeared alongside their inventors because they did not align with the techniques or requirements of the time. Had James Watt's invention come earlier, the techniques and machinery required to produce the basic metal components for his engine might not yet have existed. Furthermore, it might not have attracted sufficient investment for large-scale commercial production.
Understanding the factors that caused industrial growth in the 18th century can provide valuable insights into our current situation. However, the Industrial Revolution should be viewed as a process rather than a specific period of time. If this phenomenon is occurring today, then we must be in the initial stage. This implies that emerging technologies will optimise thousands of processes in the future. Furthermore, Britain's leadership in the Industrial Revolution was not due to a single critical factor, but rather a multitude of technological and socio-cultural factors that produced such radical and far-reaching change.
Mikel Albizu
Mikel Albizu is a research technician at Orkestra. At present he combines his doctoral studies with the participation in several research projects.
His main research area is employment and the factors that drive it at a regional and local level, although he has also studied and worked in the field of urban planning and territorial planning.
