Occupational Structure in England and Wales During the Industrial Revolution
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE IN ENGLAND AND WALES DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION BY JAN ERIK MEIDELL PhD THESIS Department of Economics I would like to thank Liam Brunt for his unlimited patience, endless energy and passionate interest in the subject. Without his support, this thesis would never have been finalized. 2 Contents Introduction 4 1. Trade directories as a data source on occupational 14 structure: evidence from England in 1851 2. How fast, and how broad, was British industrialization? 38 Evidence from a synthetic occupational census for 1801 3. Regional specialization in England and Wales in 1801 and 1851 111 3 Introduction 0. Introduction. The “industrial revolution” designates a process starting in the mid- eighteenth century, during which England and Wales experienced significant transitions in manufacturing and manufacturing processes and strong economic growth. Helped by a number of new technical inventions – in addition to strong population growth, favourable conditions for commerce, government policies and financial innovations – efficiency in the textile and iron industries increased manifold. Manufacturing moved away from handmade goods and cottage industries into mass production, helping Britain to become a world power. Urbanization changed the face of the country and improvements in agriculture allowed to the growing population to be supplied with food. The industrial revolution has thus had a major historical impact and is seen as crossing a threshold into modern economic growth. It has changed our lives, life expectancy, employment and how we look upon the world. The three chapters of this thesis attempt to better measure the occupational changes in the English and Welsh population during this time period – one of the key characteristics of the industrial revolution. 1. Literature. The Industrial Revolution is well researched; the causes and processes have been greatly discussed, in addition to various analyses of basic national income. An important branch of research has focused on the strength of economic growth, which recent research paints as being slower than originally supposed. Moreover, revisionist social historians assert that “English society before 1832 did not experience an industrial revolution let alone an Industrial Revolution “ (Jonathan Clark, 1986, pp. 39). During the time from 1750 to 1850 the number of patents grew fast as did cotton output; but national income and aggregate consumption grew only gradually. So national accounts and various local analyses are apparently not enough to answer questions relating to changes in the economy and, in particular, in social structures. In the words of Joel Mokyr (1993, pp. 2), “arguments about what exactly changed, when it started, when it ended, and where to place the emphasis keep raging”. More recent work looks away from national aggregates to focus on regional and industrial aspects of the industrial revolution, emphasizing acceleration in efficiency and output. But again, the main focus is on the sorts of products, their quantity and the production processes. There is so much more to this time period. How did the industrial revolution impact professional and social structures? Do service occupations expand and, if so, in which areas? Which secondary industries employed the bulk of the workforce, and where? What would a national occupational map of this period reveal? Mokyr (1993) divides research about the industrial revolution into four schools: social change, industrial organization, macroeconomics and technology. Of particular interest is the research on macroeconomics. Important proponents of this school are Deane and Cole (1969), with their estimates of national income and industrial production, as well as the more recent revisionists to economic growth – such as Wrigley (1987) and Crafts and Harley (1985). Crafts and Harley claim that productivity growth was confined 4 to only a few sectors, such as wool, cotton, iron and machinery, with the remaining sectors experiencing much lower productivity increase. Temin (1997) refutes this view, claiming that foreign trade figures show that Britain remained competitive not only in these industries but also in a range of older industries such as linen, glass, buttons, soap and brewing, amongst others. Thus, claims Temin, efficiency must have improved on numerous fronts. Mokyr (1993) holds that the aggregate effect of the Industrial Revolution before 1820 is not significant but has no numbers to support the claim. He further divides the pace of the economy into two groups: traditional trades such as agriculture, construction, craftsmen and domestic industry; and the modern sectors such as cotton, iron, smelting, chemistry, mining and engineering. The missing piece of the puzzle, however, in the preceding discussion is any quantification of professional occupations and social structures. This is a pre-requisite to understanding how the economy and society were impacted by the fundamental structural changes that occurred. Filling this gap is the aim of this thesis, in the form of creating a national and regional synthetic census for 1801. From 1801, a decadal national census was taken in Britain. Early versions were rudimentary and the first census with a moderate level of detail was that of 1841. The 1851 census is of superior quality and is frequently used by economic historians as a source to quantify social and professional structures. Comprehensive national and regional tables, with the same structure as the 1851 census, do not exist prior to 1851. However several attempts were made at quantifying occupations. Patrick Colquhoun (1806) approached the task in the midst of the industrial revolution and created social tables using the 1801 census. These incorporate only a few professions for certain regions, and thus suffer from severe limitations and are of limited use for historians. Lindert (1980) introduced a new approach, using parish registers to quantify occupational structures in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Even though these are not representative of the population because they are biased (only male professions for certain age groups and for certain congregations are recorded) they nevertheless represent a very informative source compared to the few data available until then. This line of research has been continued recently by the Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure, led by Wrigley and Shaw-Taylor, which has constructed regional and national tables based on extended sampling of parish registers and militia ballots from the years 1813 to 1820 (thus dating their benchmark to 1817). The three chapters of this thesis use sampling from trade directories – in combination with several other sources, such as parliamentary reports and farm surveys – as a data source. My research adds several novelties to the discussion of professional and social structures in the industrial revolution. First, the statistics generated here are for 1801, in the middle of the first industrial revolution and almost two decades earlier than the benchmark generated by other scholars. Second, my data includes both men and women of all ages and congregations and is less biased than the sources used in other studies. Finally, the 1851 regional census structure – comprising 369 professional and social titles divided into 17 groups – has been applied to the 1801 tables. This permits direct comparison to the 1851 census on both national and regional levels; this allows for a quantitative flow analysis during from 1801 to 1851, which is the key time frame for understanding the occupational and social process of industrialization. 5 Data on the business structure of the private, non-agricultural sector are drawn from the Universal British Directory (UBD), which was published in nine volumes between 1793 and 1798. The UBD was a combined Yellow Pages and White Pages of its time. It offered very extensive lists of tradesmen in each town, as well as separate sections for gentry, clergy, lawyers, doctors, bankers, the town corporation (i.e. town management), substantial outposts of Government (such as Royal dockyards or the Customs Service) and transport (masters of coaches, barges and locally-based ships). In the case of London, the section on tradesmen alone covers 260 pages and amounts to around 34 000 entries; in the case of Manchester, the section on tradesmen covers 72 pages and amounts to around 8 000 entries; and in the case of Birmingham, the section on tradesmen covers 32 pages and amounts to around 3 200 entries. Smaller towns obviously required fewer pages, with the smallest having as few as one page or a half-page. Each entry in the UBD typically recorded the name of the individual (or partnership) and their line of business; in some towns it recorded also the address. It is noteworthy that many individuals and partnerships operated in several lines of business, sometimes up to six, and these were dutifully reported in the UBD. The UBD covers around 1 600 towns and villages across England and Wales, although for many of the smaller towns it does not record details on the businesses that were in operation. Instead, it simply gives a general description of the place and perhaps details on coach connections and such like. We do not know why the details on businesses were reported for some small towns and not others; as far as we are aware, there is no systematic bias. 2. Method. The first chapter of the thesis proposes a method for constructing synthetic 1801 census tables. Using the 1851 census and contemporary trade directories, it can be shown that it is possible to infer local occupational structure using trade directories with acceptable accuracy. The structure of the historical problem is displayed in table 1 below. The goal is to track occupational change over time using the census but there is no satisfactorily reliable census before 1851. If there is a valid statistical relationship between trade directories from 1851 and the 1851 census, could one use this to create a synthetic census for 1801 by using contemporary trade directories? Table 1. Data sources available to track occupational change.