工业革命的结构机制
根据米歇尔-奥利斯（Michel Oris）的课程改编[1][2]
本课程旨在从十八世纪末开始，对促成工业革命兴起的结构性机制进行详细而有条理的分析。我们将着眼于工业的早期发展，重点分析适度的技术进步和可获得的初始投资如何为社会变革奠定了基础。首先，我们将深入研究英格兰的小型制造企业，重点探讨这些企业如何从低进入成本中获益，从而促进新企业家阶层的出现。我们将研究这些早期企业不固定但往往很高的利润率，以及它们在促进持续再投资和创新方面的作用。然后，我们将探讨交通基础设施的演变及其对企业规模和范围的影响，包括从保护性隔离当地市场到降低运输成本带来的竞争加剧。我们将特别关注工业化的社会后果，包括不稳定的工作条件、妇女和儿童劳动力的使用，以及工业化带来的社会流动性。对工业发展模式及其在欧洲的传播进行研究将完成我们的分析，使我们能够理解工业革命对全球经济的影响。总之，本课程的目的是以描述性和有条理的方式研究工业革命的方方面面，强调标志着这一重要时期的经济、技术、社会和人文动态。
投资成本低
第一次工业革命开始于 18 世纪下半叶，与后来的工业革命相比，当时的技术水平相对有限，资本密集度也较低。起初，企业通常规模较小，技术虽然在当时具有创新性，但并不需要像维多利亚时代后期的工厂那样进行大规模投资。例如，纺织业是最早实现机械化的行业之一，但纺纱机或动力织布机等早期机器可以在小作坊甚至在家中操作（如 "放线 "或 "家用系统"）。詹姆斯-瓦特的蒸汽机虽然是一项重大进步，但在成为大型工厂和运输业的驱动力之前，最初的应用规模相对较小。部分原因是当时的生产系统仍处于转型期。制造业通常仍是一种小规模活动，虽然机器的使用使生产得以提高，但最初并不需要我们后来工业革命所需的庞大设施。此外，工业革命第一阶段的特点是渐进式创新，这使得生产率可以逐步提高，而不需要巨额资本支出。企业往往可以自筹资金，或依靠家庭或当地的融资网络实现增长，而无需求助于发达的金融市场或大规模借贷。然而，随着革命的推进，机器的复杂性和成本不断增加，工业厂房的规模也在扩大。这导致对资金的需求增加，专门的金融机构发展起来，并出现了通过股票或债券筹集资金的做法，以资助大型工业项目。
18 世纪末的自筹资金能力反映了当时独特的经济条件。第一批工厂的初始投资成本相对较低，这使得来自工匠或小资产阶级阶层的个人能够成为工业企业家。这些企业家往往能够筹集到必要的资本，而无需求助于大额贷款或大量外部投资。当时的技术主要依靠木材和简单的金属，成本较低，因此初始投资相对较低。此外，制造和操作第一批机器所需的技能往往来自传统工艺。因此，虽然需要专门的劳动力，但并不需要像后来的技术那样进行培训。这意味着劳动力成本相对较低，尤其是与 20 世纪中期先进工业技术所需的工资和技能水平相比。这与 20 世纪中期第三世界国家的情况形成了鲜明对比，在这些国家，引进工业技术所需的资本和技能水平要高得多，大多数当地工人甚至是当地企业家在没有外部援助的情况下都无法企及。在这些发展中国家，启动一项工业活动所需的投资往往非常巨大，只能通过国家资助、国际贷款或外国直接投资来解决。因此，在英国工业革命期间，创业者最初的成功得益于低进入成本和适应性工艺技能的结合，这为创新和工业增长创造了有利环境。这导致形成了一个由实业家组成的新社会阶层，他们在推动工业化进程中发挥了主导作用。
在工业革命的早期阶段，对厂房的要求相对较低。现有的建筑物，如谷仓或棚屋，可以很容易地改造成生产空间，而不需要在建筑或装修方面进行大量投资。这与后来的工业设施形成了鲜明对比，后者通常是为容纳复杂的生产线和庞大的工人队伍而专门设计的大型工厂。至于循环资本，即支付原材料、工资和运营成本等经常性开支所需的资金，往往高于固定资本（机器和厂房）的投资。公司可以利用银行贷款来支付这些运营成本。当时的银行一般都愿意以原材料、半成品或成品的所有权作为抵押发放贷款。此时，英国的信贷系统已经相当发达，成熟的金融机构能够为工业企业家提供所需的营运资金。此外，供应链中的付款条件--例如，赊购原材料并在出售成品后向供应商付款--也有助于为营运资本融资。值得注意的是，获得信贷在工业发展中发挥了至关重要的作用。它使企业能够迅速扩大生产，利用市场机会，而无需积累大量上游资本。这促进了快速、持续的经济增长，而这正是工业时期的特征。
将工业革命产生的利润进行再投资，是工业革命向英国境外扩展的推动力之一。由于新技术和市场扩张带来了效率和生产力的提高，这些利润往往十分可观，它们被分配用于各种用途。一方面，制造商将其中部分资金投入技术创新，购置新机器，完善生产流程。这导致了不断改进的良性循环，每一次进步都会产生更多的利润用于再投资。与此同时，对新市场和廉价原材料来源的寻求也鼓励英国公司进行国际扩张。这种扩张主义通常采取在殖民地或其他地区投资的形式，在那里建立工业或资助工业项目，从而移植英国的做法和资本。对工业化至关重要的基础设施也从这些利润中获益。不仅在英国，而且在国外，铁路网、运河和港口都得到了发展或改善，从而提高了贸易和工业生产的效率。除了这些直接投资，英国的殖民影响也成为传播技术和工业方法的工具。这为殖民地工业化的扩张创造了有利的生态系统，而殖民地又为英国工厂提供了必需的原材料。在国际贸易领域，剩余资本使英国公司能够扩大其全球足迹，大量出口制成品，同时进口生产这些产品所需的资源。最后，工程师、企业家和技术工人的流动（通常由工业利润提供资金）促进了国家间的技能和诀窍交流。这些技术转让在全球工业实践的普及中发挥了关键作用。所有这些因素结合在一起，使工业革命成为一种全球现象，不仅改变了国家经济，也改变了国际关系和全球经济结构。
高利润
第一次工业革命期间记录的高利润率（根据行业不同，通常在 20% 至 30% 之间）对当时的资本积累和经济增长起着决定性作用。这些高利润率为企业提供了再投资和维持工业扩张的手段，从而实现了持续增长，并发展了日益完善的工业基础设施。与 20 世纪 50 年代下降到 10%左右、70 年代下降到 5%左右的利润率相比，早期的工业企业家显然具有相当大的优势。这种优势使他们能够将大量资金再投资于企业，探索新的产业机会，并不断创新。这种资本积累和再投资的精神是工业化的主要推动力。这不仅得益于经济利益，也得益于这一时期英国盛行的某种风气。资金应该用于生产，以刺激就业和创造财富，这一理念是塑造英国社会的指导原则。个人或小团体投资者可以筹集到相对较少的初始资本，从而推动了第一波工业活动。然而，正是这些早期企业的利润推动了更大规模的投资，并导致工业能力和整体经济发展的迅速扩张。这种投资和创新的良性循环加速了工业化进程，带来了技术进步和生产增长，并最终导致社会和经济的深刻变革。
公司规模
没有最佳或最小尺寸
比较工业革命时期与当今的创业动态，可以凸显经济和企业运营环境的变化。在工业革命时期，进入工业领域的低成本使许多小企业得以出现。当时的技术以机械为主，通常以水或蒸汽为动力，成本低廉，再加上大量廉价劳动力，创造了一个即使资金很少的企业也能起步和繁荣的环境。城市化和人口增长带来的需求增长，以及缺乏严格的法规，也有利于这些小企业的出现和发展。另一方面，在当今世界，公司的规模可能是其抵御危机能力的决定性因素。高昂的固定成本、先进的技术、严格的监管标准和激烈的国际竞争，都需要大量投资和适应能力，而小企业可能很难做到这一点。由于生活水平和社会法规的提高，劳动力变得更加昂贵，这对今天的企业来说也是一项更为重要的成本。因此，目前的趋势是企业集中化，大型企业可以从规模经济中获益，更容易获得资金，并有能力影响市场和抵御经济衰退时期。不过，必须指出的是，当今的创业生态系统也非常活跃，新成立的技术公司和创新型公司尽管有时规模不大，但凭借激进的创新和灵活的结构，可以颠覆整个市场。
克虏伯公司的例子
The case of Krupp is a perfect illustration of the transition that has taken place in the industrial landscape since the Industrial Revolution. Founded in 1811, Krupp began as a small company and grew to become an international industrial conglomerate, symbolising the growth potential that characterised this era of economic transformation. At the start of the Industrial Revolution, the flexibility of small businesses was an advantage in a rapidly changing market, where technical innovations could be quickly adopted and implemented. In addition, the often lax regulatory framework allowed small entities to thrive without the administrative and financial burdens that can accompany large companies in modern economies. However, as the industrial age progressed, factors such as the development of transport systems (rail, sea, road) and the globalisation of trade began to favour companies capable of producing on a large scale and distributing their products more widely. These companies, such as Krupp, were able to invest in heavy infrastructure, adopt cutting-edge technologies, extend their grip on supply chains and access international markets, giving them a competitive advantage over smaller companies. Krupp's rise reflects this dynamic. The company was able to move with the times, evolving from an iron foundry to a multinational steel and armaments producer, capitalising on wars, the growing demand for steel for construction and general industrialisation, as well as technological innovations. Against this backdrop, small businesses faced major challenges. Without access to the same level of resources, they have found it difficult to compete in terms of price, efficiency and market reach. Many have been absorbed by larger entities or have had to specialise in niches to survive. The ability to withstand crises became an attribute associated with size, and large companies like Krupp were better equipped to deal with economic volatility, wars, financial crises and political change. Their size enabled them to absorb shocks, diversify risks and plan for the long term, a capacity less accessible to smaller companies. Krupp's trajectory is therefore part of the broader logic of industrial and economic development, where corporate structures have had to adapt to the new realities of a rapidly changing world.
Transport costs
High costs: an advantage in the early stages of industrialisation
Before the spread of steamboats and the development of railways, the high cost of transport had a significant impact on industrial and commercial structure. Factories tended to produce for local markets, as it was often too expensive to transport goods over long distances. This period saw the proliferation of small, scattered factories, which met the immediate needs of the local population, with each region often developing its own specialities based on the resources and skills available. Industrial production took place close to sources of raw materials such as coal and iron ore to minimise transport costs. This constraint also stimulated significant investment in transport infrastructure, such as canals and railways, and encouraged the improvement of existing roads. When railways became commonplace and steamboats became widespread, the dynamic changed radically. Transport became cheaper and faster, allowing larger, centralised factories to mass-produce and sell their products in wider markets, benefiting from economies of scale. This began to squeeze out small local factories that couldn't compete with the large-scale production and widespread distribution of the big companies, profoundly transforming the industrial economy.
High transport costs at the start of the Industrial Revolution effectively created a form of natural protectionism, shielding local infant industries from competition from larger, more established firms. These transport costs acted as unofficial barriers, isolating markets and allowing companies to concentrate on supplying demand in their immediate vicinity. In those days, competition was essentially local; a company only needed to compete within a limited area, where prohibitive transport costs acted as a barrier to distant competition. In its early stages, the Industrial Revolution was strongly marked by its local and regional character. In England, for example, it was the Lancashire region around Manchester that was the cradle of many industrial innovations and developments. Similarly, in France, the Nord and Alsace regions became key industrial centres, as did Catalonia in Spain and New England in the United States. These regions benefited from their own favourable conditions for industrialisation, such as access to raw materials, craft skills and capital. On an international scale, these same transport costs played a crucial role in protecting continental European industries from British industrial supremacy. England, a pioneer of industrialisation with a significant technical lead, could not easily flood the rest of Europe with its products because of these high transport costs. This offered a respite to industries on the continent, allowing them to develop and advance technologically without being swamped by British competition. In this context, high transport costs had a paradoxical impact: they restricted trade and the spread of innovation, but at the same time they encouraged industrial diversification and the development of local capabilities. This is what enabled many regions of Europe and North America to lay the foundations for their own industrial development before the era of globalised trade and large-scale distribution.
The development of transport infrastructure, particularly railways, in the second half of the 19th century considerably reduced travel costs and times. The train, in particular, revolutionised the transport of goods and people, making it possible to trade over longer distances and at much lower cost than traditional methods such as transport by cart, horse or waterway. This reduction in transport costs had a major impact on industrial organisation. Smaller industries, which had thrived in a context of high transport costs and were therefore protected from outside competition, began to feel the pressure of larger, technologically advanced companies capable of mass production. These large companies could now extend their commercial reach, distributing their products to much wider markets. With the railway, large companies could not only reach distant markets, but also benefit from economies of scale by centralising their production in larger factories, which reduced their unit costs. This meant that they could offer their products at prices that small local industries, with their higher cost structures, could not compete with. It was against this backdrop that many small businesses were forced to close or transform, while previously isolated industrial regions were integrated into a national and even international economy. The industrial landscape was reshaped, favouring areas with privileged access to new transport infrastructures, and laying the foundations for the globalisation of markets that we know today.
Social conditions relating to employment
The Industrial Revolution brought about profound changes in social structure, notably through the movement of people from the countryside to the cities. This massive movement was largely due to enclosures in England, for example, which pushed many peasants off their traditional land, as well as to agricultural transformations that reduced the need for labour. Landless peasants and those who had lost their livelihood as a result of the introduction of new farming methods or mechanisation found themselves looking for work in the cities, where the emerging industrial factories needed labour. This migration was not motivated by the lure of social betterment, but by necessity. Jobs in industry often offered low wages and difficult working conditions. The absence of social legislation at the time meant that workers had very little protection: they worked long hours in dangerous and unhealthy conditions, with no job security, no insurance against accidents at work, and no right to retirement. Historians often speak of "negative social fluidity" during this period to describe the phenomenon where individuals, far from climbing the social ladder, were instead drawn into a precarious and often exploitative working environment. Despite this, for many, factory work represented the only opportunity to earn a living, even if it meant enduring difficult conditions. It was only gradually, often as a result of crises, trade union struggles and political pressure, that governments began to introduce laws to protect workers. The first laws on child labour, working conditions, working hours and safety laid the foundations for the social protection systems we know today. But these changes took time and many suffered before these protections were introduced.
Working conditions during the Industrial Revolution reflected the market dynamics of the time, when an oversupply of labour allowed employers to charge very low wages. Women and children were often employed because they constituted an even cheaper workforce than adult men and because they were generally less inclined to unionise and demand better working conditions. These groups were often paid a fraction of what adult men were paid, which further increased the companies' profit margins. In this context, the wages paid to the workers were often no more than the subsistence minimum, calculated according to what was strictly necessary for the survival of the worker and his family. This approach, sometimes described as a "subsistence wage", left little room for personal savings or improved living standards. A direct consequence of the lack of regulation and social protection was a system where lower wages could be used as a lever to increase profit margins. The entrepreneurs of the Industrial Revolution, often praised for their ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit, also benefited from a system where production costs could be squeezed to the detriment of workers' welfare. The fact that profits did not have to be shared meant that factory owners could reinvest more of their profits in expanding their businesses, buying new machinery and improving production processes. This undoubtedly contributed to the acceleration of industrialisation and overall economic growth, but this growth came at a high social cost. It took decades of workers' struggles, social activism and legislative reforms to begin to create a more balanced and fair working environment, where workers enjoyed protections and a fairer share of the fruits of economic growth.
Industrialisation, especially in its early stages, benefited significantly from the participation of women and children in the workforce, often under conditions that would be considered unacceptable today. The textile industry, for example, massively recruited women and children, partly because the newly invented machines required less physical strength than previous manual production methods. Dexterity and precision became more important than brute strength, and these qualities were often associated with female workers. What's more, employers could pay women and children less than men, thereby increasing their profits. In the context of the time, child labour was unregulated at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Children were often employed for dangerous tasks or in confined spaces where adults could not easily work. Their wages were derisory compared to those of adult men, often up to ten times less. This reinforced the advantageous position of employers: the abundance of available labour drove down wages overall and increased competition for jobs, contributing to the precariousness of workers' situation. Women were paid around a third of what men were paid for the same work, a disparity that reflected the social norms of the time, when women's work was often considered less valuable. This exploitation of female and child labour is now seen as one of the darkest periods in Western history, and led to the emergence of the first laws on child labour and a more critical examination of working conditions in the fledgling industries. So while industrialisation brought major economic and technical advances, it also highlighted the need for regulation to protect the most vulnerable workers from exploitation. The social movements and reforms that followed were motivated by the recognition that economic progress should not come at the expense of people's dignity and health.
The diversity of management practices among employers at the time of the Industrial Revolution reflected different social and economic attitudes. On the one hand, some bosses, motivated primarily by maximising profits, chose to employ women and children, who could be paid much less than men. This cost-cutting strategy enabled them to offer more competitive prices and make higher profits. Working conditions in these companies were often very harsh, and employee welfare was generally not a priority. On the other hand, there were bosses who took a more paternalistic approach. They might choose to employ only men, partly because of the widespread belief that a man's role was to provide for the family. These employers could see themselves as responsible for the welfare of their employees, often by providing housing, schools or medical services. This approach, while more humane, was also a way of ensuring a stable and dedicated workforce. In companies where this paternalistic mentality prevailed, there could be a sense of moral obligation or perceived social responsibility towards employees. These bosses might believe that looking after their workers was not only good for business, by maintaining a productive and loyal workforce, but also a duty to society. These two approaches reflect the complex and often contradictory attitudes of the time towards work and society. While working conditions for women and children in factories were often difficult and dangerous, the first labour laws, such as the Factory Act of 1833 in Great Britain, began to place limits on the exploitation of the most vulnerable workers. These reforms were the start of a long process of improving working conditions that would continue long after the end of the Industrial Revolution.
The simplicity of the technique
Adapting workers' skills during the first phase of the Industrial Revolution was relatively easy for several reasons. Firstly, early industrial technologies were not radically different from those used in proto-industry or craft workshops. Machines such as the mechanical loom were faster and more efficient than their manual predecessors, but the basic principles of operation were similar. This meant that peasants and craftsmen who already had skills in manual work could be retrained for the fledgling industry with little difficulty. What's more, the relatively simple design of the first industrial machines meant that they could be reproduced by those wishing to enter industry or expand their production without requiring a complex transfer of knowledge. What could be seen as a lack of intellectual property protection at the time actually encouraged the rapid spread of technological innovation and the growth of new industries. However, this easy access to initial industrial skills had social and educational implications. In a largely illiterate England in 1830, education was not yet considered essential for the majority of the working population. Lack of education contributed to a workforce that was perceived as more manageable and less likely to question authority or demand better pay or working conditions. Some industrialists and business lobbies saw mass education as a potential threat to this state of affairs, as a better educated population could become more aware of its rights and more demanding socially and economically. It was only much later, with the rise of more complex technologies such as the steam engine and precision engineering, that the training of the workforce became more necessary and more specialised, leading to a revaluation of technical education. This also marked the beginning of a change in attitude towards the education of workers, as literacy and numeracy skills became increasingly necessary to operate and maintain the complex machinery of the advanced industrial age. The introduction of compulsory primary education in 1880 in England was a turning point, finally recognising the importance of education for individual development and economic growth. It marked the beginning of a realisation that education could and should play a role in improving the living conditions of the working classes and in promoting social mobility.
The Industrial Revolution marked a radical transformation in the socio-economic structure of Europe and beyond. After centuries in which the majority of the population lived in agrarian societies, dependent on natural cycles and agricultural production, this new paradigm introduced a drastic change. Technological progress, the rise of entrepreneurship, access to new forms of capital and the exploitation of energy resources such as coal and later oil were the driving forces behind this upheaval. The steam engine, innovation in manufacturing processes such as steel production, the automation of textile production and the advent of the railways all played a crucial role in accelerating industrialisation. This period of rapid change was also fuelled by sustained population growth, which provided both a market for new products and an abundant workforce for factories. Urban development was spectacular, attracting rural populations with the promise of jobs and better living conditions, although this promise was often not kept, resulting in difficult urban living conditions. The economy began to specialise in industrial production rather than agriculture, and international trade developed to support and expand these new industries. Nation states began to invest in infrastructure and regulate the economy to encourage industrialisation. The social context also changed. Old hierarchies were challenged and new social classes emerged, including an industrial bourgeoisie and a proletarian working class. These changes laid the foundations for modern societies, with their own political, economic and social challenges. However, the transition from agrarian to industrial societies was not without its challenges. It brought social and economic inequalities, often deplorable working conditions, and had a significant environmental impact that continues to be felt today. Despite this, the dynamics set in motion by the Industrial Revolution are at the root of the unprecedented economic growth and technological development that have shaped the world today.