You would have to show that peoples outside Europe and North America adopted similar institutions as had Western Europeans and Americans, but then nonetheless did not industrialize at the same pace. Otherwise it’s Occam’s razor and “cultural deficits” are superflous in the wake of a more immediate, obvious, and seemingly entirely sufficient, explanation.
Previous thread by me on this topic: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/re-necessary-and-sufficient-causes-of-the-industrial-revolution-hoppe/15868
Actually the truly striking thing about England in relation to the rest of Europe is its stability. The English fight wars, but they are all either wars of choice abroad, or else they are scuffles between themselves. Since the 11th century they no longer have to fear of invasion. Sure there are exceptions like the Grand Armada, but these only go to show just how easy it is to defend an island even against a much stronger foe. Wouldn’t this reflect on politics? With the lack of an existential external threat wouldn’t it become exceedingly difficult for the subjects of the English king to see why they should take a great deal of crap from him, and accept excessive levels of societal regimentation? A Christian Balkanite may think any crap from the Kaiser is better than falling to the Muslim Turks, but an Englishman has no such fears. And in fact, isn’t this precisely what happens? Isn’t it the case the power of English kings comes to be restrained by the parliament, and the Rights of Englishmen, that the English get in the habbit of rising up against their kings, and that it is on this island that early Liberal thought begins?
It’s not controversial that the industrial revolution in fact begun in England, and then spread through north-western Europe and North America, often times fueled precisely by capital from Great Britain. Mind you both north-western Europe and North America shared, or came to share during the period many institutional arrangements present in England. Likewise both north-western Europe and North America both shared England’s advantageous geographical position which makes them less open to invasion albeith north-western Europe somewhat less so. You will note that Europe being a peninsula that is adjoined to the larger Eurasian land mass to its east, and seperated from the African and Anatolian land masses only by straits and narrow seas to its south, is relatively impervious from invasion, albeit only from the northern and western directions, meaning only the north-western Europeans benefit fully from Europe’s peninsularity. As if in a coincidence it is the Europeans who are seated on a large peninsula who first industrialize, and among them the Europeans in the north and west who are the most peninsular of all of them, and then among them the English, who are so peninsular they have a mini peninsula, within a peninsula all to themselves and then one which is surrounded by sea from all four, rather than just three sides.
It seems you are saying isolation from invasion is the unique factor as to why England and northwestern Europe became the cradle for the industrial revolution. But then:
Sub-saharan Africa has a severly disandvantageous geographic position. Sahara forms a giant natural obstacle to communication leaving black Africa in pronounced isolation. Those who are sealed off from imports lag behind.
But here it seems here that relative geographic isolation is something that would impede the development of the institutions neccessary for an industrial revolution.
Yes. Specifically I talk about “an advantagous geographic position that is such so that it does not put insurmountable obstacles to communication and trade with the outside centers of learning, technology and wealth, yet poses a hugely significant obstacle to attack by any such foreign threats”.
Generally England’s geography makes it safe, but does not isolate it. In fact early on it probably does feel the negative effects of its great distance to more advanced centers of civilization, but after technology and knowledge (which unlike the far more isolated Congolese they are nontheless able to import albeit at a slight time lag) progresses to the point maritime voyage around Africa and across the Atlantic become possible, it with its wide acess to the Atlantic finds itself among the best positioned to acess the wealth of the Orient and the New World. Yet the progress which enables this to happen is nowhere sufficient to negate the strategic benefit of being an island. England is unique in that it has best of both worlds. After 1500 it has excellent communication routes, yet a secure position on an island that lets its easily preserve its independence against far more populous empires on the mainland (prior to the industrial revolution England was a relative minnow in terms of population size compared to Spain or France and could have been concievably easy pickings for them had it been actually located on the continent).
While I do believe you are right in that England’s geographic position is one of the reasons why the industrial revolution occurred there initially, I don’t believe that her position is unique. There are other places in the world that share similar advantages while still retaining trade and communication with the world at large. Japan, Indochina, India, Arabia, Ethiopia are all places that are relatively secure from constant invasion, yet never came close to having the foundations for an industrial revolution.
I would think that there are a number of other prerequisites necessary for an event like the industrial revolution to occur. Things like the appropriate resources for an early IR of water, coal, iron, etc. Other things such as the necessary technology, to the accumulation of the appropriate amount of saved capital to actually enable the construction the machinery and equipment. I would think that you could agree that this is true.
So the real question is why is it in Europe, or more specifically, in England that all of these necessary ingredients were available?