The Role of Transportation in the Industrial Revolution: A Comparison of England and France by Rick Szostak

Abstract

816 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE The Role of Transportation in the Industrial Revolution: A Comparison of England and France. By Rick Szostak. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991. Pp. xii + 331; notes, bibliography, index. $44.95. The theme of this book is the essential role of transportation in industrial development and innovation and England’s superiority in this area over France. Rick Szostak describes what he considers to be the four phenomena of the English Industrial Revolution—regional specialization, the emergence of new industries (which he claims receives little attention in the literature), a rise in the scale of production, and a dramatic increase in the rate of technological innovation. The last phenomenon, he maintains, is largely the result of the other three. Szostak stresses the importance of not only the railways but also canals, navigable rivers, and coastwise shipping in aiding the progress of the English Industrial Revolution. He examines why and how England was able to overcome social, political, geographical, and technological constraints to the expansion of trade. “Factories” had long existed in Europe, but they tended to be government owned or subsidized and specialized in court luxuries or military hardware, with quality rather than quantity the main criterion and the cost of production much less important than in modern factories. There was a consequent absence of incentive to innovate. The large-scale enterprises developing in the 18th century were of a different nature, with production responding to market forces. It is a matter for discussion whether the new factories emerged in re­ sponse to innovations and new power-driven machinery, but many of the old industries relied on cottage-style equipment and hand ma­ chines. Obviously, centralized factories are more efficient than domes­ tic production, so why did this type of organization not develop until the 1750s? Szostak maintains that improvements in England’s trans­ port system are the answer. Growing industry demanded the devel­ opment of railways; England’s roads, waterways, and railways became a pattern for other countries. Szostak devotes a lot of time and space examining the origins of “inventions.” Surely it is accepted that British innovations were largely pragmatic. James Watt knew that his steam engine worked; it was for savants like Sadi Carnot, subse­ quently, to determine why and how. This stress on transportation is all very much chicken or egg, and coming down on one side or the other takes too little account of the essential political and economic dynamic interactions. The political organization in England was very different from that of feudal France. Indeed, a thorough analysis of the role of France’s Corps des ponts et chaussees as compared with English free enterprise would have been a useful exercise. Szostak accepts that the French had expertise in road building, and, indeed, he could have added that it was to TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 817 France that the Russian tsar Alexander I turned, at the beginning of the 19th century, for assistance in the improvement of communica­ tions. Considerable development and research were carried out by the French engineers at St. Petersburg, with P.-D. Bazaine and A. de Bet­ ancourt y Molina at the forefront. Szostak refers to French admiration for British roads, citing Charles Dupin, who went to England after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. There are much earlier examples, however. In 1785, the French en­ gineer P.-C. Lesage commented on the efficient turnpike system he saw during his visit, and he observed, significantly, that even the king was obliged to pay. Indeed, he attributed much ofBritain’s greatness to the political system and trade barriers favoring British products. Szostak is in agreement with modern writers who recognize the primary im­ portance ofinternal markets, and he maintains that internationaltrade leaves better records for the historian. Yes, internal developments come first, but Britain’s maritime superiority facilitated expansion. Northern France was lacking in harbors; he might have pointed out that Cherbourg was destroyed by the English in 1758! Szostak makes useful comparisons and provides surveys of French and English industry but does not discuss the political issues of 1789 on and their repercussions on production, as governments supported efforts to borrow British technology. This...