How do historians differ in their interpretation of the effects of the Industrial Revolution on the standard of living?

Answer 1

There is widespread agreement (among modern historians) that industrialization produced a huge increase in GDP. The main disgreeements are about how the increase was distributed among various sections of the population (or classes). Marxists, like the Romantics of the first half of the 19th century, have always maintained that industrialization was a disaster for the poor, who were horribly oppressed. This view remained widespread well into the 20th century and for many it is still an essential part of the mythology surrounding the Industrial Revolution.

Interestingly, this popular view was challenged at the time by Bruno Hildebrand, who was Professor of Politics [and related subjects] at Marburg. He reviewed Engels' famous book on The Condition of the Working Classes in England and took the view that the conditions described there - in an industrial society - were much better than, for example, in most rural areas of Germany, such as Hessen. (In much of Germany about 20-25% of the population was almost entirely dependant on poor relief; in the depths of winter women were giving birth to children in street at temperatures of -10 degrees C, and so on). These regions had no industry and living standards were stuck at the level of what, in the second half of 20th century came to be called 'Third World economies'. Engels never replied ...

Many modern economic historians (writing in 1945 onwards) broadly share Hildebrand's view. For example, if one looks at the period c. 1820-70 in Britain, agricultural labourers' living standards were much higher in areas close to industry and the coalfields than they were far away from industry. In areas like the North East and much of Lancashire and the West Riding, farmers were competing for labour with industry, unlike for example in Devon or Suffolk, where conditions in the country were indeed wretched for the poor.

Joncey