Works Cited Barker, Theo. “London and the Industrial Revolution." History Today 39 (Feb. 1989): 45-51. Jones, E.L. The European Miracle. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Mayer, Otto G. Veglen's Imperial Germany Revisited. Tacoma, WA: Sligo Publishers, 1995 Rosenberg, Nathan and L.E. Birdzell. "Science, Technology and the Western Miracle." Scientific American 263 (Nov. 1990): 42-54. Scott, Ottoes B. A Tale of Two Revolutions. New York, NY: Warner Books, 1996

ut forth as a possible answer. Unfortunately, natural resources do not become economic assets until the knowledge and means of using them (technology) becomes available. In addition, Japan, with far fewer natural resources than Mexico and the Soviet Union, for example, has become a highly successful economic entity. City-states which were successful during the early stages of the industrial revolution, such as Venice, also suggest limitations to the physical resources idea (Rosenberg and Birdzell 42-43). While the above theories cannot account for the industrial revolution of Europe alone, they can be combined and, with other components, used to produce a workable theory as to why the "miracle" occurred in Europe and not the Orient or India. In 1500, Europe was third in population in the world, behind China and India. Proportionately, Europe progressed at a higher rate than either China or India during the period 1650-1850. It is estimated that the real wage tended to be higher than that of the Orient and India during the thirteenth century and possibly even during the twelfth (Jones 3). What these figures indicate is that although Europe may not have been as populous as the Orient or India, it was more successful at taking care of the people it did support. Asia lagged behind Europe in mechanical engineering. Large civil engineering and luxury court projects provided abundance that appeared monumental and grand, but such projects were enjoyed by a small elite. It is estimated that at the start of the fourteenth century, the combined peoples of France, Germany and Britain supported 15 percent of the population through peasant work (meaning that 85 percent of the population were peasants). As late as the 1880s, however, 2 percent of the population of China consumed more than 24 percent of the national product, a statistic which indicates the high level of poverty endured by the very poor (Jones 4). The Europeans also tended to not maximize human capital. Marriages were delayed, with some never marrying at all, and childbirth took place at later ages. In India and the orient, there was a decided emphasis on having numerous children, marrying off daughters as soon as they were physically able, and favoring sons over daughters. Some attribute this difference to the Europeans' natural resources which permitted them to consume livestock products and use draft animals. In order to keep this standard of living, they produced fewer children, which would have competed with the animals for the scarce food resources (Jones 14-15). The lack of an extended family also contributed to later marriages and fewer children among the Europeans. When all goods and lands were passed to a single heir, it was not uncommon for that heir to wait until the inheritance before marrying. Other sons would go out to "make their fortune" before they would marry. The Europeans even went so far as to legislate marriages as early as the eighteenth century. Those seeking to marry had to obtain approval from the local authorities, who effectively withheld it from poorer inhabita

Some topics in this essay:
Germany Britain, Rosenberg Birdzell, Asia Europe, England Peasants, Exeter Four-wheel, Scotland England, German Empire, Orient India, Henry Portugal, Liverpool Birmingham, industrial revolution, human capital, human capital stock, capital stock, rosenberg birdzell, fewer children, percent population, barker 45, natural resources, nineteenth century, china india, industrial revolution europe, industrial revolution occurred, maximize human capital, account industrial revolution,