revolution

Role of Women in the American Revolution The role of women played in any given war is quite often severely underestimated. This sentiment especially goes for the American Revolutionary War, where women actually played an absolutely essential role in our victory against the British. Not only where there different types of women who had helped, but there were many different ways each of them helped–particularly as nurses to help save lives and tend to injured soldiers. Without women helping in the war, we would have most certainly lost (National History Education Clearinghouse).

One way that women helped out in the war was that they went directly to the source–by dressing up as men and going to fight in the front lines, women (e. g. Deborah Samson) were able to help America emerge victorious (“People of the Revolution”). Some women fought in a more subtle manner, by keeping house back home and tending to their husband’s businesses while they were at war (Zitek). They boycotted British products by participating in the Homespun Movement, where they wove their own clothing rather than wearing British-imported dresses, which served as a major act of bold defiance.

Other women even acted as spies (e. g. Lydia Darragh in 1777, who eavesdropped on quartered British soldiers and relayed their plans of attack to the American patriots) during the war, helping the patriots win. (“www. revolutionary-war. net”). Different types of women also participated in the Revolutionary War. Patriotic women boycotted against British products, helped care for their husband’s property on the home front, and had even spied on British soldiers (“www. revolutionary-war. net”).

However, loyalist women also played a role in counteracting these efforts. Loyalists as well as patriots acted as spies (e. g. Ann Bates, Miss Jenny) and in general posed as an obstacle for the patriotic women (Buesche). As for Native-Americans, Native-American women supported the British, as they knew that a patriotic win would result in further westward expansion and further destruction of their homes. African-American women were pushed into the workforce as blacks in general were recognized as a powerful labor-intensive force (Zitek).

In addition to all the roles patriotic women played in helping America emerge victorious, one of the biggest methods was nursing. Battle nurses were organized into army ranks, the highest rank having been ‘matron’. Their necessity was so that the ratio for wounded soldiers to nurses was 10:1. Even George Washington himself had found female nurses indispensable–he demanded they be present to help nurse soldiers back to health on and off the battlefield (National History Education Clearinghouse). Overall, women were an integral and vital part of the Revolutionary War.

While few fought on the front lines, others helped in more subtle ways that showed rebellion and helped edge the USA towards long-awaited victory. Men thought women were incapable of understanding the intricacies of war and were proven incorrect time and time again. Whether through spying, healing, or fighting, without women, Britain most certainly would’ve overpowered America in the Revolutionary War. Citations Buesche, John. “Spy in a Petticoat. ” Teaching History. National History Organization Clearinghouse, n. d. Web. 24 May 2012. Buesche) National History Education Clearinghouse, Browse tech for teachers. N. p. , n. d. Web. 24 May 2012. . (National History Education Clearinghouse) People of the revolution, P.. “Voices of the American Revolution. ” Deborah Sampson. N. p. , n. d. Web. 24 May 2012. . (“People of the Revolution”) “Revolutionary War Spies. ” www. revolutionary-war. net. Rose Creek Village, 2010. Web. 24 May 2012. . (“www. revolutionary-war. net”) Zitek, C.. “Women in the American Revolution. ” . N. p. , n. d. Web. 24 May 2012. . (Zitek)

Joseph Lister’s

Revolutionary Antiseptic Technique

Kundhavaidevi Balamurugan

AH 9 Block 13-3-2018

It was October 26, 1877 in King’s College and a boy had fractured his patella, or kneecap. A few decades ago doctors would have deemed his case of hopeless, advising him to amputate. But it was 1877– the height of surgical advancements!– and there was an alternative option– wiring his patella was proposed.

Wiring his patella entailed a deliberate conversion of a simple fracture into a compound fracture, which were often associated with infection and even death. The procedure itself was deemed preposterous by the public and other medical professionals, receiving harsh criticism. The boy would surely die of infection.

But his doctor remained confident in his procedure. The doctor had invented antiseptic technique, which would prevent contamination of the surgical equipment and infection of the wound. He used carbolic acid to create antiseptic conditions to perform the surgery. The conditions made the surgery was a success!

The surgeon to perform this controversial surgery was Joseph Lister, an innovative and influential surgeon. His creation of antiseptic treatment, based off of germ theory, was the influential innovation surgical history. It had revolutionized surgery, allowing complex surgeries to be performed, lowering mortality rates and increasing the safety of procedures.

Joseph Lister, Baron Lister of Lyme Regis was born on April 5, 1827 in Upton, Essex, England. He was the son of Joseph Jackson Lister and Isabelle Harris. Both his father and his mother took an active part in his education, teaching him natural history and how to use a microscope. He received formal schooling in two Quaker schools which emphasized science and natural history.

By age 16, Joseph Lister decided he wanted to pursue a career in the medical field-specifically to become a surgeon. He attended the University College in London and became House Surgeon at University College Hospital in 1856, after receiving a Bachelor of Honors with Medicine in October 1852.

He got his fellowship in Royal College of Surgeons and studied under James Syme, a renowned surgeon in Edinburgh. He later becomes Syme’s son-in-law after marrying his daughter, Agnes Syme.In his early years as a surgeon, he researched inflammation, which was considered a specific disease at the time. He studied the microscopic healing of wounds, specifically the mechanism of coagulation of blood and blood vessels during the first stages of inflammation.

This served as a background to his work in wound dressing and his development of antiseptic treatment.He worked as a dresser for Sir Erichsen, a physician that believed that wounds become infected due to bad air. The miasma theory claimed that concentrated bad air can infect the wound. But in dressing the wounds, he had realized that when wounds were cleaned, some had healed. Early in his career he had not believed in miasma, a popular theory of the time in the medical field.He was appointed Regius Professor of Surgery at the University of Glasgow at the age of 33, in August 1861.

Though he was a professor, he did not attain Glasgow Royal Infirmary privileges till a year later, his request initially denied. He became in charge of the Male Accident Ward, a new surgical block.Many patients in the Male Accident Ward suffered compound fractures, which was commonly treated with amputation. Lister observed that 45 to 50 percent of amputation patients died from sepsis between 1861 and 1865. Later he read Louis Pasteur’s paper on germ theory, a theory that stated microorganisms cause infection.

Lister hypothesized that the same process that caused fermentation was also involved in wound sepsis. He postulated that sepsis was caused by pollen-like dust. He believed the only mode of contamination was by air. To disinfect wounds, he applied carbolic acid, which was commonly used to disinfect sewage at the time. He sprayed carbolic acid in the air, onto the equipment, and onto the wound to disinfect and prevent infection or contamination.

He used this method on the the patients of his ward for several years. Using phenol as an antiseptic reduced the mortality rate of the Male Accident Ward to 15 percent in 4 years.His practice was very different than of his peers. Others in the medical field did not wash bed linens and lab coats, using the same equipment for patients.They had believed that infection and contamination was caused by “bad air, as the miasma theory entailed, and hence did not see the reason for sterile equipment and techniques.

As a result when he published two papers on antiseptic technique on the Lancet in March and July 1967, his colleagues criticized his methods. The source of doubt was because the microorganisms were not visible to the naked eye, and hence did not exist. His work was misunderstood and his colleagues demanded proof. He altered the administration of the carbolic acid, spraying it now with a machine he called a donkey engine.

The donkey engine increased efficiency of the application of carbolic acid. He increasingly used this method on surgeries and the results were positive. Patients approved of his methods. Germany, the United States, and eventually Great Britain accepted and adopted his approach to antiseptic technique.

In 1871, he operated on Queen Victoria, who had a large abscess on her armpit. Lister lanced the abscess with a sharp tool, drained the pus, dressed the wound, and treated it with carbolic acid. The queen approved of Lister’s methods involving carbolic acid. This nod of approval from the queen of the United Kingdom encouraged his peers in the medical field to accept antiseptic technique.

Though his technique was not accepted during a majority of his lifetime, antiseptic treatment revolutionized surgical procedures. Infection and contamination of the wounds was less common. Surgery was no longer dangerous, lowering mortality rates and increasing success rates. It is quite a feat to dispute a widely popular medical theory and to continue practicing though his colleagues ridiculed his technique.

He was creative, too, using phenol, a carbolic acid used to disinfect sewage, to dress wounds. His work revolutionized medicine, a field that is slow to change. Though his techniques are no longer used, it served as the gateway to develop better antiseptic and aseptic techniques. His ability to be nonconformist to popular belief and create antiseptic technique was the most innovative occurence of the 20th century.10 Intriguing Facts About Joseph Lister. (2017, September 12).

Retrieved

• March 01, 2018, from http://mentalfloss.com/article/503311/10-intriguing-facts-about-joseph-lister
• Science Museum. Brought to Life: Exploring the History of Medicine. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2018, from http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/people/josephlister
• Pitt, D., ; Aubin, J. (2012, October). Retrieved March 01, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3468637/
• Cartwright, F. F. (2017, November 16). Joseph Lister.
• Retrieved March 01, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/
• Joseph-Lister-Baron-Lister-of-Lyme-RegisFulton, A. (2017, October 13). ‘The Butchering Art’: How A 19th Century Physician Made Surgery Safer. Retrieved March 01, 2018, from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/13/557367840/the-butchering-art-how-a-19th-century-physician-made-surgery-safer

Nadine Elsigai APUSH Ms. Shalimar November 10, 2012 FRQ The American revolution set the wheels into motion for the Women’s Rights movement, it helped shaped the lives of even today’s women. Between 1790 and 1860 the roles of women dramatically changed politically and socially, it brought on a new era for women creating a more empowered sense of womanhood opening up job opportunities and giving women a chance at equality. With the American revolution came an entirely new perspective of female ability.

A entire political world was opened up to the female population education became more common for the group of white middle class women. Changing dramatically form being souly educated for religious purposes, the demand for education for women increased it was a battle very quickly won and women slowly became more well-rounded and knowledgeable. Although women’s legal rights were still little it was becoming more evident that they were capable of more than what was previously believed.

Many new arguments arose questioning how a women trusted with the duty of shaping the future generation was ‘small minded’. Women themselves were realizing their own abilities. During the revolution they helped as much as they could using their needlework to pay off war debts, this boosted the women’s confidence many were expecting better occupations as well as voting rights. These events all led to the women’s awakening and prompted them to fight for their rights.

The revolution also prompted many social changes for women. The acts women accomplished during the revolution opened the eyes of many dramatically changing the role of women within society as a whole. Following the American revolution women went from begin the slaves of their household to becoming a more valued role within society. Women were slowly shedding the weak frail image of themselves and welcomed new responsibilities with opened arms.

In the economic revolution, Heilbroner explains what factors affect the organization of society. The first way is tradition; professions are passed down from father to son generation to generation. For example, Adam Smith says, “Every man was bound by a principle of religion to follow the occupation of his father and was supposed to commit the most sacrilege if he changed it for another” (13-14).

This system allowed for certain jobs to always be filled causing balance between occupations in society. The second way of organizing society was based on command/authoritarian. If things were not getting done, the dictator had the authority to use whatever means necessary to get tasks finished. For example, Heilbroner explains how the pyramids of Egypt and the Five Years Plans of the Soviet Union didn’t come into existence voluntarily, but because Russia and Egypt were both command societies, and they ensured economic survival through punishments dictated by the authorities.

The third method of organization and survival came “upon the development of an astonishing arrangement in which society assured its own insurance by allowing each individual to do exactly as he saw fit—provided he followed a central governing rule” (14). Thus, the market system came about. Before this idea, personal gain was non-existent because people only grew up to simply survive; work was a means to an end.

The concept of gain didn’t exist yet because the idea of a nation had not fully emerged, and the Catholic church condemned personal gain as the enemy. However, it finally started to emerge as nationalism increased, separation of secular and spiritual life came into play, businessman became valuable, and the people became eager to advance intellectually. Markets gave the meaning to means of production: land, labor, and capital.

Adam Smith contributed to the economic world by exploring the concept of self-interest and “The Invisible Hand.” The invisible hand acts a force that promotes society. He believes that not everything must be planned to be orderly; order will emerge as a consequence of the interactions of individuals. Everyone is led by an invisible hand to “promote an end which was no part of his intention” (Handout).

Smith also states how humans are selfish and no one does anything out of kindness, but they do it out of their own best interest. When trying to persuade someone, we make it seem as if it will benefit them to do us a favor. For example, Smith writes, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest” (Handout). They work to make money and benefit themselves.

Smith’s laws of self-interest and competition being the driving force of the market are also crucial to economics. Both factors ensure the market meets consumer needs. Although businesses have the freedom to charge items as they please, they cannot do so without the fear of another company swooping in to steal business.

Therefore, the market is self-regulating; one can do whatever he or she likes, but actions will have certain consequences including losing customers or workers. The competition imposes restrictions on price and quantity. Smith also discusses the Laws of Behavior: Law of Accumulation and the Law of Population. People will always want to accumulate more riches and economic prosperity, but population regulates this accumulation.

Adam Smith also talks about the bourgeoisie’s admiration of “Laissez-Faire” or “free fair.” Because they are businessmen with lives centered around money, they believe the government shouldn’t interfere in business relations but only in safety aspects. Due to this, Smith worries that the working class will be taken advantage of.

Although republicans love Adam Smith, he himself disliked capitalists because they lead to monopolies which were the market’s biggest enemy. Monopolies undermine competition which is necessary to regulate the market. Smith thought the government shouldn’t be pro-business but should strive to be pro-market. To accomplish this, business men shouldn’t be in charge because they will look out for themselves rather than society.

Thomas Malthus was another idolized economist that built on the workings of Adam Smith. He believed humanity will eventually outstrip natural resources because population will outnumber everyday things such as land and water. Therefore, overpopulation would be the prime factor negatively affecting the prosperity of the system. On the other hand, Ricardo disagreed with Smith’s philosophy on the basis that humans cannot harmoniously work together.

For example, Heilbroner writes, “Society to Adam Smith was a great family; to Ricardo, it was an internally divided camp” (47). He compared the world to an escalator; people are ruthlessly fighting to get to the top as they kick others back down. This introduced the idea of class mentality. His main contribution was “abstract mentality” where there is no feelings or humanity in his works. While Smith believed in finite progress, Malthus and Ricardo saw infinite progress and evolution.

The German scholar, Karl Marx, stated that Capitalism is destined to fail. His two main reasons for this were the rebellion of the proletariat class and concept of surplus value. In Marx’s world, child labor was extensive to the point where kids were tortured. This was a result of Capitalism because the bourgeoisie made everything money oriented. Marx writes how the bourgeoisie have “torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors,” and has left no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment'” (Handout).

Regarding surplus value, people are being exploited to work more than they get paid for. In big C Capitalism, the price of something equals the labor put in. However, this system is flawed because there is no profit resulting in no incentive to work. Therefore, this is not how Capitalism works today because people are exploited to make money. He predicts both of these problems will lead to the fall of Capitalism. Another one of his greatest ideas is “Dialectical Materialism.”

He believed that although ideas shape the world, the world also shapes the ideas; reality affects our ideas and vice versa. Things are always evolving around society’s superstructure: Capitalism. Another aspect of Dialectical Materialism is finding the moderation between two things.

For example, the moderation between Capitalism and Communism is Socialism. Marx is well known for his laws of motion as well. These laws discuss the following: constant need for innovation, incessant need for new techniques, the business cycle going into depression, huge corporations such as Amazon and Disney coming into play, and the idea of small businesses dying.

Most of Europe thought that the British with their immense amount of capital, soldiers and supplies would beat the American resistance in the American revolutionary war without much of an effort. However the Patriots realized, from their earliest difficulties, to capitalize on the enemys weaknesses. Guerrilla warfare and a strategy that emanated from the ability to manipulate events to their own benefit enabled the Americans to defeat the ostensibly more powerful British. The Americans suffered great abuse from their mother country.

The British laid upon the Americans heavy taxes between the years 1764 to the middle of 1776. They created such taxes in the Sugar Act, Townshend Act, Tea Act, the Intolerable Acts and many other acts. These acts over the course of the years destroyed much of the faith that Americans had in the British government. The greater portion of the population thought the British were inadequate rulers and that they could do a much better job in ruling themselves. The Americans were tired of the Quartering Act which let British troops be housed in their own homes.

They didnt enjoy housing British troops so that their families could be spied upon or have their children raped. The least the Americans thought they deserved was the right to have a representation in Parliament and the right to settle the land over the Appalachian Mountains. If the farmers could have more land to work on, the Americans could have a surplus of food to ship to other countries creating a better economy for the American people. Over the course of about twenty-five years the Americans sent over 500 bills to the British House Of Trade trying to repeal the economic acts that Britain laid down upon them.

The Americans also tried to convince the British to let them have the ability to trade with other countries. If the British would have allowed this the common people of American would have been doing better economically; the percent of poor people would have been lowered greatly and the average income would have gone up a great deal. The reason it would have gone up so much is that Britain controlled the prices of products. The British decided how much they would buy a product for from the Americans and charge them two or three times as much to buy it back.

All the American people really wanted was to be treated properly. As Thomas Paine said in Common Sense the British treated the Americans like an abusive mother would treat her child. Due to the economic hardships the Americans suffered they knew that they were going to face many problems in the war. The Americans knew that the British had a larger supply of men ranging from more experienced generals to more soldiers. The British had such a surplus of income from all of their colonies that they were able hire and supply mercenaries from Germany to come and fight in America.

They had a stronger navy and a lot more artillery than the Americans had. The Americans faced many other disadvantages such as lack of guns, ammunition, food, clothing, and most of all they were heavily outnumbered by men. The British had most advantages except for three main things. The first of all the British had a harder time setting up their supply line because they were so far away from any major base. Their main head quarters was on Long Island. The British had a difficult time setting up a supply line outside of New York and New Jersey to feed, clothe, and keep in contact with their men.

The second disadvantage was that the American generals knew the land and terrain where they were fighting a lot better then the British generals did. The American Generals knew how to deal with certain weather issues and turned it to their advantage. The Americans could plan out strategies based on land and terrain rather than sheer numbers, which is how the British tried to deal with the patriots. The third and probably one of the most important British disadvantages that they faced was that the Patriots had more desire to win.

The soldiers knew that they were defending their land, their families, and they were protecting their desires. The British soldiers were fighting for what most of them considered to be nothing. Most of the British soldiers were tired of fighting in America and wanted to go home and see their families or create and have a family. The Americans at the beginning of the war tried a certain style of warfare known as Jomini warfare. The two enemies would decide when to have a battle and attack each other. The two enemies would charge at each other, shoot and hope that the basic strategy that was planned at the beginning would hold out.

Much less strategy was used and involved in a battle such as this. The only problem with this style of warfare for the Americans was that in certain battles the British sometimes outnumbered them four to one. One such battle that proved that the Americans could not beat the British using European warfare was in the Battle of Brandywine. Washington was trying to keep the British from overtaking Philadelphia and at least give the Continental Congress time to leave Philadelphia before they were attacked. Washington with a force of 11,000 men thought he could take on General Howe.

Howe divided his army and over took Washington with a flanking maneuver and forced Washington to retreat. Washington had lost about a thousand men. This battle proved to Washington how he needed a strategy that would not have them going into a man to man combat situation where numbers were the main deciding factor. He tried to overtake General Howe at Germantown in fog by sending half of his army to the backside of the town and half to the front side of the town. The army failed to move properly so Washington lost the battle of Germantown but it prevented Howe not to have another assault on Philadelphia that year.

Even though Washington lost this battle it was a victory for him personally as a commander and for the army. It proved to the Americans how they could not face the British in direct man to man combat and forced them to form new methods to fight the British so that they could survive. The Americans created new strategies in order to overcome their enemies and capitalize on their weaknesses. The native people coined this new strategy called guerrilla warfare. The basis of this style of warfare is to quickly attack your enemy and run away.

The Americans carefully selected their battleground and time of attack as much as possible in guerrilla warfare so that they could have every advantage possible so that they could have a chance to win. Two such instances where the time of day and choice of terrain were the complete reasons for British defeat were at Stony Point and at Paulus Hook. The battle at Stony Point took place on the night of July fifteenth and ended the morning of July sixteenth. Washington assigned Mad Anthony Wayne to this attack. Wayne had 1,350 men that were given to him for this attack.

He set his men in two tight lines and marched towards the fort in and camouflaged by the night darkness. The first men to raid the fort attacked with their bayonets. The British fort soon went into chaos and surrendered very quickly. In total this battle cost the Americans 15 lives, they killed 63 British soldiers, and General Clinton was forced to surrender the fort to the Americans. Another battle that was won by time of day and terrain was in Paulus Hook, New Jersey. Harry Lee took a small squad and attacked the 200 men post. He attacked at dawn and caught the British completely off guard and shocked them.

He killed or captured almost everybody at the fort. He retreated with everyone within two hours of the attack to make sure no British reinforcements arrived. There were many different guerilla warfare styles and strategies over the course of the revolutionary war. One such strategy was to have two rows of riflemen fire and then run away. The British would then try to catch them and the troops would be lead into a trap waiting for them. Two of the best, and most successful, uses of this strategy were at the Battle of Cowpens and the Battle at Guilford Court.

The Battle of Cowpens physically took place on January 17 but was set up between January 2,1781 and the day of the actual battle on January 17. The battle of Cowpens was a major battle of the war against the British for conquest as much as morals. Previous to the battle General Greene had separated his army of about 1,700 into two divisions. His army would have 1,100 and General Morgan would have about 600 men. General Cornwallis thought this to be a very foolish move and sent out Banastre Trarleton, one of the most fearsome British officers with 1,100 men.

Morgan knew he would lose against Trarleton at his present so he traveled to Cowpens South Carolina to wait for the onslaught that they knew was coming. On the way to Cowpens Morgan picked up enough men to almost evenly match the British man for man. He knew that Trarleton would attack frontally so he prepared a strategy that would be able to handle it. He knew and planned on the fact that his militia would retreat at first sign of charge so he laid out a strategy that would take this into account. He had his militia stand in two rows. All of the militia that were in the rows were instructed to fire twice and leave.

This strategy worked better then Morgan could have ever planned. His two rows of men, totaling about 400 men knocked back and completely destroyed the first British charge and then the militia retreated. Leaving his other men to charge at the British, General Morgan completely humiliated Trarleton. Morgan had killed or captured more than three fourths of his force. Trarleton had only escaped with 140 horsemen. The same strategy was implemented at the battle at Guilford Court. British General Cornwallis wanted revenge on General Morgan for what he did to the British at Cowpens.

So Cornwallis had his army of 2,500 men trail General Morgans army who chose to go north after their victory and rejoin with General Greenes army. He trailed their army for nearly two months and after losing at least 500 men trailing Morgan and Greene, he decided to go in a complete circle back to Hillsborough. There General Nathan Greene was waiting for him. He had applied their previous strategy in the battle at Cowpens to this battle. General Greene started with 2,000 men after the Battle at Cowpens and had increased his numbers up to over 4,500 men.

He decided to place a good number of his militia in two forward lines and the continental part of his army in a third row. He called Colonel Washington to protect his left flank and Light Horse Harry Lee to protect his right flank. After the quick attack Greene decided to leave and not pursue a fight. He knew that the losses that they would have suffered would not have been worth the fight but during this battle they killed about 300 British troops. This battle at Guilford Court caused Cornwallis to retreat all the way back to Wilmington and then to Virginia where the demise of the British was.

Another reason the Americans won certain battles over the British army was that the British did not take the American resistance with total seriousness causing them to do some stupid things do to poor judgement. One example of a battle when the British lost due to their stupidity was in the Battle at Bennington. The British were heading towards Vermont to obtain horses, food, and other supplies to aid the German mercenaries who had been without horses for a great length of time. Lieutenant Colonel Fredrich Baum was instructed not to risk heavy losses but to scare and despoil the Vermonters.

Baum left his camp with about 700 men and two cannons, which was thought to be more than enough to fight any small resistance that they might face. His first defiance of his orders was when Baum encountered a force of 200 men sent by Brigadier General John Stark. After the battle he was informed that these men were part of a militia force gathering at Bennington. He decided to press towards Bennington and destroy the force, even though it went against his orders again. Baum then marched towards Bennington.

On his way there Baum saw two contingents of men going towards his rear and presumed that they were Tories that were going to flank the enemy and didnt give them a second thought after seeing them. When Baum approached Bennington, Stark order his men in front to charge, at the same time the two contingents of men already behind Baum also attack him and Baum was massacred. If Baum had taken any care as to even think of the contingents traveling behind him he could have possibly beaten the Americans at Bennington. But because of his disobedience of orders and his ignorance he lost the battle.

The British, with all their money, men, supplies, and power couldnt overcome what little the Americans had. The Patriots realized, from their earliest difficulties, to capitalize on the enemys weakness. The Americans devised new tactics to overcome the British in their traditional Jomini style of warfare. The Americans used all that they possibly had to beat British. What drove the Americans to create these new strategies, though, was their desire; their desire to overcome the British is what gave the colonial fighters their true advantage during the American Revolutionary War.

The chapter I am going to review is from the book “A farewell to Alms”. It discusses the divide between rich and poor nations that came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution in terms of the evolution of particular behaviors originating in Britain. Prior to 1790 man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations.

And the the author of this book that had mixed reviews but evaluated the book as well written and interesting is Gregory Clark a professor of economics and department hair until 2013 at the University of California The Industrial Revolution, the escape from the Malthusian trap, was a great breakthrough in human history that in many ways (higher standards of living, housing, population increase and so on) forever changed the lifestyles of millions of people. So far no one has fgured out why the Industrial Revolution was delayed until around the 1800.

Even though there are many different theories trying to solve the puzzle of the Industrial Revolution all of them face some problems and Gregory Clark tells us about the main theories and gives us is reasoning as to why explaining the Industrial Revolution is an almost impossible challenge. Since the industrial boom had such a huge impact on humanity I believe that the problem Clark is mentioning is highly important because complete knowledge of how it all began may trigger a new wave of modernizations and different transitions.

Even though I don’t agree with everything Clark says (more on that later) it is amazing how much effort he put in his book considering that he spent 20 years scanning medieval English archives to give us his ideas on the troublesome uestion my essay is about. His opinions are well argumented and even if it is hard to agree with some of them it is even harder to constructively disagree.

In my essay I will give you a brief summary of what Clark writes about and then carefully analyze it to give my personal opinion on the topic of why the Industrial Revolution happened so late even though there were economically stable countries much earlier such as ancient Babylonia and Greece As I already said, the article IVe read has some interesting points that are well rgumented and wisely asked questions like “What was different about all preindustrial societies that generated such low and faltering rates of efficiency growth?

What change to such a stable nongrowth configuration generated the Industrial Revolution? ” Clarks book adopts the view that the Industrial Revolution emerged only a millennia after the arrival of institutionally stable economies in societies because institutions themselves interacted with the changed human culture. Malthusian pressures rewarded effort and fertility limitations which facilitated modern economic growth. Clark states that all the theories offered by historians fall in to 3 major groups: Exogenous Growth Theories, Multiple Equilibrium Theories, Endogenous Growth Theories.

Exogenous Growth theories attempts to explain long-run economic growth by looking at productivity, capital accumulation, population growth, and technological progress. However Clark says two considerations suggest that these theories face almost insurmountable problems. First of all there is no sign of any improvement in the appropriability of knowledge until long after the Industrial Revolution was well nder way. Secondly there is no evidence that in the long run institutions can be a dertermining factor in the operation of economies.

The Multiple Equilibrium theories is a class of theories in which families switch from an equilibrium under which everyone has large numbers of children ( all the children get invested little time in) to one under which families have a small number of children ( all of the children get lots of attention). Endogenous growth theories holds that economic growth is primarily the result of ndogenous and not external forces. Endogenous growth theory holds that investment in human capital, innovation, and knowledge are significantcontributors to economic growth.

The theory also focuses on positive externalities and spillover effects of a knowledge-based economy which will lead to economic development. Lots if economists now think that efficient institutions promote economic growth. Well-defined property rights, freedom from expropriation, unimpeded markets, and minimal government are a common recipe for success. Clark opposing to lots of istorians does not agree that institutions are an explanation of economic growth. Clark questions the role of institutions a lot of times in his work.

He is enthusiastic about the argument that inefficient institutions cannot persist for long because everyone could gain from reforming them. Slavery and serfdom are his examples: if these institutions were inefficient then the slaves and serfs should have been able to buy out Institutionalists would respond (according to Clark) that a deal would be impractical, for the former slave owners could not collect their ’emancipation ayments’ after abolition. Only a forceful change in property rights would end serfdom or slavery.

Clarks riposte to this is that slavery in the Roman empire and serfdom in medieval England, in fact, disappeared without a social struggle. So history shows that institutions respond to market forces and do not constrain them. Hence, according to Clark, bad institutions cannot explain poor economic performance. The trouble with Clarks riposte is that his counterexamples do not make his point. Slavery in the Roman empire “ended” in the second century. Previously, it had been a brutal system of extreme work, draconian punishments, and no family life.

Given recent adjustments in the global business structured, it has become increasingly obvious that the roll of government in local, regional and international economy has to be reassessed and probably restructured (Dunning 73). The global business revolution has seen the opening up of local economies to foreign firms. Often governments have adopted national policies and practices that seek to protect the interests of large local firms. The trends in the global economy, are, however, opposed to this position taken by governments. It is commonly believed that, with the changes in the functioning of the global economy brought on by globalization and other factors, the formation of protective national industrial policy is a thing of the past and must be replaced by more liberal governmental policy practices.

Increasing globalization is probably one of the most potent forces that are calling for this revisit to the position that governments have traditional taken towards the conduct of business at home and abroad. Even though the process of globalization of the world’s economies has been going on for hundreds of years, it is only recently that a rapid acceleration in the process has become evident. This acceleration has been largely as a result of technological advances which are redefining the way business is conducted, presenting previously unheard of possibilities for global business transactions.

The most recent global change that has taken centre-stage is “the cross-border integration of production of many manufactured goods and services within the common ownership of MNEs” (Dunning 73). However, although technological change is probably the most important cause of globalization, other factors have contributed to the internationalization of business. Of note is the change in the political economy of former communist states arising from the decline of the former USSR and the revival of the market economy in these regions.

Additionally there have been considerable adjustments in the economic philosophy of a large number of developing countries. There is now a shift from protectionist economies in these regions from being inward-looking, import-substituting, foreign-investment-hostile to being outward-looking, export- promoting, foreign-investment-welcoming” (Dunning 79). As Dunning notes, this shift in the economic policies of developing states is attributed to the obvious failure of such policies to meet local demands and as such a more market friendly model, which economists have posited to be superior, has been adopted in these states. The process of globalization itself has also had an influence in forcing governments to adopt a more market-oriented model as the “inward-looking” economic policies became increasingly costly to maintain (Dunning 79).

Evidently with these shifts in the way global business is being operated there needs also to be a concurrent shift in the way governments have traditionally approached economic activity. The 1990s was the period in which government rolls in the modern economy were most scrutinized. Lenway & Murtha support the position that, since “the competitive interplay of market forces ensures economic growth”, governments should limit their roles in the economy only to “running monetary and fiscal policies and to regulating private economic activity when markets fail”(516).

While the twentieth century has witnessed governments taking an increased control in their local economies, many theorists have posited that this practice is unsustainable and goes against global business practices. Economists are arguing that a decrease in the activity of government in an attempt to control the economy is best. They posit that an analysis of the limits of the powers of the state to positively affect economic and social behavior is revealing that interventionist models of the government’s place in the economy will eventually lead to failure (Dunning 88). As a result states are either being pushed to redefine the roll of the government or they are realizing that the previous state of affairs does not work well with the new international economic regime. Some states have revisited as well as reversed their position. For others there is still a large government presence and influence over the economy.

The global economic requirements for states are for them to liberalize their economies. The completion of the Uruguay round of negotiations in the 1990s, the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1986, the political readjustments in the Soviet Union at the close of the Cold War as well as the Information Technology revolution,  have all contributed to the process of liberalization in formerly closed economies.

The advent of the WTO regime in 1995 has resulted in enormous changes to global trade policy and practice. Governmental practices of granting special advantages to local firms were one of the main issues that were addressed in the Uruguay round of negotiations which began in 1986 in Punta del Este, Uruguay and ended in Marrakech on December 15, 1993. At its completion a number of general principles that would govern the operation of the global economy were proposed. Two fundamental principles that the WTO stressed were in the areas of national treatment and MFN (most favored nation) status. The WTO instrument advocates national treatment of all firms operating within a country irrespective of their status as local or international firms. It prohibits governments from granting special favors or concessions to local firms to the exclusion of international firms. Basically local and international firms have to be treated equally.

Additionally a state is not permitted to grant special concessions to imports from another state or firm, as was the case with the British Government and their special trade agreements with former slave colonies, particularly those in the Caribbean. However, to an extent, the WTO does permit members to adopt some amount of protectionism for their domestic industries. The circumstances and conditions under which such is permitted are also stipulated. Generally, while the WTO encourages liberalization, it also permits governments to adopt measures to cushion the effects on domestic labor and local business interests (Kennedy 411).

This provision by the WTO, permitting a limited amount of government intervention, supports the position that there is still a place for national industrial policies that protect large indigenous firms. Governments, particularly those in developing countries, need to formulate protective policies to protect their local firms so that their transition to global competitiveness can be realized as smoothly as possible. On their own many indigenous firms cannot face up to the competition from giant corporations who have greater access to financial reserves.

As Lenway ; Murtha point out “… states have organizational capabilities to formulate and implement strategies that target home firms to build their international competitiveness” (516). Policy makers in countries such as China, Japan and South Korea have all acknowledged the inevitability of such governmental practices. In South Korea the industrial policy regime aims to encourage indigenous industry and has implemented a national strategy to catch up with developed countries (Lee 1998).

International firms usually possess considerable advantages over local firms. Their access to financial resources and advanced technology over and above that are available to indigenous firms gives them the competitive advantage (Croft 101). Large firms therefore use these advantages to outperform local firms (Croft 109).

Furthermore many states have entered the industrialization game relatively late. This has meant that governments have to facilitate the process of technological improvements for their large firms by intervening in one way or the other. Facilitative instruments such as subsidies and equity ownership of firms in specific economic sectors have thereby become necessary (Lenway ; Murtha 517). Direct monetary investment in indigenous firms is not unheard of in this context. Even the Chinese found it necessary to purchase directly modern machinery for some of its firms, in an effort to industrialize specific sectors.

Therefore while governments are complying with global economic regulations demanding more open and competitive policies, the change cannot be immediate. Governments have to gradually acclimatize their firms to the new global conditions by facilitating their acquisition of necessary technologies. Barring such an intervention the reduced trade tariffs that the WTO is calling for will make the large firms in developing countries very vulnerable because of their inability to compete with international firms. Nolan ; Rui agree that it is essential for governments to make some for of market intervention to support its local firms. They support that when large international companies flood weak market economies, local firms are put at a severe disadvantage and the state’s economic growth will thereby be hampered. Therefore it is necessary for governments to institute policies that seek to counter the effects of such encroachment (102).

On the other hand, some national policy principles adopted by governments attempting to protect their local firms, are unsustainable in the long run. Eventually the practice of formulating policy instruments to protect local firms will be a thing of the past. Such practices are practically frowned on in the international arena and tolerance for countries who continue to practice protectionism is slowly waning.

Since international organizations are calling for the playing field to be level and protectionist instruments to be removed, protective and exclusionist policies will have to be discarded eventually. Any government policy that aims to protect large indigenous firms must only be temporary and firms must eventually be encourage to face the competition independent of government intervention.

Many states, in an effort to become WTO compliant, have had to give up adjust some policies such as local content (requiring international firms to utilize local content in manufacturing), foreign exchange neutrality (balance between foreign exchange inflows and outflows) and trade balancing (Siddharthani 3). Essentially the playing field must eventually be leveled and firms be permitted to function in a free market economy. Only then is true competition among local and international firms possible (Nolan ; Rui 105).

Whether or not they face up to it, supporting local firms costs governments billions of dollars annually and if governments wish to stay afloat they will need to remove these policies eventually. Pressures from their population, from international organizations such as the WTO as well as the need to increase fiscal efficiency will eventually force governments to allow firms to stand on their own.

Most countries have been attempting to liberalize their economies beginning in the 1990s following the completion of the Uruguay round of negotiations. Even India has been opening up its economy since 1985. Nolan ; Rui point out a number of national industrial policies that states have traditionally adopted to protect their local firms. Among these are “extensive support from the banking sector; … protective tariff and non-tariff barriers; an independent accounting system …; permission for the establishment of internal group finance companies; the granting of import and export rights; rights to establish international joint ventures, and rights to float a share of equity on national and international stock markets”(97-98).

Another factor that is pointing to the diminishing utility of national industrial policies that support local indigenous firms over international firms is the shifting paradigm on what drives the economy. Economists have been arguing that the most efficient and sustainable way for markets to operate is in an environment with market-determined prices, open ; competitive markets and free entry for small firms, rather than big business and controlled markets. Such theorists posit that this is the only assured way to sustainable economic development for states.

Furthermore, though governments are attempting to facilitate catching up for their local large firms, it seems highly unlikely that such is truly possible given the dynamics of the global marking and the rapid changes in technology. Firms in developing countries needing to catch up will find that they are constantly in that process and may never truly become competitive (Nolan ; Rui 98). What some have proposed instead is the formation of partnerships between local and international firms. As the case of the entry of the power company AES Corporation into China demonstrates, local governments should seek to have indigenous firms complement rather than compete with international conglomerates (See Croft). As Cappellin ; Pompili points out “traditional instruments of national industrial policy, such as the financial incentives or the market regulation can not be efficiently managed at the local level” (3).

Therefore, even though it is necessary for governments to adopt protective industrial policies in order to protect their large indigenous firms, such policies cannot be allowed to operate longer than necessary. While governments have to seek to protect their national interests, they also need to comply with international regulations. Failure to abide by the WTO requirements may result in sanctions which governments cannot afford. In any case, such policy support for indigenous firms is in itself costly and therefore unsustainable. Firms have to be left on their own to either sink or float. Unfortunately, given the high competitiveness of firms on the global market, a lot of indigenous firms in developing countries will suffer. Governments, instead of attempting to support such firms must seek ways to diversify their economy.

REFERENCES

Dunning, John H. Governments, Globalization, and International Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Cappellin, Riccardo ; Tomaso Pompili. “The Borders of ‘Industrial Districts’ in an International Competitive Environment.” Paper presented at the 40th Congress of the European Regional Association Barcelona, Spain 29 August – 1 September 2000. 19 January 2007 http://www.ersa.org/ersaconfs/ersa00/pdf-ersa/pdf/375.pdf

Croft, Lena Dr. “Competing or Complementing: AES Entry into the Chinese Power Generation Market.” Asian Case Research Journal 7.1 (2003): 89-114.

Kennedy, Scott. “China’s Porous Protectionism: The Changing Political Economy of Trade Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 120.3 (November 3, 2005): 407-435.

Lee, Kwon-Hyung. “A Misunderstood Success: The Impact of Industrial Policy on the Korean car Industry.” Soas Economic Digest. 2.2 (December 1998) ProQuest Direct. The University of Phoenix, AR. 19 January 2007 http://www.soas.ac.uk/SED/Issue2-2/lee5.html

Lenway, Stefanie A., ; Thomas P. Murtha. “The State as Strategist in International Business Research.” Journal of International Business Studies 25.3 (Fall 1994): 513-535.

Nolan, Peter ; Huaichuan Rui. “Industrial Policy and Global Big Business Revolution: the Case of the Chinese Coal Industry.” Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies 2.2 (May 2004): 97-113.

Siddharthani, N.S. “Indian Industrial Policy and Global Competition.” Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University North Campus. 19 January 2007 http://hrm.iimb.ernet.in/cpp/occasional_publ/Indian%20Industrial%20Policy%20and%20Global%20Competition.pdf

;