Description-

According to the original sector classification of Jean Fourastié, an economy consists of a "Primary sector" of commodity production (farming, livestock breeding, exploitation of mineral resources), a "secondary sector" of manufacturing and processing (as paid work), and a "Tertiary Sector" of service industries. The industrialisation process is historically based on the expansion of the secondary sector in an economy dominated by primary activities.

The first transformation to an industrial economy from an agricultural one is called the Industrial Revolution and took place from the mid 18th to early 19th century in certain areas in Western Europe and North America, starting in Great Britain Derby, followed by Germany, f.i.Bergisches Land and France. This now is called the first industrial revolution.

The Second Industrial Revolution describes the later changes that came about in the mid 19th century after the invention of steam engine,internal combustion engine, electricity and the construction of canals, railways and electric power lines. The invention of the assembly line ave this phase a boost. The lack of an industrial sector in a country can be a handicap in improving the country's economy and power, so governments encourage or enforce industrialisation. On the other hand, the presence of industry in a country does not mean in general that it will bring wealth and prosperity to the people of that country. And third, the presence of an industry in one country can make it more difficult for other countries to develop the same type of industry. This can be seen in the computer- software-, and internet industries. Started from the U.S.A. around the 1990's these industries seemed to spread over the world. But after a period of monopolisation less than a decade long, the globally leading companies are concentrated in the U.S.A. Their economic power and capacity to dominate the media work against the developing of the same types of industry in other states.

History Of Industrialization-

Most pre-industrial economies had standards of living not much above subsistence, among that the majority of the population were focused on producing their means of survival. For example, in medieval Europe, 80% of the labour force was employed in subsistenceagriculture.

Some pre-industrial economies, such as classical Athens, had trade and commerce as significant factors, so native Greeks could enjoy wealth far beyond a sustenance standard of living through the use of slavery. Famines were frequent in most pre-industrial societies, although some, such as the Netherlands and England of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Italian city states of the fifteenth century, the medieval Islamic Caliphate, and the ancient Greek and Roman civilisations were able to escape the famine cycle through increasing trade and commercialisation of the agricultural sector. It is estimated that during the seventeenth century Netherlands imported nearly 70% of its grain supply and in the fifth century BC Athens imported three quarters of its total food supply.

Industrialisation through innovation in manufacturing processes first started with the Industrial Revolution in the north-west and Midlands of England in the eighteenth century. It spread to Europe and North America in the nineteenth

 

Industrial revolution in Western Europe-

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the United Kingdom experienced a massive increase in agricultural productivity known as the British Agricultural Revolution, which enabled an unprecedented population growth, freeing a significant percentage of the workforce from farming, and helping to drive the Industrial Revolution.

Due to the limited amount of arable land and the overwhelming efficiency of mechanised farming, the increased population could not be dedicated to agriculture. New agricultural techniques allowed a single peasant to feed more workers than previously; however, these techniques also increased the demand for machines and other hardwares, which had traditionally been provided by the urban artisans. Artisans, collectively called bourgeoisie, employed rural exodus workers to increase their output and meet the country's needs.

The growth of their business coupled with the lack of experience of the new workers pushed a rationalisation and standardisation of the duties the in workshops, thus leading to a division of labour, that is, a primitive form of Fordism. The process of creating a good was divided into simple tasks, each one of them being gradually mechanised in order to boost productivity and thus increase income.

The accumulation of capital allowed investments in the conception and application of new technologies, enabling the industrialisation process to continue to evolve. The industrialisation process formed a class of industrial workers who had more money to spend than their agricultural cousins. They spent this on items such as tobacco and sugar, creating new mass markets that stimulated more investment as merchants sought to exploit them.

The mechanisation of production spread to the countries surrounding England in western and northern Europe and to British settler colonies, helping to make those areas the wealthiest, and shaping what is now known as the Western world. Some economic historians argue that the possession of so-called ‘exploitation colonies’ eased the accumulation of capital to the countries that possessed them, speeding up their development. The consequence was that the subject country integrated a bigger economic system in a subaltern position, emulating the countryside, which demands manufactured goods and offers raw materials, while the colonial power stressed its urban posture, providing goods and importing food. A classical example of this mechanism is said to be the triangular trade, which involved England, southern United States and western Africa. Critics argue that this polarity still affects the world, and has deeply retarded industrialization of what is now known as the Third World.

Some have stressed the importance of natural or financial resources that Britainreceived from its many overseas colonies or that profits from the British slave trade between Africa and the Caribbean helped fuel industrial investment.

 

Early industrialization in other countries-

After the Convention of Kanagawa issued by Commodore Matthew C. Perry forced Japan to open the ports of Shimoda and Hakodate to American trade, the Japanese government realised that drastic reforms were necessary to stave off Western influence. The Tokugawa shogunate abolished the feudal system. The government instituted military reforms to modernise the Japanese army and also constructed the base for industrialisation. In the 1870s, the Meiji government vigorously promoted technological and industrial development that eventually changed Japan to a powerful modern country.

In a similar way, Russia suffered during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. The Soviet Union's centrally controlled economydecided to invest a big part of its resources to enhance its industrial production and infrastructures to assure its survival, thus becoming a world superpower.

During the Cold war, the other European socialist countries, organised under the Comecon framework, followed the same developing scheme, albeit with a less emphasis on heavy industry.

Southern European countries such as Spain or Italy saw a moderate industrialisation during the 1950s-1970s, caused by a healthy integration of the European economy, though their level of development, as well as those of eastern countries, does not match the western standards.

 

The Third World-

A similar state-led developing programme was pursued in virtually all the Third World countries during the Cold War, including the socialist ones, but especially in Sub-Saharan Africa after the decolonisation period. The primary scope of those projects was to achieveself-sufficiency through the local production of previously imported goods, the mechanisation of agriculture and the spread of education and health care. However, all those experiences failed bitterly due to a lack of realism: most countries did not have a pre-industrial bourgeoisie able to carry on a capitalistic development or even a stable and peaceful state. Those aborted experiences left huge debts toward western countries and fuelled public corruption.

 

Petrol-producing countries-

Oil-rich countries saw similar failures in their economic choices. An EIA report stated that OPEC member nations were projected to earn a net amount of $1.251 trillion in 2008 from their oil exports. Because oil is both important and expensive, regions that had big reserves of oil ad huge liquidity incomes. However, this was rarely followed by economic development. Experience shows that local elites were unable to re-invest the petrodollars obtained through oil export, and currency is wasted in luxury goods.

This is particularly evident in the Persian Gulf states, where the per capita income is comparable to those of western nations, but where no industrialisation has started. Apart from two little countries (Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates), Arab states have not diversified their economies, and no replacement for the upcoming end of oil reserves is envisaged.

 

Industrialization in Asia-

Apart from Japan, where industrialisation began in the late 19th century, a different pattern of industrialisation followed in East Asia. One of the fastest rates of industrialisation occurred in the late 20th century across four countries known as the Asian tigers thanks to the existence of stable governments and well structured societies, strategic locations, heavy foreign investments, a low cost skilled and motivated workforce, a competitive exchange rate, and low custom duties.

In the case of South Korea, the largest of the four Asian tigers, a very fast paced industrialisation took place as it quickly moved away from the manufacturing of value added goods in the 1950s and 60s into the more advanced steel, shipbuilding and automobile industry in the 1970s and 80s, focusing on the high-tech and service industry in the 1990s and 2000s. As a result, South Koreabecame a major economic power.

This starting model was afterwards successfully copied in other larger Eastern and Southern Asian countries, including communist ones. The success of this phenomenon led to a huge wave of offshoring – i.e., Western factories or Tertiary Sector corporations choosing to move their activities to countries where the workforce was less expensive and less collectively organised.

China and India, while roughly following this development pattern, made adaptations in line with their own histories and cultures, their major size and importance in the world, and the geo-political ambitions of their governments (etc.).

Currently, China's government is actively investing in expanding its own infrastructures and securing the required energy and raw materials supply channels, is supporting its exports by financing the United States balance payment deficit through the purchase of US treasury bonds, and is strengthening its military in order to endorse a major geopolitical role.

Meanwhile, India's government is investing in economic sectors such as bioengineering, nuclear technology, pharmaceutics, informatics, and technologically-oriented higher education, exceeding its needs, with the goal of creating several specialisation poles able to conquer foreign markets.

Both China and India, particularly the Chinese, have also started to make significant investments in other developing countries, making them significant players in today's world economy.

 

Newly industrialised countries-

In recent decades, a few countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, such as Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia, Philippines, Mexico, Costa Rica, and El Salvador have experienced substantial industrial growth, fueled by exporting to countries that have bigger economies: the United States, China, India and the EU. They are sometimes called newly industrialized countries.

Despite this trend being artificially influenced by the oil price increases since 2003, the phenomenon is not entirely new nor totally speculative (for instance see: Maquiladora).

Western industrialization meant increasing western military and economic pressure in the form of rising imperialism. However there were two significant exceptions to this western pattern in Russia and Japan, who did not produce this new western society. In these two nations there was a noticeable difference from the United States and Australia, who were already very well established within these prior cultures. The responses of Russia and Australia did however make them into expanding and aggressive nations by the end of the 19th century. Neither generated a huge amount of change in the early 19th century. 

Japan and Russia both were successful in the fact that they imitated many other societies giving them flexibility. Yet they both had very little in common before the 19th century. Japan was isolated from the world with its ongoing traditions and forms of centralized government. Russia featured a more strong centralized government under the emperor. Both would soon to discover that westernization and industrialism were expanding and their own ways would not hold up against the new changing world of industrialization. In the late 19th century the force for them to being industrializing would become even more prevalent for the success of their nation in this new growing societies.

Social & Environmental Consequences-

The concentration of labour into factories has brought about the rise of large towns to serve and house the factory workers. Urbanisation  is the physical growth of urban areas as a result of global change. Urbanization is also defined by the United Nations as movement of people from rural to urban areas with population growth equating to urban migration. The United Nations projected that half of the world's population would live in urban areas at the end of 2008.

Urbanization is closely linked to modernization, industrialization, and the sociological process of rationalization. Urbanization can describe a specific condition at a set time, i.e. the proportion of total population or area in cities or towns, or the term can describe the increase of this proportion over time. So the term urbanization can represent the level of urban relative to overall population, or it can represent the rate at which the urban proportion is increasing.

Exploitation-

Workers have to leave their family in order to come to work in the towns and cities where the industries are found.The focus of most assertions about the existence of exploitation towards human beings is the socio-economic phenomenon where people trade their labor or allegiance to a powerful entity, such as the state, a corporation or any other private company. Some theories of exploitation (Marxist, new liberal) are structural, while others are organizational (neoclassical).

In Marxian economics, exploitation refers to the subjection of producers (the proletariat) to work for passive owners (bourgeoisie) for less compensation than is equivalent to the actual amount of work done. The proletarian is forced to sell his or her labour power, rather than a set quantity of labour, in order to receive a wage in order to survive, while the capitalist exploits the work performed by the proletarian by accumulating the surplus value of their labour. Therefore, the capitalist makes his/her living by passively owning the means of production and generating a profit, which is really the product of the labor which is entitled to all it produces.

The kinds of exploitation described by other theories (see further below) are usually called "super-exploitation"—exploitation that goes beyond the normal standards of exploitation prevalent in capitalist society. While other theories emphasize the exploitation of one individual by an organization (or vice versa), the Marxist theory is primarily concerned with the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another. This kind of exploitation is seen as being an inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets. In fact, in Das Kapital,Karl Marx typically assumed the existence of purely competitive markets. In general, it is argued that the greater the "freedom" of the market, the greater the power of capital, and the greater the scale of exploitation. The perceived problem is with the structural context in which free markets operate (detailed below). The proposed solution is the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by a better, non-exploitative, system of production and distribution (first socialism, and then, after a certain period of time, communism).

Because of these human-made institutions, workers have little or no choice but to pay the capitalists surplus-value (profits, interest, and rent) in exchange for their survival. They enter the realm of production, where they produce commodities, which allow their employers to realizethat surplus-value as profit. They are always threatened by the "reserve army of the unemployed". In brief, the profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value product of their labor. For more on this view, see the discussion of the labor theory of value.

Some Marxian theories of imperialism extend this kind of structural theory of exploitation further, positing exploitation of poor countries by rich capitalist ones (or by transnational corporations). Some Marxist-feminists use a Marxian-style theory to understand relations of exploitation under patriarchy, while others see a kind of exploitation analogous to the Marxian sort as existing under institutional racism.

Neoclassical theories-

In neoclassical economics, exploitation is organizational, explained using microeconomic theory. It is a kind of market failure, a deviation from the abstraction of perfect competition. The most common scenario is a monopsony or a monopoly. These exploiters have bargaining power. This kind of exploitation is supposed to be abolished by the spread of competition and markets.

Other neoclassical theories go beyond simple organizational exploitation. First, another type of exploiter is the hired "agent" (employee) who takes advantage of the "principal" (employer) who hires him or her, under conditions of asymmetric information (see the principal-agent problem). For example, a clerk may be able to "shirk" on the job, secretly violating the labor contract. Similarly, an executive may embezzle funds, which is also contrary to the interests of the stockholders. This kind of exploitation is beyond the scope of markets, within corporate or governmental bureaucratic organizations. It is often extremely hard to solve using competition and markets but is instead addressed using monitoring of employees and management, risk-sharing agreements, bonding, and the like.

New liberal theories-

For others, i.e., a number of "new liberals", exploitation naturally coexists with free markets. As in the Marxist theory, the problem is structural rather than organizational: given its special position in society (controlling an important asset), a lobby group can shift the distribution of income in its direction, impoverishing the rest, even though their role serves no reasonable purpose. While Henry George pointed to land-owners, John Maynard Keynes saw rentiers (non-working owners of financial wealth) as fitting this picture. The first receive land-rent while the second receive interest, even though, according to the proponents of this theory, they contribute nothing to society. They merely own a certain asset and have the ability to make money from that asset without actually doing any work themselves. While George argued for a "single tax" on land-rent to solve this problem, Keynes hoped that interest rates could be driven to zero.

In some ways, these theories are similar to the Marxist one discussed above. However, they deal with the power and influence of special interests in society (and within the capitalist class) rather than dealing with a structural difference in class position of the Marxian sort. Further, while Marx saw exploitation as raising the total amount of production in capitalist society, in these theories exploitation represents a form of waste or inefficiency, hurting growth under capitalism. Therefore, according to this view, abolishing rent or interest would make everyone ultimately better off.

Change to family structure-

The family structure changes with industrialisation. The sociologist Talcott Parsons noted that in pre-industrial societies there is an extended family structure spanning many generations who probably remained in the same location for generations. In industrialised societies the nuclear family, consisting of only of parents and their growing children, predominates. Families and children reaching adulthood are more mobile and tend to relocate to where jobs exist. Extended family bonds become more tenuous. 

Environment-

Industrialisation has spawned its own health problems. Modern stressors include noise, air, water pollution, poor nutrition, dangerous machinery, impersonal work, isolation, poverty, homelessness, and substance abuse. Health problems in industrial nations are as much caused by economic, social, political, and cultural factors as by pathogens. Industrialisation has become a major medical issue world wide.

Countries, such as the United States and China are now looking at ways to manage emissions being let off. China, being one of the fastest growing industrialized countries, releases emissions at a much more rapid rate than any other country. They are burning more fossil fuels and discharge more Carbon emissions. With China’s substantial industrialized growth, it is likely that we will see more cars on the road, letting of greater emissions. As more countries begin to develop, the pollution only gets larger, making it harder to improve the air. On one hand, as the economy rises, so does the amount of fossil fuels being burned daily. On the other hand, there is still the question of whether or not economic development could even happen while protecting the atmosphere. The main problem is that developed countries are competing instead of working together. Even if the countries do work together, there is still not enough participation among other countries to do any drastic change. Countries now need to agree on a low emission standard to cease the competition.‘’

Current Situation-

China in 2010 became the worlds largest manufacturer, ending the United Statesrun for over a century, the value of China manufacturing output in 2010 was $1.995 Trillion Dollars or 19.8% of the worldwide total, edging out the United States which accounted for 19.4% worth $1.952 Trillion Dollars.

Currently the "international development community" (World Bank, OECD, many United Nations departments, and some other organisations)[endorses development policies like water purification or primary education. The community does not recognise traditional industrialisation policies as being adequate to the Third World or beneficial in the longer term, with the perception that it could only create inefficient local industries unable to compete in the free-trade dominated political order which it has erected.

The relationship between economic growth, employment and poverty reduction is complex. Higher productivity is argued to be leading to lower employment (seejobless recovery). There are differences across sectors, whereby manufacturing is less able that the tertiary sector to accommodate both increased productivity and employment opportunities; over 40% of the world's employees are "working poor" whose incomes fail to keep themselves and their families above the $2 a day poverty line. There is also a phenomenon ofdeindustrialisation, such as in the former USSR countries' transition to market economies, and the agriculture sector often is the key sector in absorbing the resultant unemployment.