1987; Hudson, 1989). There were many dif-
ferent routes to industrialization: in its timing,
causes and manifestation, the industrial revo-
lution varied from place to place. Much em-
phasis has been placed on the availability of
raw materials (particularly coal) in determin-
ing both the course and geography of industri-
alization (Langton, 1979; Wrigley, 1988).
Linked to this is the role of transport in facili-
tating the exploitation of mineral resources,
integrating regional economies and thus pro-
moting industrial growth. More recent ana-
lyses have highlighted the importance of a
range of sociocultural factors in which eco-
nomic processes were embedded (seecul-
tural turn). These influenced access to
credit and capital, determined labour mobility
and discipline, and shaped attitudes to entre-
preneurship (Gregory, 1990). Linked to this,
neo-institutional approaches have stressed
the role of networks (of people, credit, infor-
mation and towns) in effectively integrating
regional economies and in shaping the indus-
trialization process (Wilson and Popp, 2003;
Stobart, 2004). Ultimately, sustained develop-
ment was contingent on the establishment of a
critical mass of interdependent industries, ser-
vices, infrastructures and communications.
The varied composition of such industrial
complexes and the different production sys-
tems on which they were based, led to regional
variations in the experience of industrializa-
tion. Indeed, Langton (1984) argues that as
regional economies became ‘more specialized,
more differentiated from each other and more
internally unified’, they found expression in
coherent regional cultures. Others, though,
have highlighted the varied nature of produc-
tion systems, work practices, and social and
cultural identities within regions: most were
characterized by a symbiotic relationship
between factory- and domestic or workshop-
based production (Berg, 1994). Recent cri-
tiques argue that these debates are too narrow
in their focus, ignoring non-industrial forms
of capitalism and the wider global/imperial
context of industrialization. Most influential
is the ‘gentlemanly capitalism’ thesis which,
in broadening the geographical bounds of
analysis, argues that Britain’s economy and
overseas policy were driven not by the growth
and needs of industrial capitalism, but by
landed, mercantile and financial interests
(Cain and Hopkins, 2001). Historical geog-
raphers have yet to engage fully in these
debates, however: largely inspired bypost-
colonialism, work on empire has had little
to say about economic processes and the
global geographies of nineteenth-century
British industrialization.
For individuals and communities, as well
as for regions and nations, the industrial
revolution had profound social and cultural
repercussions (Berg and Hudson, 1992).
Experiences of work were transformed as
production was centralized and control was
removed from the individual. Resistance to
such change was occasionally dramatic, sur-
facing in a variety of protests across industri-
alizing districts that often targeted new
labour-saving machinery (Gregory, 1982,
1990; Hudson, 1989). More generally, the
contours of the newpolitical economyof
industrial capitalism were sharply contested
as the established relationships of a so-called
moral economy were replaced by those based
on the market. Of particular significance was
the way in which the transformation of the
labour processwas central to the emergence
of class consciousness. Yet the extent to
which such social identities transcended
local and regional allegiances remains an
area of considerable debate. Moreover, the
new social relations of production were struc-
tured bygenderas well as class. Many of the
new machines were operated by women and
children, creating a new sexual division of
labour in which men’s work was characterized
as more skilled and (consequently) better
paid (Hudson, 1992; Berg, 1994). Nonethe-
less, the earnings of all members of the house-
hold were vital in determining standards of
living, conventionally seen as falling, then ris-
ing, as real incomes were first undermined,
then augmented by industrialization. Living
conditions and social relations were also
shaped by the transformation of the urban
milieu, which was both cause and conse-
quence of industrial development (see
Stobart, 2004). Towns grew both in number
and size, with those in the industrializing dis-
tricts experiencing the most rapid expansion.
This caused a rapid deterioration in living
conditions in many towns, as the construction
of houses, and physical and social infrastruc-
ture, failed to keep pace with demographic
growth. It also led to a restructuring of
Britain’s urban geography and hierarchy, and
with it the geopolitical relationship between
centre and periphery. London remained dom-
inant as the focus of commercial, financial
and political activity, but debates and policies
were, for a brief time in the mid-nineteenth
century, shaped by experiences in and the
concerns of Britain’s industrial towns, most
notably Manchester. jstGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_I Final Proof page 379 31.3.2009 7:05pmINDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION