In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Industrious Revolution: Consumer Behavior and the Household Economy, 1650 to the Present
  • Joyce Burnette
Jan De Vries. The Industrious Revolution: Consumer Behavior and the Household Economy, 1650 to the Present. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. xii + 327 pp. ISBN 978-0-521-71925-4, $23.99 (paper).

Since Jan De Vries introduced the term sixteen years ago [“The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution,” Journal of Economic History, 1994], the “industrious revolution” has taken a central place in the historiography of the eighteenth century and is now a concept that cannot be ignored. This book pulls together a wide range of evidence supporting the theory, and explores themes that radiate from the theory. It is a mature, synthetic work, weaving together evidence from other sources into a tapestry depicting a large swath of history.

Central to the argument are the changes in consumption and labor supply discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. New forms of consumption emerged in the eighteenth century. De Vries claims that these changes were not marginal changes, but a complete re-organization of consumption [End Page 482] patterns, a jump to a new “consumption bundle”. Consumers desired new goods that could not be produced at home, such as tea, coffee, sugar, and tobacco. The new consumption goods had greater “breakability”, so consumer goods were less likely to be stores of value, and less likely to be inherited, allowing room for fashion and self-expression in the purchase of consumption goods. Distribution patterns changed too, as the spread of retail shops allowed more frequent purchases. Even the poor participated, to a limited extent, in the increase in consumer goods.

This new consumption inspired, and was made possible by, increases in annual household incomes. This increase in income did not come from increases in the daily wage but from increases in the number of days worked per year, the number of workers per family, and work intensity. Families worked harder in order to purchase the goods they desired. Proto-industry played a role by providing paying work for women and children. De Vries’ story is an optimistic one; he interprets the increase in work intensity as the result of the household’s choice to consume more, rather than the result of exploitation.

This combination of new consumer goods and increased labor supply gives us the industrious revolution. The book extends beyond this, though, exploring the philosophical changes that laid the groundwork for the industrious revolution, and changes in labor supply since the industrious revolution.

The philosophical underpinnings of the industrious revolution were provided by changes in how luxury was viewed. De Vries discusses how the old concept of luxury, which is associated with vice and weakness, was transformed into New Luxury, which could be a virtue and was seen as economically beneficial. This new concept of luxury appeared first in Holland in the seventeenth century.

After 1850, the trends of the industrious revolution were reversed. Instead of increasing, women’s labor force participation decreased. However, like the industrious revolution, this shift was driven by consumer demand. Households demanded a new consumption cluster, including domestic comfort and cleanliness. Unlike tea and coffee, the new consumption goods could only be acquired by combining purchased goods with household labor. This “unpurchasability” (p. 189) led to changes in the household’s labor supply that reversed some of the industrious revolution trends. While child labor continued to be an important contributor to family income, married women withdrew from the labor market in order to provide the new, unpurchasable goods.

De Vries does not shy away from criticizing the claims of other historians. Indeed, he seems determined to take away our “academic [End Page 483] comfort food” (p. 214), and much of the fun of the book lies in watching the butchering of the sacred cows. For example, De Vries challenges the claim that women were pushed out of the labor market in the late nineteenth century. Instead, he suggests that the withdrawal of women from the labor force was a joint household decision to consume a different consumption bundle. As evidence for this claim, he points to declining sex differences in mortality and declining alcohol consumption during the late...

pdf

Share