Intended for use in classrooms, priced reasonably, and written at a level accessible to an American college freshman, Debating the Industrial Revolution by Peter Stearns serves both process- and content-related purposes. Each chapter addresses major “debates” about industrialization—the role of natural resources, for instance, or of proto-industrialization, or of individuals in helping to advance social and economic transformation. Simultaneously, Stearns introduces such basic elements of historical process as determining the difference between correlation and causation, understanding quantitative versus qualitative arguments, and attempting to recognize that historians’ biases may influence their ability to fairly consider interpretive questions. This is a lot to cover in 147 pages, and predictably the result is a bit uneven.

After assessing the extent to which the industrial revolution can be considered “revolutionary” and how to define it, Stearns surveys the historiography of industrialization but never strays far from the question of causation. Initially, most historical writing about the industrial revolution focused on Britain as the first industrial nation. Stearns shows that early writers on the Industrial Revolution, like Toynbee, focused on the power of the novel economic ideas of Adam Smith and David Ricardo to propel change. Mid-twentieth-century historians, seeking to explain Britain's role as the world's first industrial power, pinpointed favorable government conditions, a stable banking system, the absence of monopolies, and the government's willingness to support a growing transportation infrastructure. Later in the twentieth century, historians turned to resource analysis, building in (for example) the enclosure movement to explain the availability of a factory workforce, and the absence of fuel wood to explain Britain's decided turn to mining more coal. Early twenty-first-century historians highlighted the demand side of the industrial equation, emphasizing the rise of consumerism both at home and in colonial possessions.

The most recent debates focus on Asian economies at the dawn of European industrialization. Comparison of Britain's industrial trajectory with those of China and India provides insights that reflect back on Britain's resources, cultural features, and government choices, calling into question many earlier hypotheses about why Britain was the first industrial nation. Comparative research shows, for example, that into the eighteenth century, the economy in parts of India and China was flourishing; far from being miles ahead of Asia, European nations were feeling pressure. While Britain was officially committed to “free trade,” the nation used its military power for economic purposes. The British restricted “free trade” in Indian cotton textiles with tariffs and sabotaged the Chinese economy by flooding the country with cheap opium. Interestingly, comparisons between Asia and Europe have caused historians to loop back to the early intellectual history of the Industrial Revolution for hypotheses. The newest comparative writing uses “cultural elements” to help explain differential industrialization, including widespread European literacy, interest in science, and competitive individualism.

Although he mostly ignores the United States, Stearns next examines what he calls “latecomers” to industrialization, in particular Russia and Japan (although classifying countries as “latecomers” is a bit Whiggish, seeming to assume that industrialization is normative and inevitable). Stearns shows that although the Russian and the Japanese cases were very different, governments in both countries strove to engraft the British model. Especially in Japan, economic dynamism predated the big push to industrialize. As cultural explanations have become more prominent to explain industrialization in the West, historians of Japan have looked to Confucianism, with its focus on solving secular problems. Such historical comparisons debunk the notion that a standard cultural recipe makes modernity possible.

As a teaching tool, the book is intriguing but has a few drawbacks. Stearns ends each chapter with discussion questions and a nice mix of suggestions for further reading. The last chapter in the book contains larger, interpretive questions that might fuel student research projects. To this point, the book shows promise. On the other hand, the organization of the book may confuse students. Chapters are partly thematic and partly historiographical. The newest comparative approaches to industrialization do not appear until the seventh chapter, making the obsolescence of the earlier hypotheses unclear. Also, by focusing narrowly on the question of causation, Stearns fails to address some of the most consistently fascinating debates about industrialization. Missing, for instance, are discussions about the impact of industrialization, positive or negative, on workers, on families, on income distributions and stability within societies, and on the environment. Finally, even though he carries the story up to 2012, Stearns does not engage with modern controversies such as the sustainability of the endless growth that the industrial model appears to require. This lack of attention to consequences renders the book potentially less engaging for an introductory audience.