Paper Example on Emergence of the American Manufacturing Belt

The American manufacturing belt has in more than one occasion being used to describe the outstanding spatial concentration of various industries in the United States. The article Emergence of the American manufacturing belt: an interpretation written by David R. Meyer seeks to give a more understanding to the American Manufacturing Belt by proposing that it was developed during the antebellum years. As David R. Meyer notes, the American manufacturing belt was indeed a perfect instance of western industrial development, especially during the 19th century. I think the author is right to seek a new perspective to the origin emergence of American Manufacturing Belt since many existing explanations do fail to explain the level complexity when it comes to the spatial dynamics of industrialization.

In the early 19th century, I believe it is when the industrial system emerged successfully and as the author notes this was as a result of the east coast regions becoming industrialized. Manufactures that were oriented to the regional markets developed significantly mainly because of the growing regional demands. At the same time, the growing manufactures needed to be supplied with products that could facilitate their growth. The increased interregional exchange of specialties and the growth of specialization amongst the regional industrial system I believe were brought about by the rise and growth of industries during these periods. By 1850s and 1860s, there was already a shift to the larger market scales. I also find it correct that the much-increased incorporation of the United States cities systems was facilitated by the "system of regional industrial systems."

The antebellum regional development process is traditionally explained by the Export base theory. In this export base theory, the exports made during the trade process will generate enough earnings to counter the intraregional multiplier effects and pay for the imports. During the antebellum years, Specialization was facilitated by trade between the East that was the manufacturer, Midwest, which supplied foodstuff, and the South, which was the major farm product producer. I think this intraregional trade was the most significant regional economic development, especially during the antebellum years.

Furthermore, to facilitate this intraregional trade during this period, I believe transportation improvements needed to be made appropriately. This is so because they would ensure there is increased volume and range of outputs and inputs, they would avail the benefits of nonlocal exchange, promotions of labor specialization and consequently widening the economy because of high sales made. In the 1840s, I also think the most dominant intraregional transportation network were railroads, canals and steam vessels considering this was the most advanced forms of transport at that time. Transportation was undoubtedly an essential component of the extensive intraregional trade. However, as much as transportation was good for the trade, there were some regions, which did not entirely benefit from these improvements. One is Boston where better agricultural products coming from the neighboring regions meant that it could not trade it's few products it had effectively and to counter this, it had to expand and better it's nonagricultural products.

When it comes to sources of demand for manufacturers of regional market during the antebellum years, I also find it true that the East was the main base for the regional market manufacturer. The major sources of demand being the interregional or/and intraregional trade, the natural resource sector, the urban infrastructure and household consumers. Additionally, I also think that during this period, the demand for equipment and houses improved ads trade got better and income increased.

Additionally, I find pivotal producer durables also being significant during the antebellum years as they were key to the growth of machinery producers, machine shops, iron foundries and the entire regional industrial system. During this period, many nonmetal manufacturers required various machinery and equipment and the producer durables were there to make sure that these products are available. The importance of steel and iron during this period cannot be ignored. The steel and iron companies became key in the economic development of all the regions. They helped build cities and made infrastructure more efficient for instance by building the Philadelphia water-works facility.

In the late 19th century, there was a significant shift to the national and multiregional market industries. Sifting to national and multiregional market I think was brought about by the decline in interest of the regional market manufactures. The regional industries expanded and now wanted to grow nationally. Transport again had an important role to play in this shifting. Other factors that I believe lead to this shifting were better communication, technological development, and growth in demand. Specialization of industries to producing particular product meant that they would grow more than the region demanded.

The spread of the manufacturing belt did not happen exponentially as anyone would have thought. The late developing regions within the manufacturing belt faced a major blow when the shifting to national or multiregional market was happening. Additionally, I think the manufacturing belt failed to grow exponentially due to the nonappearance of the Southern region from the market. The southern region had refused to take part in the manufacturing belt mainly for the reason that the regional market demands was not enough to facilitate its regional growth. In the end, it is important to consider all factors that took part in the American manufacturing belt to understand its emergence fully.