Document Type : .
Author
PhD in Political Science from Tarbiat Modares University and Assistant Professor of Institute For Trade Studies and Research
Abstract
Introduction:
efforts toward industrialization in Iran and the establishment of factory-based production began during the reign of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar (1848–1896). However, initiatives such as mineral exploration and extraction, the creation of military and civilian industrial units, and investments from state, private, and foreign sources failed to catalyze meaningful industrialization or increase the industrial sector’s share of the national economy. The total number of factories established during this period did not exceed 60, employing fewer than 2,000 skilled and semi-skilled industrial workers. These factories, constrained by small scale, limited production capacity, rudimentary technology, and minimal employment, mostly went bankrupt or ceased operations by the end of the Qajar period. As a result, one of the most critical historical opportunities for Iran’s industrialization was lost. Why did Iran, which initiated industrialization in the mid-19th century alongside countries such as Germany, Japan, and the United States, fail to achieve it? Addressing this question offers valuable insights into the causes of Iran’s subsequent economic underdevelopment.
The reasons for industrial and economic underdevelopment during Naser al-Din Shah’s reign have been studied from two primary perspectives: external and internal. Some researchers such as Ahmad Ashraf, Farhad Nomani and Jan Foran attribute the failure to external factors, including the 19th-century international system’s structural constraints. These include the imposition of agricultural policies, the promotion of brokerage activities, and the influx of foreign capital and goods, which undermined domestic production. Others Like Charles Issawi, Yakup Polak and Hoshang Amir Ahmadi emphasize internal factors such as unfavorable geography, the lack of transportation infrastructure, insufficient capital accumulation, the absence of skilled domestic specialists, autocratic governance, and even the personality and leadership style of Naser al-Din Shah. However, these studies have largely neglected the role of interactions and reciprocal relationships between the state and society in shaping industrial development or stagnation. This article does not entirely dismiss the impact of external factors—particularly the influx of foreign goods with low tariffs on the decline of traditional industries and the weakening of Iran’s nascent industrial sector—but argues that these challenges were not unique to Iran. Many countries pursuing industrialization in the 19th century, such as the United States, Germany, Japan, and Russia, faced similar pressures from British imports. Even nations like India, Canada, and South Africa, which underwent early industrialization under British colonial rule, managed to overcome unequal trade conditions and other significant obstacles.
Materials & Methods:
The article explains the failure of industrial development during the Naseri era by examining the relationship between the government and productive forces, employing documentary and library-based research methods within an institutional framework, specifically Frederick List’s National Economy model. "Productive forces" in this context refers to landowners, merchants, and industrialists, who are collectively categorized as social forces. The study argues that beyond external pressures, a combination of interconnected internal factors created conditions that hindered the Qajar state’s ability to overcome developmental constraints. According to List’s framework, 19th-century industrializing nations required strong cooperation between the state and productive forces, prioritizing the industrial sector and regulating foreign trade to strengthen national productive capacity.In contrast, during the Qajar era, industrialization efforts were challenged at both state and societal levels.
Discussion & Result:
Unlike the prudent, development-oriented governments envisioned by List—those that promoted investment security, infrastructure development, workforce training, industrial support, and foreign trade regulation to enhance citizens’ well-being—the Qajar state under Naser al-Din Shah failed to establish property rights, reform productive and economic systems, or facilitate the emergence of a modern industrial society. Instead, the government relied on extortion, plunder, excessive taxation, concessions to foreign powers, property confiscation, and the direct consumption of societal surpluses, becoming a major obstacle to national production and the growth of domestic industries.
While the Qajar government exhibited some interest in defensive modernization and military industries, it lacked a comprehensive understanding of the industrial transformations occurring in the West. This disconnect left society uninformed about the state’s intentions regarding economic and industrial development. The breakdown in state-society relations, coupled with the absence of a clear strategy for engaging with foreign capital and goods, exacerbated tensions among social forces, including intellectuals, clergy, and productive groups such as landowners, merchants, and industrialists. Intellectual elites veered between extreme admiration for and opposition to the West, often marginalizing domestic merchants and failing to cultivate a developmental culture or movement. Meanwhile, landowners and merchants—who, according to List, should have partnered with industrial bourgeoisie and reinvested agricultural surpluses into productive sectors—prioritized short-term profits from export-oriented farming and foreign trade over long-term national interests. Consequently, the productive capacity necessary for sustaining and expanding nascent domestic industries never materialized.
Conclusion
The failure of Naser al-Din Shah’s industrial modernization efforts left Iran’s economy vulnerable to global markets and paved the way for social unrest and political crises, culminating in the Constitutional Revolution. To this day, the question of how to effectively support domestic industries and strengthen national productive capacity And, of course, the ability to innovate and be competitive remains a fundamental issue for Iran’s economy. Therefore, it is suggested that while communicating and interacting with the global economy, strengthening the national production base as a joint project of the government and the society should continue to be at the top of the country's policymakers' priorities.
Keywords
