Why might modern historians disagree about the impact of enclosure?

Question

British History. If you know anything about the period 1750-1850. Please can you help me answer the question.

Answer 1

Because, like many things, there was good and bad in the process of modernization. The land could be used more profitably by enclosing it and investing in improvements for greater production either in crops or livestock - - rather than simply allowing all the people to use it for their individual needs.
The flip side of the coin was that the people had no fall back position if they were unemployed - - no few head of livestock to provide food when there was no work. Displaced farm workers fled to cities where unemployment was high and there was no safety net for those who were starving. This
led to crime out of desperation, and penalties were severe.

Enclosure was a social disaster but an economic boon for the wealthy minority. The land was utilized more efficiently - - but for the advantage of the few rather than the many.
On the other hand, it also freed up farm workers who could be employed in the growing industrial revolution which improved general prosperity - - though the lion's share of the profits still went to the capitalists - - which is why these people acquired a bad name - for selfishness.
It is these convoluted arguments which cause disagreement among academic historians.

Answer 2

Long term, the homeless people fled to cities where they eventually provided labor for the industrial revolution which helped the nation as a whole. The industrial revolution in turn gave the lower class a bit more social mobility.

It ended up working for the greater good of the country; but it still hurt many people.

Answer 3

"impact" or effect ?
Bombs leave an impact, Enclosure had an effect