home | 18-19th centuries index

CLASS AND POWER in EUROPE (1 of 5)

An Uneven Rise in Economic Power

In 1880, 70.7 percent of Europeans, excluding Russians, lived in rural areas. Twenty years later this was 62.1 percent. Farm production was rising while more people were moving to urban areas. The increase in the production of food was allowing the growth in urban areas. Agricultural production was making food cheaper and adding to the industrial revolution by increasing the ability of people to buy manufactured products.

Between 1870 and 1900 a decline in transport costs helped create a rapid expansion of global trade and economic growth. The standard of living rose between 17 and 25 percent in Britain and grew at a comparable rate in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the standard of living increased also in southern Europe -- according to the economic historian Theodore S. Hamerow in his book, Birth of a New Europe. [note]  The higher standard of living for hired workers was measured in real income -- what their wages bought from year to year. Using figures from a Marxist scholar, Jurgen Kuczynski, who was not likely to minimize the sufferings of labor, Hamerow has described real wages in Britain as rising about 60 percent from 1816 to 1900, and climbing almost as steeply in France and Germany between 1860 and 1900. Europe's economies were advancing technologically, and workers in agriculture were more productive. Productivity in Austria rose 45 percent between 1840 and 1900, 50 percent in Belgium, 35 percent in France, 190 percent in Germany, 50 percent in Itay, 30 percent in Russia, 75 percent in Sweden, 90 percent in Switzerland, and an average of 75 percent from all of Europe. [note]  Common people could more easily afford new clothing, but it was agriculture that did much to improve standards of living. Food prices declined. Diets improved. And people had more money to spend on manufactured goods, which boosted manufacturing.

Use of chemicals in farming increased productivity, as did mechanization, which worked best on larger tracts of lands. Before the end of the century the United States had become a leader in mechanization. And it became the leader in the export of farm tools such as mowers and reapers. Nations were increasing their production of wheat. Around 1850 world production of wheat was 3.1 metric tons. Around 1870 this rose to 62 million. Around 1910 it would be 102.9 million. [note]

Farm animals were increasing in number. The number of cattle in the Netherlands increased from 1,252,000 in 1860 to 2,027,000 in 1910. The number of pigs in Denmark rose from 442,000 in 1870 to 11,841,000 in 1910. The number of sheep in Italy rose from 6,975,000 in 1870 to 11,841,000 in 1910. [note]

Britain in Decline, Germany and the U.S. in Ascendancy

As always, growth was uneven. Germany was growing faster economically than France, and the U.S. was growing faster than Britain. From 1845 to 1870, Britain had one-fifth of the world trade, including two-fifth's of the world's trade in goods that were manufactured. Britain was then the world's leading industrial power, but between 1870 and 1913, Britain's share of the world's industrial production dropped from 32 percent to 9 percent. The U.S. share in this same period rose from 23 to 42 percent. (W.W. Rostow. The World Economy, pages 22-23, appearing in The History of Capitalism, by Michael Beaud, p. 143.)

Germany at the end of the century was the continent's leading industrial power. France had been the leader in the production and sale of luxury items, but with the industrial revolution and heavy industry France did not maintain a leadership position. In 1880 it had only a 7.8 percent share of world manufacturing. France advanced its railways in the 1880s, and its industries were producing high quality goods, but by 1900 France's share of world manufacturing was down to 6.8 percent, the year that Germany's share was 13.2. Germany's production of steel and other items associated with heavy industry added to its military strength more than perfume and lady's hats helped France militarily. The French found little compensation in being world leaders in foreign investment. Despite being a great imperial power these investments were bringing little wealth back to France. France was largely a nation of small farmers on fertile soil, but its agriculture progressed slowly as farmers resisted change.

All of Austria-Hungary had only a 4.7 percent share of the world's manufacturing output. And Italy in 1900 had only a 2.5 percent share. Italy was divided between its more industrialized north and its more rural south. Seventy percent of Italy's population (34.4 million) was associated with agriculture, and many of Italy's peasants were impoverished. Its agriculture remained backward, with soil less fertile than in France and some other countries, and it had less coal than Germany or Britain, Italy's importation of coal creating a drain on its balance of payments.

At the end of the century Romania remained less industrialized than Britain, Germany or France. Its banking and credit remained underdeveloped. Romania had moved from domination by an aristocratic, agrarian oligarchy to domination by an urban bureaucratic order. Romania was governed by an elite body of less than 3,000 men. In 1900, two percent of the population was employed as state functionaries, three percent were employed in the industrial sector of its economy, and more students were studying for a career as a government bureaucrat than suited the needs of an advancing economy.

By the end of the century, Britain was behind the United States in manufacturing output, with 18.5 percent of the world's total and the U.S. with 23.6 percent. [note] The United States was moving ahead of Britain as a world power not only because of manufacturing but also its great agriculture. And the U.S. and Germany were a threat to what had been British preeminence also in another area that served national power: science. Proud Englishmen, Winston Churchill among them, destested and spoke against the idea that Britain was in decline relative to other powers, but it was a bit arrogant for them to assume that other peoples would not catch up and and surpass little England and the Britons.