The general story for European nations goes something like this: The 16th century commercial revolution provided the economic foundation but also created inflation. As a result landed aristocracy had to sell lands to maintain their standard of living. As the rich city dwellers purchased these lands the peasant class was forced out and had to move to the cities which provided the labor for industrialization. That worked great for England, so why was France so different? Even as late as 1913 France was being surpassed by Russia.

I’ve read Landes “Wealth and Poverty of Nations” but find the cultural/religious explanation unconvincing.

Please recommend a good book on this subject if you know one.

Even as late as 1913 France was being surpassed by Russia.

In what way?

The general story for European nations goes something like this: The 16th century commercial revolution provided the economic foundation but also created inflation. As a result landed aristocracy had to sell lands to maintain their standard of living. As the rich city dwellers purchased these lands the peasant class was forced out and had to move to the cities which provided the labor for industrialization. That worked great for England, so why was France so different? Even as late as 1913 France was being surpassed by Russia.

I’ve read Landes “Wealth and Poverty of Nations” but find the cultural/religious explanation unconvincing.

Please recommend a good book on this subject if you know one.
1913 is very late indeed.

What seems generally true about France is that some of the biggest cash-cows were in artisanal production in the high-end of luxury consumption, i.e. stuff that wasn't easy to adapt to industrial production anyhow. I.e. at least partly a structural explanation.

Even as late as 1913 France was being surpassed by Russia.


I thought russia was able to industrailize only because of huge french loans.

Even as late as 1913 France was being surpassed by Russia.


This refers to Iron and steel production but Russia's power consumption was rapidly approaching the same level as France. Granted Russia had a much larger population so a per capital analysis might paint a different picture, but regardless it seems that France should have industrialized much faster than it did.

Some explanations

1)nearly every point in England is within 100 miles of the sea, and the land is general quite low and suited to canal building - thus england has enormously cheaper bulk transport costs than France.
2)England is more densly populated, again leading to cheaper transport costs (a short distance can reach more consumers and producers)
3)resource index - Britain had more and more easily accessible coal and metal deposits. France was vey much hurt by the loss of Alsace and Lorraine and their raw materials.
4)Continential wars - used up Frances young men and resources, inhibiting growth to an extent.
5) French peasents stayed on the land more than in Britain and Germany - in 1905 40% of French workers were still in agriculture. Therefore France had a smaller pool of industrial workers to call on.

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

5) French peasents stayed on the land more than in Britain and Germany - in 1905 40% of French workers were still in agriculture. Therefore France had a smaller pool of industrial workers to call on.

An explanation of this I think would help. Where there laws in place to protect the Agricultural and "traditional" ways of life? Were the powers of the cities relative to the rural areas lessened?

I think those would be the main factors in point 5, and would go a long way to explaining why France industrilised slower....

http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/IR/048.html

Despite the success of the Schneiders at le Creusot, French industrialisation was never as thorough or complete as the British or the German. France remained basically a rural economy. ( Historians and economists are still trying to explain this.) So, French industrialisation in the 19th. century was steady rather than spectacular. It was also very regional and tended to be concentrated in the big cities such as Paris and Lyon, or the traditional textile regions of Lille, the iron-producing areas of Lorraine and the coal-producing areas of the " Nord " and " Pas de Calais ".

Nevertheless, by the end of the century, France was the most industrialised nation in Europe after Britain, Germany and Belgium and this success was, in large part due to government encouragement during the Second Empire of Napoleon III, (1852-1870).

Some explanations

1)nearly every point in England is within 100 miles of the sea, and the land is general quite low and suited to canal building - thus england has enormously cheaper bulk transport costs than France.

In fact, it's the opposite

From wiki:
Another obstacle to French railway development was the powerful opposition to the changes that railways would bring. For example, in 1832, the Rouen Chamber of Commerce opposed a rail link between Rouen and Paris, arguing it would be detrimental to agriculture, hurt the traditional way of life, and impinge upon the business of the canals and rivers. This last argument emerged commonly throughout France. Unlike Russia or Germany, which did not have well-developed canal systems, France had a great deal of capital invested in water-borne transport. These interests saw the railways as dangerous competition. The origins of this opposition stem from France's geography. France was naturally endowed with many navigable waterways, and also with much terrain suitable for the construction of canals. Much of France also lies not far from the coast, and coastal shipping successfully and cheaply carried much trade. Thus, the interests which profited from canals, river, and coastal shipping all used their sway in government to limit the construction of railways. While other countries, such as Britain, already utilised canals and coastal shipping well, these nations did not have government-controlled railways, and thus the vested interests of water-borne trade were less able to oppose new competition.

In France, existing interests combined with popular worries about the introduction of railways, especially concerning their safety. While those in opposition to railway development certainly remained a minority, their presence was larger in France than in most other industrialising nations. Since French rail development depended on government initiatives, French opponents had a clearer target to oppose than in countries where completely private companies constructed new railways

In Germany the railroads were not only seen as means of traffic but also as means to show the status of a country. Followed by the German tax union, the immigration of Polish workers and peasants the industrialisation made much bigger steps than in France. Also these railway nets were in Germany early also seen as a new means to transport troops. The Prussian victory in the German war of 1866 would not be possible without it. But that was still underestimated by the French. When Napoelon III. declared war No side was prepared for war. One reason why the German troops were so fast deployed at the front was the railway net. So troops from East Prussia or Silesia could be sent easily and fast to the front, while the French had to march.

Adler

The Brits and the Germans cracked on with it while the Frence were mired in bureaucracy and the vested interests of the regions :eek: How times change ;)

Sorry, not the France bashing thread, I know, I know.

3)resource index - Britain had more and more easily accessible coal and metal deposits. France was vey much hurt by the loss of Alsace and Lorraine and their raw materials.


I want to stress this point that Disenfrancised made. The most industrialized regions of Europe in the 18th-19th centuries corresponded exactly with the availability of coal and iron. The midlands in Britain, the Ruhr basin in Germany, a small area of northern France, Belgium, and the eastern United States in Pennsylvania. Other nations, in Europe and elsewhere, with less of these resources available quickly fell behind during the industrial revolution. Only when electricity replaced the steam engine (and also as a result of larger shipping and wider rail networks – better communications) did most other regions in Europe industrialize in a large scale. The rest of the world could not keep up with industrialized nations that possessed these resources, not with 19th century technology.
Russia only caught up with France in the 20th century, and that after access to its eastern lands and resources was much improved.

I read Landes book and I think he underestimated this. He acknowledges the “luck” countries with coal and iron had, but then goes on to attribute their success during the 19th century to other factors that better fit his agenda.

3)resource index - Britain had more and more easily accessible coal and metal deposits. France was vey much hurt by the loss of Alsace and Lorraine and their raw materials.

Coal. It keeps coming up.

You need it to mass produce iron and steel (it's the only readily available material that naturally burns hot enough). Even in 2007, there is no viable alternative. Every single alternative costs way too much.

It is extremely energy dense for power production. After the discovery of electricity and oil, it is still a great fuel for power plants.

There is still a significant supply even today after centuries of use. There are literally many centuries of supply left even at today's growth rates. Oil will decline much faster as a viable fuel...

I can totally believe an argument centered around the availability of coal defining some of the disparity in industrialization rate.

You can't compare any country to England. In England the Industrial Revolution started, it came naturally. In Germany and France, it had to be imposed top-down. It was the government igniting the industrial revolution.

You can't compare any country to England. In England the Industrial Revolution started, it came naturally. In Germany and France, it had to be imposed top-down. It was the government igniting the industrial revolution.

Britan not England. Welsh coal was key. The Scots werent far behind either.

Because of lack of natural resources, France's industrialization was rather late.

The rivers in France could not do much to support canals

They were a little distracted by the politics of the time

France had always been an agrarian nation, it was simply the way the people thought and worked

The financial system just wasn't able to produce nearly enough capital to sustain the Industrial growth as fast as Germany and Britain

A general lack of interest in railroads

The rivers in France could not do much to support canals

I repost it in case you did not read:
France was naturally endowed with many navigable waterways, and also with much terrain suitable for the construction of canals. Much of France also lies not far from the coast, and coastal shipping successfully and cheaply carried much trade. Thus, the interests which profited from canals, river, and coastal shipping all used their sway in government to limit the construction of railways

Look, France was first behind in comparison with the UK. Later it was behind in comparison with Germany. The UK was the early pioneer, Germany was the meteorically rising star of industralisation. France was always nr 2 or 3 in industralisation.

It's the yardstick of measurement that somehow gives the impression of "slow"="not nr 1". We're exclusively talking about the Big Boys of international politics as that was the only relevant frame for comparison they themselves acknowledged. (Belgium might be the little guy involved making a spirited bid, but in absolute numbers it couldn't measure up.)

That, and the fact that industry was tied to key resources. What France had against it then was size. France is geographically huge compared to England and Wales, and considerably bigger than Germany. Getting full "industrial saturation" in France would consequently be harder and take longer for this reason alone.

Those areas of France having resources, or where it was easy to ship it to, industralised fine. There was just a lot more land around hard to reach than in the UK in particular.

Another obstacle to French railway development was the powerful opposition to the changes that railways would bring. For example, in 1832, the Rouen Chamber of Commerce opposed a rail link between Rouen and Paris, arguing it would be detrimental to agriculture, hurt the traditional way of life, and impinge upon the business of the canals and rivers. This last argument emerged commonly throughout France. Unlike Russia or Germany, which did not have well-developed canal systems, France had a great deal of capital invested in water-borne transport. These interests saw the railways as dangerous competition. The origins of this opposition stem from France's geography. France was naturally endowed with many navigable waterways, and also with much terrain suitable for the construction of canals. Much of France also lies not far from the coast, and coastal shipping successfully and cheaply carried much trade. Thus, the interests which profited from canals, river, and coastal shipping all used their sway in government to limit the construction of railways. While other countries, such as Britain, already utilised canals and coastal shipping well, these nations did not have government-controlled railways, and thus the vested interests of water-borne trade were less able to oppose new competition

In France, existing interests combined with popular worries about the introduction of railways, especially concerning their safety. While those in opposition to railway development certainly remained a minority, their presence was larger in France than in most other industrialising nations. Since French rail development depended on government initiatives, French opponents had a clearer target to oppose than in countries where completely private companies constructed new railways.


Well here's one example of how things worked in Britain. I happen to live near Liverpool where the first inter-city passenger railway (to Manchester) was opened in 1830. The driving motivation behind this had been to break the economic stranglehold of the canals which linked the two cities. It was felt that the company running the canals were making large profits on the transport of goods and materials and the railways would counter this. Hence why the majority of the railway's original supporters were industrialists and merchants from the two cities.

Many of the landowners whose land the railway would pass through, and especially those whose land was also crossed by the canals protested vehemently. They even went as far as to deny surveyors entry to their land. This resulted in the initial surveys being innacurate and the initial bill in front of parliment being rejected. In the end the railway supporters persuaded the major landowners of the benefits to be had at which point opposition was undermined. In a twist the Marquis of Stafford who had been the biggest opponent ended up owning around 1/4 of the shares in the company founded to build the railway.

Fast forward some 50 years though and the merchants of Manchester decided that the port of Liverpool was making too much profit from the importing and exporting Manchester's industrial output. They got together and forced through parliment a bill to construct a ship canal from Eastham (near Liverpool) to Manchester, thus enabling ships to come right up to the heart of their city. One of the biggest opponents to the bill had been the railway companies.

Another local example of railway development being hindered was Ferry services. The peninsula I live on is seperated from Liverpool by the Mersey river. With the advent of steam ships ferries became increasingly important connections between the two areas. The rail companies originally took passengers to the ferries, building stations close to the major ones. Suggestions to dig a tunnel under the river for the trains though often met with vehement opposition from the ferries. When it was finally permitted and work was finished the ferries need not have worried too much for the passengers on the trains had to put up with a journey through a cramped damp tunnel in a steam train with all the atmospheric problems that caused.

This proved the major reason why this was the first line in the world to completely go over to electic power. Again this was done through private interest, the company concerned went bankrupt before an American businessman promoting eletrical power offerred to convert the line in return for stock in the company and the ability to promote his ideas. From then on the ferries declined in use gradually, being slowly replaced by the trains and later (with the construction of two road tunnels) cars and buses.

So yes, private companies in Britain often found ways and means around opposition to their moves that a government could not. They still had to get their proposals through parliment though, so heavy opposition there could block the moves to develop the railways. Other companies or individuals could also sometimes block moves by refusing to give up the land they owned.

Not sure how that helps answer the question but it does give some insight into how things worked in the UK for comparison purposes.

One other factor to mention relates to canals. The advantages of rail over canal transportation of goods are clear for anyone to see. The canal companies here responded by slashing their prices to compete but this resulted in many of the smaller canal companies being bought out - often by rail companies who would then close sections of the canal. In most of europe the canals were widened and modernised as a response to the crisis, allowing bigger boats and making canal transport viable again.

Contracts enforcement and property rights weren't as strong as in England, and financial markets weren't as well-regulated. Therefore later industrializers had to substitute hierarchies for markets, making catch-up growth of a different nature. They had to rely on large bureaucracies instead of private investment, so that they could internalize complementary operations and get around these liabilities. By nature, this is less adaptive and innovative, so they stayed behind the leaders.

Good post. I’ve often thought the strength of the French monarchy was a very fundamental difference between England and France, but wasn’t sure how it could affect industrialization. I can see now that French industrializes needed money and royal favor but the later could often be blocked by vested interests that would already have the king’s ear. In England money alone or in conjunction with popular support was more often enough.

So Germany's late unification could be one of the factors that helped it catch up so quickly because it left the Kaisers influence rather weak.