Revision:Has the "retardation" thesis been overthrown by recent historians?

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Has the "retardation" thesis been overthrown by recent mainly cliometric historians?

Has the “retardation” thesis been overthrown by recent mainly cliometric historians? in your answer consider the character and quality of the evidence adduced.

Introduction

Classic debate – retarded, did not grow as quickly – retardation France against some norm slow to develop into 20th century – norm taken to be Britain – questions examine retardation debate and look at reasons why + revisions + critique

Description of the traditional retardation thesis

• Lateness of slowness cf. some expectation based upon previous experiences of growth over long run – opps. Missed, output foregone.
• Structural: slowness to adjust structurally – industry mix – iron, coal, textiles English model
• Agric: backward inefficient cannot generate surplus to invest, release labour
• Kemp: failure agric. To industry fails adopt factories and British technology
• Revolution created near perfect legal and institutional conditions for full flowing capitalism – major social barriers in tact – diffusion of technology bought about piecemeal NOT modern plant for mass production – link to iron article, opps. Rev. people into admin not business institutions capitalism particualrly historically conditioned environment prevent major breakthrough of IR, character, wealth locked up in land
• Landes: backwardness failure to adopt British methods – slow diffusion of technology.

Revisions the retardation thesis

• O’Brien + Keyder: more than one strategy and English model not the best – large agric sector not that bad, if marginal products greater agrc. Stay there
• I takes place differing legal, political, cultural tradition – not illuminating single out factors – retarded if behind Britain?
• Only if demonstrated tat gradual reallocation labour from agric. To industrial economically irrational can we see failure to undertake structural change – YES prod labour force income per capita exceed that of Britain if labour reallocated- NOT exogenous factor – look at Grantham incentives not big enough to move, ignore British gains exports and trade and mercantilism.
• Labour productivity above Britain’s
• Agric retardation: = CENTRAL BLOCK ON DEV.too many peasants, inefficiently small farms, superiority less apparent look at yields 75% of British output levels – lot to do with natural endowment peasants take good advantage – those who tilled land probably optimal given circumstances + revolution strengthened peasant ties to land – maybe Tocqueville “number of proletarians grows ceaselessly with the population” – French didn’t want to bear social costs
• Cameron: slow growth: per capita incomes 1801 52% 1872 27%
• GRANTHAM: Growth without statistical signs of industrial revolution
• Intevrentionism restricts eco. Dev – o’Brien and athias – lower taxes France3 10-11% cf. 17-22% output taxes, Nye average tariff lower in Britain, mentalit not profit maximiser – Nye variety stides, women’s textiles pay remarkable economically rational and aware, small firms best way forward + Postel Winay et al. real agricultural wage higher than indutrial wage of course they don’t move + Grantham sees better ALP than O’Brien uses backward counting – looks at part-time workers as well fits proto model, + Magnac and Vinay industrial expansion not limited by agric expansion – perception 19th industry retarded by French agric not cliometrically tested + more gradual growth allowed famr layout France change without legislation + diffusion happens northern France when profit opps. There Grantham
• ROEHL – Gerschenkron : late-comer: growth spurt, heavy capital intensive, ideological, techn, passive in progressive agric.French economy NOT stagnant – rate of growth per decade 20% better than Britain – Gerschenkron material output increases 4 times 1825 – 1909 – uses inverse Gerschenkronian model – describes characteristic dev. Rel. backward country inverts them early advances – see France early / first industrialize. 1. Strong steady growth comparable Britain Marzewski 1.91 1 French growth higher Britain 18th C “. Goods mix fits esp. adapt figures to include protoindustry, conc. Nits production tendency following countries, gets own tech and capital, state little role, lack virulent ideologies, agricultural improves productivity and no barrier to i.44% increase agric. Prod in 18th century – agric. Performed reasonably – mistake look English institutions: Mantoux English def. IR – iron cotton etc – proto etc – France epitomizes paradigm European experience NOTE role foreign sector Britain, gric and exports. Esp. slow growth population, tendency stay cside bad? “all the characters of a good social spirit”
• Attepts model Britain unwise things like Chenery Syrquin – too much government exp. – France closer to average than Britain
• CRAFTS – STOCHASTIC: - beginning cotton industry two main discoveries would IR there if French had them – no covering laws explaining British primacy of French retardation – one experiment many variables” – decisive innovations in 18th century – why not invention: social determinism economic environment, great men, sociological factors- highly uncertain emergence – stochastic the country with lower likelihood ex-ante observed as winner” – Fact Britain more advanced 1890 does not imply 1740 greater probability achieving IR MUST REJECT View looking England’s primacy – non-English features retardive Kemp

Assessments of revisionism

• Criticisms O’Brien and Keyder = British figures single source superior French figures variety of sources.
• CRAFTS - BUT 1870 France 53.7% labour force agric and 33.5% of income
• 1830 – 190 France considerably below Britain per cpaita national income
• GERSCHENKRON – ROEHL – late developers do not develop strongly – Gerschenkron of Roehl (p26) – does not show up wide sample European countries – France not early comer, but accept different paths – test taxonomy of France early or taxonomy itself – impressionistic generalization Grantham (cliometrician) empirical contradiction thoroughly discredited
• O and K – lower labour productivity than they thought, less capital intensive – Carre, Dubois, Mainvaud, Levy-Leboyer, Markovitch, Feinstein, Hoffman – even Marczewski – industrial workforce underestimated – French census data difficulties – French labour power either 42% more effective than other European countries or 42% underreported – 15 – 28% adjustment labour force productivity- Carre looks horsepower and coal ratios twice as high as France 1860 – less capital intensive sector leavres France fairly typical productivity ga rtespectable not outstanding, comparisons Britain wrong

Conclusion

Compelling evidence that retardation not wholly correct – cliometric evidence for some factors show unjust, growth and productivity probably bigger than before, but compared to Britain still slow. Important look at framework – why ask France retarded? Why not why Britain first, does well cf. European colleagues = Crafts stochastic or retardation factors, crucial look what British factors made it extraordinary and original not necessarily weakness France.

Comments