|
|
|
Revision:Retardation in the age of IndustryTSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Economics > Retardation in the age of Industry Marczewski commodity output per capita had in fact grown as fast as it had in England between 1815 and 1913 data revealed no take-off France not fallen behind confirmed by Levy-Leboyer, Crouzet, Toutain cf. Britain not an artifact overvalued exchange rate shown by purchasing power parities O and K. Paradox: France had grown as fast as England without leaving a statistical trace of an industrial revolution how could France which had not experienced traumatic transition from tradition to modernity be as economically successful as England? France had modernized without ever leaving the pre-industrial age Roehl features of the French economy treated as signs of retardation such as small farm size, high dependence local informal credit institutions signified early passage t industrial age. More backward like Belgium of Germany large-scale state aided industrialization like Britain crucial transition occurred 18th century no growth spurt and less dislocation of labour does he test position France Gerschenkronian taxonomy or taxonomy itself? more likely shows failing G. not an economic model but impressionistic generalization reformulated taxonomy employed by 19th century German historical economists empirical contradiction of this thoroughly discredited approach carries no logical implication Gerschenkron: lack of economic modeling worthy of the name do the retarded characteristics of the 19th century French economy reflect optimal adjustments to an emerging intl. Comparative advantage Crafts says England specializing low cost cotton manufactures + light engineering between 1780 and 1850 trading partners specialize in something else Comments |
|
|||||||||||||||
