Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:01:17.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uneven Development in the Nineteenth Century: A Comparison of the Habsburg Empire and the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

David F. Good
David F. Good
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Economics at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unlike most studies of uneven development before World War I, this paper uses the region (not the nation) as the unit of study. Weak market links with the national market partially explain persisting relative backwardness in the Habsburg Empire's eastern hinterland and in the American South. Even if product and factor markets had been perfectly integrated, institutional rigidities would have greatly retarded development. In the Empire, growth emerged in the west where serfdom was weakening and spread slowly as feudal institutions decayed. In America, capitalistic institutions promoted development in the North more thoroughly than did slavery and postbellum institutions in the South.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 137 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Easterlin, Richard, “Why Isn't the Whole World Developed?” this Journal, 41 (03 1981), pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

2 See Skinner, Andrew, “Adam Smith: An Economic Interpretation of History,” in Skinner, Andrew and Wilson, T., eds., Essays on Adam Smith (Oxford, 1975), pp. 154–78;Google Scholar and Meek, Ronald, “Smith, Turgot and the ‘Four Stages’ Theory,” History of Political Economy, 3 (Spring 1971), pp. 9–27.Google Scholar

3 On the classical Marxist view see Brewer, Anthony, Marxist Theories of Imperialism (London, 1980), pp. 15–17.Google Scholar

4 See, for example, Bauer, Peter T., Dissent on Development (London, 1971), pp. 74–82 and 158–61,Google Scholar and the analysis of imperialism's role in Third World economic history by Smith, Tony, The Pattern of Imperialism (New York, 1981), pp. 50–84.Google Scholar

5 The vast literature on economic integration is surveyed in Machlup, Fritz, A History of Thought on Economic Integration (New York, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 The views of Andre Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein, and other neo-Marxists are summarized in Brewer, Marxist Theories, pp. 17–24.Google Scholar

7 Lewis, W. Arthur, “The State of Development Theory,” American Economic Review, 74 (03 1984), p. 7.Google Scholar

8 See, for example, Cameron, Rondo, France and the Economic Development of Europe. 1800–1914 (Chicago, 1965);Google ScholarKenwood, A. G. and Lougheed, A. L., The Growth of the International Economy, 1820–1980 (London, 1983);Google Scholar and Landes, David, The Unbound Promerheus (Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar

9 See, for example, several contributions in Bairoch, Paul and Lévy-Leboyer, Maurice, eds., Disparities in Economic Development Since the Industrial Revolution (London, 1981);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Williamson, Jeffrey, “Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 13, Supplement (July 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Bloch, Marc, “Toward a Comparative History of European Societies,” in Lane, Frederic C. and Riemersma, Jelle C., eds., Enterprise and Secular Change (Homewood, Ill., 1953), pp. 494–95.Google Scholar

11 On the comparative method see Thrupp, Sylvia L., “The Role of Comparison in the Development of Economic Theory,” this Journal, 17 (12. 1957), pp. 554–70;Google Scholar W. T. Easterbrook, “Long-Period Comparative Study: Some Historical Cases,” ibid., pp. 571–95; and Cameron, Rondo, “Comparative Economic History,” in Uselding, Paul, ed., Research in Economic History, Supplement I (Greenwich, Conn., 1977), pp. 287–305.Google Scholar

12 McCloskey, Donald N., “The Rhetoric of Economics,” Journal of Economic Literature, 21 (06 1983), pp. 496–99.Google Scholar

13 Kindleberger, Charles, Economic Response: Comparative Studies in Trade, Finance and Growth (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), p. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Available data support these contrasting pictures. In 1774 GNP per capita was roughly the same in the American colonies and the United Kingdom. Jones, Alice Hanson, Wealth of a Nation to Be: The American Colonies on the Eve of the Revolution (New York, 1980), p. 68.Google Scholar By 1913 the level in the United States was 25 percent above that of the United Kingdom. Based on Maddison, Angus, Phases of Capitalist Development (New York, 1982), Tables 1.4, A2, and B2.Google Scholar For the Empire, GNP per capita was at best 30 percent below the United Kingdom in 1830 and barely 50 percent of the United Kingdom in 1913. Based on the controversial figures in Bairoch, Paul, “Europe's Gross National Product: 1800–1975,” Journal of European Economic History, 5 (Fall 1976), pp. 283, 286.Google Scholar

15 Income per capita in Hungary was roughly 70 percent that of Austria on the eve of World War I. Based on income data from Fellner, Friedrich, “Das Volkseinkommen Österreichs und Ungarns,” Sratistische Monatschrift, 21 (Vienna, 1917), p. 594Google Scholar and population statistics from Mitchell, B. R., European Historical Statistics, 1750–1970 (New York, 1975), Table B1, pp. 19 and 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Easterlin, Richard, “Regional Income Trends, 1840–1950,” in Harris, Seymour E., ed., American Economic History (New York, 1961), p. 528.Google Scholar Although poor by American standards, the South was rich compared to the rest of the world. Fogel, Robert and Engerman, Stanley, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery (Boston, 1974), p. 250. On the eve of World War I its per capita income was perhaps 15–20 percent above the richest regions of the Habsburg Empire, the Alpine and Bohemian lands.Google Scholar Based on real GDP estimates for 1913 reported in Maddison, Phases, Table A3, converted to a per capita basis with population figures in ibid., Table B2 (for the United States) and in Mitchell, Historical Statistics, Table Bl, p. 19 (for Austria). My estimate assumes that southern income per capita was 55 percent of the American average and that Alpine and Bohemian land income per capita was 130 percent of the Austrian average. See Table 1 above and Easterlin, “Regional Incomes,” p. 528.

17 Summarized in Good, David F., The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire. 1750–1914 (Berkeley, 1984), pp. 14–24.Google Scholar

18 For a survey of the issues and evidence see Good, Economic Rise, chap. 2.Google Scholar For the underlying quantitative research see Komlos, John, The Habsburg Monarchy as a Customs Union (Princeton, 1983), chap. 3;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Rudolph, Richard, “The Pattern of Austrian Industrial Growth from the Eighteenth to the Early Nineteenth Century,” Austrian History Yearbook, 11 (1975), pp. 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Based on time series data for urbanization in Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, Part 1 (Washington, D. C., 1975), Series A172–94, p. 22,Google Scholar and for the agricultural labor force in Kuznets, Simon, Miller, Ann, and Easterlin, Richard, Population Redistribution and Economic Growth: United Stares, 1870–1950 (Philadelphia, 1960), vol. 2, Table A2.4, p. 82.Google Scholar

20 See Berend, Iván and Ránki, György, Hungary: A Century of Economic Development (Newton Abbot, England, and New York, 1974), pp. 40–68;Google ScholarKomlos, Customs Union, pp. 112–13, 132–47;Google ScholarBerend, Iván and Ránki, György, Economic Development in East-Central Europe in the 19th Centuries (New York, 1974), pp. 122–29;Google Scholar and Lampe, John and Jackson, Marvin, Balkan Economic History, 1550–1950 (Bloomington, Ind., 1982), pp. 287–94, 310–22.Google Scholar

21 For details see Bateman, Fred and Weiss, Thomas, A Deplorable Scarcity: The Failure of Industrialization in the Slave Economy (Chapel Hill, NC., 1981), pp. 7–14.Google Scholar

22 See sources in footnote 19. The South's industrial development appears retarded compared to the North, but not compared to much of Europe. Fogel and Engerman, Time on the Cross, p. 256.Google Scholar

23 Mandle, Jay R., The Roots of Black Poverty (Durham, N.C., 1978), p. 59.Google Scholar

24 Good, David F., “Financial Integration in Late Nineteenth-Century Austria,” this Journal, 37 (Dec. 1977), pp. 890–910;Google Scholar and Good, David F., “National Bias in the Austrian Capital Market before World War I,” Explorations in Economic History, 14 (April 1977), pp. 141–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Mesch, Michael, Arbeiterexistenz in der Spätgründerzeit-Gewerkschaften und Lohnentwicklung in Österreich, 1890–1914 (Vienna, 1984), pp. 195–228;Google ScholarEddie, Scott, “The Changing Pattern of Landownership in Hungary, 1867–1914,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 20 (Aug 1967), pp. 297–98, 306–9.Google Scholar

26 For 1913 the following ratios of exports to GNP can be computed: United States (.043); Habsburg Empire (.108); Germany (.193); and United Kingdom (.193). For the United States exports are from Hutchinson, “Exports to Foreign Countries,” Table I, p. 145, and GNP is the sum of Gross Regional Product estimates for U.S. regions in Hutchinson, “Exports to Foreign Countries,” Table B.6, p. 200. For the Habsburg Empire exports are from official government statistics as compiled by Scott Eddie and transmitted privately; GNP for Hungary is Fellner's estimate reported in Komlos, Customs Union, pp. 210–11;Google Scholar GNP for Austria from Kausel, Anton, “Österreichs volkseinkommen 1830 bis 1913,” in Geschichte und Ergebnisse der Zentralen amtlichen Statistik in Österreich (Vienna, 1979), p. 718.Google Scholar GNP for the Empire equals Austrian GNP plus Hungarian GNP. For Germany and the United Kingdom exports are from Mitchell, B. R., European Historical Statistics, 1750–1970 (New York, 1975), Table KI, pp. 783–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Davis, Lance, “The Investment Market, 1870–1914: The Evolution of a National Market,” this Journal, 25 (09 1965), pp. 355–93;Google Scholar and James, John, “The Development of the National Money Market,” this Journal, 36 (Dec. 1976), pp. 878–97.Google Scholar

28 Gallaway, Lowell E. and Vedder, Richard K., “Mobility of Native Americans,” this Journal, 31 (09 1971), pp. 613–49;Google Scholar and Coelho, Philip R. and Shepherd, James F., “Regional Differences in Real Wages: The United States, 1851–1880,” Explorations in Economic History, 13 (April 1976), pp. 203–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 See Good, Economic Rise, pp. 104–8, 116–19, 121–22.Google Scholar

30 Davis, “Investment Market,” pp. 388–92; and James, “National Money Market,” p. 897.Google Scholar

31 Steckel, Richard, “The Economic Foundations of East-West Migration during the 19th Century,” Explorations in Economic History, 20, (01 1983), pp. 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Fishlow, Albert, “Antebellum Interregional Trade Reconsidered,” in Andreano, Ralph, ed., New Views of American Economic Development (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), pp. 187–200;Google ScholarHutchinson, William K. and Williamson, Samuel, “The Self-Sufficiency of the Antebellum South: Estimates of the Food Supply,” this Journal, 31 (09 1971), pp. 591–612;Google Scholar and Linostrom, Diane, “Southern Dependence upon Grain Supplies: A View of the Trade Flows, 1840–1860,” in Parker, William, ed., The Structure of the Cotton Economy of the Antebellum South (Washington, D. C., 1970), pp. 101–13.Google Scholar

33 Bateman and Weiss, Deplorable Scarcity, p. 97.Google Scholar

34 The following relies on Rudolph, Richard, “Social Structure and Austrian Economic Growth,” East Central Europe, 7 (1980), pp. 212–20;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFreudenberger, Herman, “Progressive Bohemian and Moravian Aristocrats,” in Winters, Stanley and Held, Joseph, eds., Intellectual and Social Developments in the Habs burg Empire from Maria Theresa to World War I (Boulder, Colo., 1975), pp. 115–30;Google ScholarRozdolski, Roman, Die Grosse Steuer-und Agrarreforin Josephs II (Warsaw, 1961), chap. 2;Google ScholarBlum, Jerome, Noble Landowners and Agriculture in Austria 1815–1848: A Study in the Origins of the Peasant Emancipation of 1848 (Baltimore, 1948), pp. 87, 203–21:Google ScholarBerend and Ránki, East-Central Europe, pp. 32–33; Eddie, “Landownership in Hungary,” pp. 296–300;Google Scholar and Matis, Herbert, Österreichs Wirtschaft 1848–1913: Konjunkturelle Dynamik und gesellschaftlicher Wandel im Zeitalter Franz Josephs I (Berlin, 1972), p. 145.Google Scholar

35 For a, particularly strong version of the feudal institutions-as-burden thesis see Jaszi, Oscar, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (Chicago, 1961), pp. 222–39.Google Scholar

36 Rudolph, “Social Structure,” p. 224; and Komlos, Customs Union, pp. 236–37.Google Scholar

37 Eddie, Scott, “Farmer's Response to Price in Large-Estate Agriculture: Hungary and Germany, 1870–1913,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 24 (11 1971), pp. 585–86;Google Scholarand his “Agricultural Production and Output per Worker in Hungary, 1870–1913,” this Journal, 28 (06 1968), pp. 215–17;Google ScholarEckstein, Alexander, “National Income and Capital Formation in Hungary, 1900–1950,” in Horecky, Paul, ed., International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, Series 5 (London, 1955), p. 175;Google ScholarBerend and Ránki, Hungary, p. 55; and Komlos, Customs Union, p. 207.Google Scholar

38 See Blum, Noble Landowners, pp. 192–94; Berend and Ránki, East-Central Europe, pp. 28–30;Google ScholarDinklage, Karl, “Die Iandwirtschaftliche Entwicklung,” in Wandruszka, Adam and Urbanitsch, Peter, eds., Die Habsburgermonarchie, 1848–1918 (Vienna, 1973), pp. 410–17;Google ScholarKlíma, Arnoŝt, “Industrial Growth and Entrepreneurship in the Early Stages of Industrialization in the Czech Lands,” Journal of European Economic History, 6 Winter 1977), pp. 564, 573–74;Google ScholarMärz, Eduard, “Comments,” Austrian History Yearbook, 11 (1975), p. 31;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMatis, Ösrerreichs Wirtschaft, p. 44;Google Scholar and Tremel, Ferdinand, Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichre Österreichs. Von den Anfängen bis 1955 (Vienna, 1969), pp. 341–46.Google Scholar

39 On the eve of the 1848 Emancipation forced labor in the form of robot was only a small portion of total labor applied in the agricultural sector—about 9.0 percent in Austria and 4.5 percent in Hungary. Komlos, Customs Union, p. 236.Google Scholar

40 Fogel and Engerman, Time on the Cross, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

41 North, Douglass, The Economic Growth of the United States, 1790–1860 (New York, 1966), p. 52;Google ScholarBateman and Weiss, Deplorable Scarcity, pp. 113–21;Google ScholarFleisig, Heywood, “Slavery, the Supply of Agricultural Labor, and the Industrialization of the South,” this Journal, 36 (09 1976), pp. 572–97;Google Scholar and Gallman, Robert, “Slavery and Southern Economic Growth,” Southern Economic Journal, 45 (April 1979), pp. 1007–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Parker, William, “The South in the National Economy, 1865–1970,” Southern Economic Journal, 46 (April 1980), pp. 1038–39, 1045–46;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMandle, Black Poverty, chap. 5;Google ScholarRansom, Roger and Sutch, Richard, One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of Emancipation (New York, 1977);Google ScholarWhatley, Warren, “Institutional Change and Mechanization in the Cotton South” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1983);Google Scholar and the recent textbook treatment in Hughes, Jonathan, American Economic History (Glenview, Ill., 1983) pp. 272–77.Google Scholar For a more positive assessment of postbellum Southern institutions see Reid, Joseph Jr, “White Land, Black Labor, and Agricultural Stagnation,” Explorations in Economic History, 16 (01 1979), pp. 31–55;CrossRefGoogle Scholar nd Higgs, Robert, Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the American Economy, 1865–1914 (New York, 1977), chap. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Wright, Gavin, “Slavery and the Cotton Boom,” Explorations in Economic History, 12 (10 1975), p. 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar