Why didn't France industrialize?

[unmerged(4253)]

France fell behind England and the rest of the industialized nations after the revolution. Why? I have listed some possible reasons. Please rank them in importance to you, and feel free to add or subtract reasons altogether (provided you have an explination for doing so).

Was it (?):

1. Napoleon and the revoution delayed any industrialization so that they were decades behind England, US, and Germany.

2. Catholicism is hostile to industrialization.

3. French culture is hostile to industrialization.

4. France lacked natural resources necessary for industrialization.

5. After Napoleon's defeat the European powers prevented France from industrializing.

6. The Napoleonic wars, French revolution, and the reigns of the subsiquent monarchs killed many Frenchmen, or forced them to emigrate from France. This made it so there was a labor shortage, and no surplus labor developed, which is a prerequisite for industrialization.

7. France eliminated its aristocracy (for a while) and divided their lands (permanently). There was no "enclosure movement" in france because of this, and few peasants were forced off their lands. This ment that the cities didn't have large enough proletariat classes that are necessary as workers for factories and coal mines.

8. the post-napoleon aristocracy was hostile to industrialization.

 

[joak]

First off, I think it's incorrect to say France "didn't industrialize"--if you phrase it as a binary, they clearly did, just not at the revolutionary speed of Britain, or the much later spurts of Germany and the US.

But why slower? I'd say the biggest reason you list relative prosperity (or less abject poverty, anyway) of French peasants and citizens made factory work less attractive--basically 7, although there was far, far more to it than the aristocratic holdings being broken up, so you could call it 3 also.

There are reasons I'd be skeptical with several of your proposals:

2) Bohemia and esp. Belgium, IIRC, were two of the leaders in industrialization areas outside Britain in the 1st half of the 19th century. Both Catholic areas which did fine despite any "hostility"

4) France was plenty wealthy enough to obtain what resoures they needed from abroad. Certainly areas like Saxony and Belgium that didn't have access domestic resources in large amounts industrialized succesfully.

5) I'm not aware of any European power trying to stop French industry. Considering the sort of broad changes in society industrialization brought, and the small scales it started at, I'm not sure what they could have done, if they were even prescient enough to try.

8) The aristocracy was never a big fan of inudstrializaiton anywhere--why would they have been a noticeable problem in France, especially post-revolution.

I've read that while the British were industrializing, a lot of the French capital investment was taking place in other countries, making nice profits for the investors without creating domestic industries. I have no idea why this happened (if it did), but it's something else to consider.

 

[stnylan]

I think factor (1) - the effect of the Revolution and Napolean is not to underestimated, and the continuing political uncertainties in France throughout the 19thC.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Originally posted by joak
....
5) I'm not aware of any European power trying to stop French industry. Considering the sort of broad changes in society industrialization brought, and the small scales it started at, I'm not sure what they could have done, if they were even prescient enough to try.

Britain forbid industrialists and machinists from spreading their technology to the European continent (this was only somewhat successful). Perhaps other nations might have done this, they also might have forbid France from importation specifiacally.

 

[Sire Philippe]

Originally posted by CoolElephant
Britain forbid industrialists and machinists from spreading their technology to the European continent (this was only somewhat successful). Perhaps other nations might have done this, they also might have forbid France from importation specifiacally.

Spreading of technologies was too unmaterial to be so controled. For instance, in my town of Calais, textile industry grow up very quickly during first half of 19th century, thanks to british unofficial imports and investments.

So general policy (and no other countries have so mush technical advance as England during most of 19th century) is not in my opinion the real problem.

For me, the main problem seems to be in 2 parts :

1) "agricultural revolution" - problem of evolution of farmers and agricultura during 18th century in England in France (not really a problem of advance, but of kind of evolution)

2) control of state on trade and industry - was interference of state in economy a good thing at this time ? - I have no political opinion in this problem, but I think it's here the real opposition between France and England.

 

[unmerged(12448)]

no resources

according to the book "the rise and fall of great powers" one of the reasons france fell behind is that france does not have much coal. and those regions that have a fair amount of coal did industrialize. it is the same with italy. italy does not have rich coal mines, so they had to import coal. at those times you needed about four times the amount of coal than of ore. today the rate is much lower.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Actually, some recent work on the industrial revolution in England has emphasized that there were actually not that many differences between the industrialization of England and France. It was not so much the case that France did better than is popularly believed, but rather that England did not industrialize to the degree & speed that everyone assumes. I just finished reading a book that emphasized that industrialization in England, & the related emergence of a more-or-less unified working class, did not reach a stage of maturity until the early 20th century. In the 19th century, some industries in England were "industrialized," while others remained focussed on older techniques and small shops rather than factories. I imagine that the case of France was similar.

 

[Dark Knight]

There has been some recent research indicating that Britain did not industrialise as quickly as is commonly assumed, but it was nonetheless the fastest to industrialise, certainly beating France.

France, for its part, was one of the first countries to begin industrialising, but the slowness of the process resulted in it being overtaken by some other countries (notably Germany). Even so, it did industrialise fairly successfully. In 1856, 26.9 percent of France's active population worked in industrial occupations, but this rose only to 33.1 percent by 1910. Even so, around 1900 about 30 percent of France's workforce participated in industry, which compared favourably to Austria (20%), Italy (24%), or Denmark (26%) and was about the same as the Netherlands (32%). France had, however, fallen behind the first rank of industrial nations, consisting of Britain (46%), Belgium (37%), Germany (~38%), and Switzerland (44%).

Some of the reasons for the later French laggardness in industrialisation include the small, family-oriented nature of French firms, which weren't able to expand rapidly or make the best use of economies of scale, and the relative productivity of French agriculture.

 

[peo]

I think the main reason was a lack of coal.
All the areas with easily accesable coal industrialized.
A lot of the important technologies in the industrialization wasn't Brittish so that wasn't the main thing.
The UK had a abundance of coal and bad iron (high in sulfur iirc), these are the 2 things that made industrialization possible.
France has some coal but not even close to the UK's amounts.

If we take another nation, Sweden which also industrialized late.
We have an abundance of iron ore both good and bad.
Probably more than any other european nation had.
We also had a comparativly well educated citizenry and also problems with over population in areas.
Only lacked one thing. Coal.
Coal was what fueled the industrial revolution and that is what separates the areas that did industrialize and the ones that didn't.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

i would agree coal, and say that obtaining more without warfare would have been difficult. they didnt begin to have trualy massive tradeships till most industrializing was done and the french were not known for they massive shipping industry
there could easily be other factors that also made it harder, but without coal, industrialization was not going to occur on any grand scale, with any speed.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

I don't think it was 'hostile' catholics, as someone stated, Belgium and Bohemia were some of the leaders. (Esp. Belgium).

But, ppl have to know that the lack of aristocracy was also lacking in the USA, too.

I think that points 1, 2, 4, and 7 can be taken out. The war killed many Germans, Russians, Poles, Austrians, and others too. Catholocism is not hostile to industrialization as examples show. I don't know much about France's coal deposits, but I believe that if they didn't have much they had the money to buy. The USA eliminated its arisotrcay, too, and they ended up as the most industialized nation in the world.

Therefor, the next point, 3....
French culture hostile to industrialization -- I don't think this so, specifically their culture, but rather what came out of it. When peasant's didn't mass move to cities (as they did in Germany/Prussia, England, and the USA), the industralization process happened slower, because the cities grew slower. For example, nations like Spain and Portugal didn't industralize quickly either, and the same can be said for Austria and Russia.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

well russia had a much larger country to industrialize, with a lower density. so while some parts can be industrialized, a country like russia is so big with in many ways inhospitable terrain, its a tougher job. while the us was also big it didnt have many wars to fight as distractions and its terrain was much better for industrializing. if russia had a few extra warm ports and a big river running east-west it might have done faster.

but again jsut because its possible to buy it, doesnt mean there are enough sellers, with coal available, close enough for france to make use of it. while shipping wood from america to england isnt all too hard with older craft, shipping coal in bulk? well i am no expert but doesnt coal-dust cause things to go boom? and other problems with getting an item such as coal to the right places.
most countries are trying to use their coal for thier industry, and colonies well.. again shipping on a grand scale, and having the coal mines possibly not in place in those 3rd world areas.....

 

[peo]

The problem with coal isn't that it wasn't available on the market.
There has always been more than enough.
It is that it is completly unprofitable to ship for use in making iron and steel.
The density of coal makes it very expensive to ship due to the massive amounts needed in the process of making steel.
It is much cheeper to ship the iron to the coal than the other way around.
That is why Sweden wasn't industrialized early.
That is also why even today most steelmills are located close to coalmines.
It has started to change due to the fact that they are going bankrupt in the western world.
But the fact remains it isn't profitable today to ship coal and it was even less so back then.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Though Britain imported tons of Iron from Germany and Russia.

 

[peo]

Originally posted by CoolElephant
Though Britain imported tons of Iron from Germany and Russia.

Yes, iron is profitable to import due to the much higher density than coal.

 

[Keynes]

One critical factor that has not been mentioned is the relative strength and quality of the financial sector, including: (1) the credibility and strength of the "central banking" authorities such as they were at that time, and (2) the depth, sophistication and strength of the private banking system.

By the 19th century the Bank of england was already well established and played a critical role in maintaining financial stability. The Bank of France didnt exist untill 1800 and although it maintained discount rate stability in the early part of the century, it didnt play the kind of important stabilizing role vis-a-vis the the private banking system.

The British money markets were also far more developed. What one must keep in mind was that industrialism was not just a techological shift in modes of production, it was also linked to a particular socio-economic system, namely capitalism. For capitalistic enterprise to function requires the mobilization of capital. Ie its not just enough to get the coal from Newcastle, one also has to mobilbize credit in sufficient quantities and conditions so as to run a large-scale industrial enterprise.

The French understood this weakness and that in part explains state backing for efforts like Credit Mobilier. But they didnt succeed in creating deep and stable money markets like Lombard Street. Byt the latter part of the century, British finance was strong enough to seek overseas employment of its capital, and that is key factor which helped the rapid industrialization of countries like Germany and the USA which attracted British investment. (France would play a similar role to Russia in the early 20th century).

A good background source is Bagehot's Lombard Street which still has relevance in the present day.