industrialization in nineteenth-century europe, tom kemp

(2): world market --> forces of change and disturbance (as solvent) [too much of this, in kemp's argument]

(4): Britain was unique because development was not part of a preconceived program ('organic' or 'autonomous')

(5): the 'advantages' of lateness -- ability to 'leap over' stages

(7): key--existence of a free labour force as a vital condition of industrialization

(7): merchants becoming industrialists [a bit too much of the orthodox narrative, again]

(8): key--traditional agrarian structure as block

(9): considerable unnevenness--wide regional differences across parts of Europe

(10): resource endowments were quite important, when you look at regions that were developing across the continent

(10-11): pithy answer to 'Why Europe?' is the nature of European feudalism ('looser, more individualist, etc.')

(11): key--it was the productive relations which were decisive (not trade)

(12): key--the creation of a class of landless wage-earners was critical

(13): suggesting that the political revolutions were crucial, in preparing the environment (political-juridical) [but how does this sit with his other arguments?]

(14): again, market forces as a 'dissolvent'

(15): emancipation from customary restrictions in the 1700s was important [how do we make sense of this? didn't take a 'State', but it did take a 'political revolution'? was this the inevitable outcome of the transformation of the agrarian structure?]

(16): the limitations of putting-out became clear by the 1700s -- couldn't realize further economies of scale, needed the factory

(17-18): imp--core of innovations took place in textiles, but this was driven by what was happening to demand and supply outside of textiles (important to note that inventive capacity was equally well-developed in other parts of Europe, but they suffered because they lacked England's reformed agrarian structures)

(20): development of credit networks was important; the Continent had them, but there the power of banks/finance was overweening (in England, most investment was from profits)

(21): sluggishness after a time, b/c of headstart?

(22-23): imp--protectionism was a widespread response -- but a more successful response was to search for niche markets, where Britain was not a competitor

(24): slow progress was not due to 'cultural preferences'/luddism

(24): they had to figure out a strategy to fit the period of British dominance

(25): capital goods industries were more important to late developers, than they were to British at comparable stages

(26): there were also differences in firm patterns (size, integration, etc.) (though he recommends against exaggerating this)

(27): imp-- rural artisans are understood as 'feudal relics', dead once the mass market emerges

(28) int--stressing the importance of links to the international division of labour, without which industrialization in Britain would have been slowed down

(29): 1848-1873 was a period of liberalizing markets, but 'free trade' was dealt a blow by the depression (industrialists sided with agrarian interests demanding protectionism)

(29): Britain didn't need protectionism, though, partly on account of her large formal and informal empire ('colonial development' as a substitute) [though presumably the dominance of her industry was sufficient?]

(30): lack of State in Britain was quite exceptional

(30-31): advantages of lateness need to be put in perspective -- they derive advantages only really in interindustry comparisons, but until 1914 nationally are inferior

(34): weakness of central powers in European feudalism [how to make sense of 'absolutist reaction' to declining seigneural revenues after the crisis of the 14th and 15th centuries, then? surely this disrupts the attempt to read European development back into a 'weak feudalism'?]

(35): towns as 'dissolvents'

(36): village cultivation as a 'collective effort'

(37): external forces --> disintegration

(38): critical -- reforms/revolution of basic agrarian structure was required, in order to give peasant cultivators incentives to pursue technical improvements

(39): emergence of a landless class

(40): labour force starting to develop in England by late Middle Ages; in France by 1700s; in Germany by 1700s; in E. Europe and Russia by late 1800s. this marks the development of capitalism.

(42): the old agrarian structures prohibit accumulation, imposing a brake upon the rate of economic progress

(43): consolidated power of the village community was also a block

(45): reciprocity in agrarian and industrial spheres [how to make (theoretical) sense of this more precisely, given the primacy of the impetus given by agrarian transformation?]

(46): importance of the potato, which was introduced in the 1700s

(47-48): imp-- French Rev was successful in safeguarding the rights of the French peasantry, which would act as a block on French development

(49): two pressures on French peasantry, after revolution: (1) modernization; (2) Napoleonic 'reform from above'. but this didn't change the basic story.

(50): imp-- story about the encroachment of the market breaking down old rural self-sufficiency, and bringing peasant/farmer into the market economy [again, this needs interrogation. how can this happen, if not 'from above'?]

(51): necessity of extra-European supplies of food