path dependency, or why Britain became an industrialized and urbanized economy long before France, O'Brien (1996)

(213): std. of living before the Great War were probably not that far apart, actually

(214, see 242 also): argument: difference was a function of (1) geographical endowments, and (2) a system of property rights inherited from feudal past [either an alternative to or a misspecification of the Brenner thesis--or, an attempt to answer to questions the Brenner thesis begs?]

(215): importance of agriculture is three-fold (lists four, but 1 and 3 are the same)

1. supports growth of populations off of the land (and releasing labour and capital)
2. supplying them with food and RM
3. acting as a home market for manufactured goods, urban services

(216-217): land productivity comparable or higher in France between 1700 and 1910 (which was a function of intensification of labour inputs--i.e., not welfare enhancing!); but labour productivity far superior in England 

(219): imp-- it was not so much 'innovation', in this period (1500-1800), as it was the application of already-existing 'know-how'. rudimentary practices to store and accumulate nitrogen. [this is a very important point, as regards the Brenner thesis]

(222): availability of animals per capita was very important--progressive agrarian regions were most distinguished by this. (this becomes an 'endowment', that's important to the question at-hand)

(223-224): hints toward a 'geographic explanation'[but low bar, here, since it's just a two-country comparison]--availability of fodder crops, and less need for investment in inter-regional transport

(224-225): in sum--importance of animals, providing energy, fertilizer, etc., all raising yields and releasing labour.

(226): key--institutions of developing capitalist agriculture in Britain just wouldn't retain as much redundant labour--peasantry evolved into wage-dependent agricultural labour force well before 1800, which is very different from the rest of Europe

(228-229): key--revolutionary agrarian reforms, in France, helped secure peasantry in its place; 1800s was a century of challenge, which they met by selling below market prices, exploiting family labour, etc (self-exploitation)

(230): key--peasants stayed peasants because they wanted to minimize risks, maintain access to land. avoid uncertainty of proletarian life.

(232-233): referencing Bloch, here, arguing that reforms of 1789 were illustrative of general peasant strength, in Fr., to maintain access to land; very different from what's true, in Britain (good stats on how this translated into tenant farmer dominance, in Eng., but p-proprietor dominance, in Fr.)

(236): at beginning of 1600s, about 1/3rd of English farms were capitalist, another 1/3rd both family and hired labour. 45% of farms were removed from open fields.

(237): imp, waves of enclosure: between 1450 and 1525, in check till 1660, and then 1660-1815 [contradicts thesis that increasing enclosures were key to p. resistance in ECW, see JPS readings]

(239): there's a feedback loop, here, too: food prices went up as peasants migrated to cities, prompting further consolidation of capitalist farming in countryside, further migration of peasantry, etc.

(241): in sum, 'going back to the land' gives us as persuasive account of economic develoment as any (though concession that it's not reducible to agrarian fundamentals)