I would like to thank David Landes, the students in my seminar in 1970–71, the participants in the Wesleyan history department's Faculty Seminar in 1971–72, especially Herbert Arnold, Eugene Golob, and Stanley Lebergott, and the referees of this journal, who read and commented upon successive versions of this essay. None of them is responsible for the results.

1. Pinson, Koppel S., Modern Germany: Its History and Civilization (New York, 1954), pp. 219–20;Google ScholarFlenley, Ralph, Modern German History (London, 1964), p. 244;Google ScholarBorchardt, Knut, The Industrial Revolution in Germany, 1700–1914, The Fontana Economic History of Europe, ed. Cipolla, Carlo (London, 1972), p. 5.Google Scholar Of the twenty-six works considered here which seem to share the traditional approach, four appeared before 1920 (Roscher, Dawson, Helfferich, Schmoller), five between 1921 and 1932 (Sartorius von Waltershausen, Cunow, Sombart, Pohle and Muss, Knowles), three between 1933 and 1945 (Benaerts, Häpke and Wiskemann, Bruck) and five between 1946 and 1960 (Brinkmann, Bechtel, Mottek, Hamerow, Hausherr). Of the nine works published since 1961, three are new editions of older works (Clapham, Stolper, Lütge—first published in 1936, 1940, and 1952 respectively) and six are new pieces (Henderson, two by Treue, Landes, Mauersberg, Brusatti). These “general histories” seek to present explanations of German economic development over relatively large portions of the period from the late eighteenth century to 1914. The list is nearly complete, though not exhaustive, and includes the works to which nonspecialists might refer and to which students might be referred.

2. On the definition of modern economic growth see Kuznets, Simon, Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread (New Haven, 1966);Google ScholarGerschenkron, Alexander, “Continuity in History,” in Continuity in History and Other Essays (Cambridge, Mass., 1967).Google Scholar On long cycles in German development see Rosenberg, Hans, Grosse Depression und Bismarckzeit (Berlin, 1967), pp. 30–51;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWehler, Hans-Ulrich, Bismarck und der Imperialismus (Cologne, 1969), pp. 39ff.;Google ScholarBöhme, Helmut, Prolegomena zu einer Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt a.M., 1968), pp. 17ff., who remains traditional in a somewhat uncritical evaluation of government action before 1850.Google Scholar

3. Böhme, Prolegomena, pp. 26ff.; Pohle, L. and Muss, M., Das deutsche Wirtschaftsleben seit Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, 6th ed. (Leipzig, 1930), pp. 2, 5–6;Google ScholarLandes, David S., “Japan and Europe: Contrasts in Industrialization,” in Lockwood, William W., ed., The State and Economic Enterprise in Japan (Princeton, 1965), pp. 133, 153–57;Google ScholarLütge, Friedrich, Deutsche Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 3rd ed. (West Berlin, 1966), pp. 431–53;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBrusatti, Alois, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte des industriellen Zeitalters (Graz, 1967), pp. 95–96, 114, 116.Google Scholar

4. Engels, Wilhelm, Ablösungen und Gemeinheitsteilungen in der Rheinprovinz (Bonn, 1957).Google Scholar

5. Barkhausen, Max, “Der Aufstieg der rheinischen Industrie im 18. Jahrhundert und die Entstehung eines industriellen Grossbürgertums,” Rheinische Vierteljahresblätter, vol. 19 (1954);Google Scholarvon Rohrscheidt, Kurt, Vom Zunftzwang zur Gewerbefreiheit (Berlin, 1898), p. 580.Google Scholar

6. Lütge, Friedrich, Geschichte der deutschen Agrarverfassung vom frühen Mittelalter biszum 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1963), pp. 231–33.Google Scholar

7. Rohrscheidt, Zunftzwang, pp. 549–50, 557, 578–622.

8. Hamerow, Theodore S., Restoration, Revolution, Reaction: Economics and Politics in Germany, 1815–1871 (Princeton, 1958), pp. 3–5;CrossRefGoogle Scholarvon Waltershausen, August F. Sartorius, Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1815–1914, 2nd ed. (Jena, 1923);Google ScholarClapham, J. H., The Economic Development of France and Germany, 4th ed. (Cambridge, 1936);Google ScholarHenderson, W. O., The Industrial Revolution on the Continent (London, 1961), p. 13;Google ScholarCunow, H., Allgemeine Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 4 vols. (Berlin, 1926–1931), IV, 65.Google Scholar

9. Brinkmann, C., Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, 2nd ed. (Göttingen, 1953), pp. 131–32;Google ScholarUcke, Arnold, Die Agrarkrise in Preussen während der zwanziger Jahre dieses Jahrhunderts (Halle, 1888).Google Scholar

10. Benaerts, Pierre, Les origines de la grande industrie allemande…1834–1866 (Paris, 1933), pp. 16ff., 73ff.;Google ScholarLandes, David S., The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (New York, 1969), pp. 146–47.Google Scholar

11. Roscher, Wilhelm, Geschichte der National-Oekonomik in Deutschland (Munich, 1874), p. 977Google Scholar; Lütge, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 454.

12. Lütge, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 463–65; Bechtel, Heinrich, Wirtschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands im 19. und 20. jahrhundert (Munich, 1956), pp. 37ff.;Google ScholarTreue, Wilhelm, Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Neuzeit (Stuttgart, 1962), p. 525.Google Scholar

13. Benaerts, Origines, pp. 25ff.

14. Brusatti, Sozialgeschichte, p. 98.

15. Mottek, Hans, Wirtschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands: Ein Grundriss (East Berlin, 1957ff.), II, 56;Google Scholar Pohle, Wirtschaftsleben; Cunow, , Wirtschaftsgeschichte, IV, 82, 99;Google Scholar Lütge, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 467–71; Brinkmann, Sozialgeschichte, p. 130; Benaerts, Origines, p. 7; Hamerow, Restoration, p. 10; Sombart, Werner, Die deutsche Volkswirtschaft im 19. Jahrhundert, 7th ed. (Berlin, 1927), p. 7;Google ScholarHenderson, W. O., The Zollverein, 2nd ed. (London, 1959);Google ScholarStolper, Gustav, Häuser, Karl, and Borchardt, Knut, The German Economy 1870 to the Present, trans. Stolper, Toni (London, 1967), pp. 13–15.Google Scholar

16. Benaerts, Origines, pp. 69–70; Bein, Louis, Die Industrie des sächsischen Voigtlandes, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1884);Google ScholarKöllmann, Wolfgang, Sozialgeschichte der Stadt Barmen im 19. Jahrhundert (Tübingen, 1960);Google ScholarBüsch, Otto, Militärsystem und Sozialleben im alten Preussen (West Berlin, 1962);Google ScholarBondi, Gerhard, Deutschlands Aussenhandel, 1815–1870 (East Berlin, 1958).Google Scholar

17. Roscher, National-Oekonomik, p. 991; Mottek, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 130ff.; Häpke, R. and Wiskemann, E., Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Part II: 1800–1933 (Leipzig, 1933), pp. 53ff.Google Scholar

18. Voigt, Fritz, Die gestaltende Kraft der Verkehrsmittel in wirtschaftlichen Wachstumsprozessen (Bielefeld, 1959), p. 27.Google Scholar

19. Sombart, Volkswirtschaft, p. 202.

20. Benaerts, Origines, pp. 328–29; Schmoller, Gustav, Grundriss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre, 2 vols. (Munich, 1919–1920), II, 14–16.Google Scholar

21. Benaerts, Origines, p. 628; Henderson, Zollverein; Böhme, Helmut, Deutschlands Weg zur Grossmacht (Cologne, 1966).Google Scholar

22. Benaerts, Origines, p. 242; Brusatti, Sozialgeschichte, pp. 97–98; Brinkmann, Sozialgeschichte, p. 151.

23. Tilly, Richard H., “Los von England: Probleme des Nationalismus in der deutschen Wirtschaftsgeschichte,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, vol. 124 (1968).Google Scholar

24. Hausherr, Hans, Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Neuzeit, 3rd ed. (Cologne, 1960), p. 390.Google Scholar

25. Bavaria, , Statistisches Landesamt, Beiträge zur Statistik Bayerns, vol. 10 (1862).Google Scholar In Baden, the new Zollverein rates represented a substantial increase and the textile industry expanded, protected from Swiss and Alsatian competition, though at the possible expense of local consumers. Fischer, Wolfram, Der Staat und die Anfänge der Industrialisierung in Baden, 1800–1850 (West Berlin, 1962), pp. 128–36.Google Scholar

26. Martin, Rudolf, “Der wirtschaftliche Aufschwung der Baumwollspinnerei im Königreich Sachsen,” Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 17 (1893).Google Scholar

27. Gordon, Nancy M., “Britain and the Zollverein Iron Duties, 1842–45,” Economic History Review, vol. 22 (1969);Google ScholarWiedenfeld, Kurt, Ein Jahrhundert rheinischer Montanindustrie (Bonn, 1916), p. 9.Google Scholar

28. Spiethoff, A., “Krisen,” Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 4th ed. (Jena, 1925), VI, 48–49.Google Scholar

29. Hoffmann, Walther G., Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (West Berlin, 1965), pp. 172–73, 175, 204–5.Google Scholar

30. Prussia, , Statistisches Landesamt, Mittheilungen, vol. 1 (1848), pp. 213ff.;Google ScholarIbid., vol. 2 (1849), pp. 1ff.; ibid., vol. 4 (1851), pp. 228ff.

31. Dieterici, C. F. W., Der Volkswohlstand im preussischen Staat (Berlin, 1846), pp. 40–41, 176–82, 250.Google Scholar

32. Clapham, France and Germany; Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 177–78; Sombart, Volkswirtschaft, p. 21; Hausherr, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 393; Cunow, , Wirtschaftsgeschichte, IV, 80;Google Scholar Henderson, Continent, p. 29; Kulisher, , Wirtschaftsgeschichte, II, 417–18;Google ScholarSchmoller, , Grundriss, I, 501.Google Scholar

33. Sombart, Volkswirtschaft, p. 120.

34. Hamerow, Restoration, p. 207; Sombart, Volkswirtschaft, pp. 79–80, 450; Benaerts, Origines, p. 641; Hansen, Joseph, “Von der französischen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart,” in Aubin, Hermann, ed., Geschichte des Rheinlandes, 2 vols. (Essen, 1922), I, 311–13.Google Scholar

35. Treue, Wilhelm, “Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Gebhardt, Bruno, ed., Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte, 8th ed. (Stuttgart, 1962), III, 327;Google Scholar Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 137; Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Revolution and Counter-Revolution: Germany in 1848 (London, 1904), p. 51;Google Scholar Mottek, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 14–16; Böhme, Prolegomena, pp. 43–44.

36. Mottek, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 14–16; Croon, Helmuth, “Die Einwirkung der Industrialisierung auf die gesellschaftliche Schichtung der Bevölkerung im rheinischwestfälischen Industriegebiet,” Rheinische Vierteljahresblätter, vol. 20 (1955).Google Scholar

37. Bergengrün, Alexander, Staatsminister August Freiherr von der Heydt (Leipzig, 1908), pp. 145–46, 166–67, 218–20;Google ScholarHansemann, David, Die Eisenbahnen und deren Aktionäre in ihrem Verhältnis zum Staat (Leipzig, 1837), pp. 43–44, 102–3.Google Scholar

38. Bergengrün, Von der Heydt, pp. 214–16; Benaerts, Origines, pp. 410–11; Adelman, Gerhard, Die soziale Betriebsverfassung des Ruhrbergbaus vom Amfang des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum ersten Weltkrieg (Bonn, 1962), pp. 26ff.;Google ScholarFischer, Wolfram, “Die Stellung der preussischen Bergrechtsreform von 1851–1865 in der Wirtschafts- und Sozialverfassung des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, vol. 117 (1961).Google Scholar

39. Eichholtz, Dietrich, Junker und Bourgeoisie vor 1848 in der preussischen Eisenbahngeschichte (East Berlin, 1962), pp. 43, 101–3, 119–24;Google ScholarLeiskow, H., Spekulation und öffentliche Meinung in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Jena, 1930), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

40. Fischer, “Bergrechtsreform”; Adelman, Betriebsverfassung, p. 49; Brepohl, Wilhelm, Industrievolk im Wandel von der agraren zur industriellen Daseinsform dargestellt am Ruhrgebiet (Tübingen, 1957), pp. 181–84.Google Scholar

41. Bergengrün, Von der Heydt, p. 218; Blumberg, Horst, “Die Finanzierung der Neugründungen und Erweiterungen von Industriebetrieben in Form der Aktiengesellschaften während der fünfziger Jahre…,” in Mottek, Hans, ed., Studien zur Geschichte der industriellen Revolution in Deutschland (East Berlin, 1960);Google ScholarThieme, Horst, “Statistiche Materialien zur Konzessionierung von Aktiengesellschaften in Preussen bis 1867,” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1960, Pt. 2.Google Scholar

42. Bergengrün, Von der Heydt, pp. 222–40.

43. Tilly, Richard H., “Soll und Haben: Recent German Economic History and the Problem of Economic Development,” Journal of Economic History, vol. 29 (1969), p. 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. Hamerow, Restoration, p. 5; Häpke, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 86; Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 135, 378, 487.

45. Dawson, William H., The Evolution of Modern Germany (London, 1908), p. 51;Google Scholar Lütge, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 430, 503–5.

46. Knowles, L. C. A., Economic Development in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1932), pp. 169, 173–74;Google Scholar Brusatti, Sozialgeschichte, pp. 179–80.

47. Cunow, , Wirtschaftsgeschichte, IV, 101–3.Google Scholar

48. Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 237, 623.

49. Stolper et al., German Economy, pp. 13–15.

50. Borchardt, Industrial Revolution in Germany, pp. 43–44.

51. See Schmoller, , Grundriss, II, 548;Google Scholar Sombart, Volkswirtschaft, pp. 85–86, 122; Clapham, France and Germany, p. 281; Hamerow, Restoration, pp. 8–10, 16, 253; Henderson, Continent, pp. 46–47; Treue, , in Gebhardt, Handbuch, III, 325;Google ScholarMauersberg, Hans, Deutsche Industrien im Zeitgeschehen eines Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1966), pp. 113–52.Google Scholar Borchardt himself took a more traditional approach in an earlier piece, arguing that although it was “disputed” whether German industrialization “began” in the 1830's, 1840's, or 1850's, and although the question of the empire's contribution would remain “unanswerable,” nonetheless “the rise of Germany between 1871 and the outbreak of the First World War was unparalleled.” Supported by a listing of rates of growth after 1871 and institutional changes under the empire, the statement lacked the support of systematic comparisons of economic aggregates with earlier periods in Germany or with other nations such as Japan or the United States. Borchardt, , “Grundriss der deutschen Wirtschaftsgeschichte,” in Ehrlicher, W. et al. , Kompendium der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Göttingen, 1967), I, 368, 374.Google Scholar

52. Fischer, Wolfram, “Ansätze zur Industrialisierung in Baden, 1770–1870,” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, vol. 47 (1960);Google ScholarZorn, Wolfgang, Handelsund Industriegeschichte Bayerisch-Schwabens, 1648–1870 (Augsburg, 1961).Google Scholar

53. Some examples: Victor, Böhmert, “Hauptergebnisse der sächsischen Statistik,” Zeitschrift des königlichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus, vol. 36 (1890), p. 45;Google ScholarMichelsohn, J., Die bayerische Grossindustrie und ihre Entwicklung seit dem Eintritt Bayerns in das Deutsche Reich (diss., Erlangen, 1907), pp. 20–21;Google ScholarBielefeldt, K., Das Eindringen des Kapitalismus in die Landwirtschaft, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Provinz Sachsen (Berlin, 1911), p. 45; Köllmann, Barmen, p. 51.Google Scholar None of these adduces proof, except for the fact that absolute figures are greater after 1870 than before. More significant is the fact that none of these regions benefited particularly from the foundation of the empire.

54. Bein, , Industrie, II, 333–34;Google ScholarVoigt, Fritz, Die Entwicklung und der Stand der anhaltischen Industrie (diss., Halle, 1933), p. 22;Google ScholarZander, A., Die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung der Provinz Sachsen im 19. Jahrhundert (diss., Halle, 1934), p. 141.Google Scholar

55. Treue, , in Gebhardt, Handbuch, III, 398;Google Scholar Stolper, Wirtschaft, pp. 24–25; Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 274–78.

56. Engel, Ernst, Die industrielle Enquete und die Gewerbezählung im deutschen Reiche…1875 (Berlin, 1878), p. 44.Google Scholar

57. Treue, , in Gebhardt, Handbuch, III, 375.Google Scholar

58. Hoffmann, Wachstum, p. 267.

59. Stolper et al., German Economy, pp. 13–19; Cunow, , Wirtschaftsgeschichte, IV, 101–3;Google Scholar Henderson, Continent, pp. 46–47; Lütge, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 504.

60. Stolper et al., German Economy, pp. 18–19; Hausherr, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 448.

61. Benaerts, Origines, pp. 282ff.

62. Clapham, France and Germany, p. 392; Henderson, Continent, p. 46; Facius, F., Wirtschaft und Staat: Die Entwicklung der staatlichen Wirtschaftsverwaltung vom 17. Jahrhundert bis 1945 (Boppard a.R., 1959).Google Scholar

63. Lütge, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 503; Henderson, Continent, p. 45; Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 249–50.

64. Pflanze, Otto, Bismarck and the Development of Germany (Princeton, 1963), pp. 473–79;Google ScholarLipgens, Walter, “Bismarck, die öffentliche Meinung und die Annexion von Elsass und Lothringen 1870,” Historische Zeitschrift, vol. 199 (1964), pp. 74–88;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Lothar Gall, “Zur Frage der Annexion von Elsass und Lothringen 1870,” ibid., vol. 206 (1968), pp. 308–26.

65. Silverman, Dan P., “The Economic Consequences of Annexation: Alsace-Lorraine and Imperial Germany, 1871–1918,” Central European History, vol. 4 (1971);CrossRefGoogle ScholarLangenhagen, Carl H., Elsass-Lothringen als Rohstoffsgebiet (diss., Würzburg, 1919);Google Scholar Germany, Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reiches, N.F., vol. 7 (1886); ibid., vol. 118 (1898); ibid., vol. 219 (1909).

66. Hoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 172–73, 175, 204–5.

67. See Table 1. The Jostock series was published originally in Income and Wealth, Series V (London, 1955),Google Scholar and is taken here from Hoffmann, Walther G. and Müller, J. H., Das deutsche Volkseinkommen, 1851–1957 (Tübingen, 1959).Google Scholar The Hoffmann-Müller and Hoffmann series rely on different source materials. Hoffmann-Müller measures income received by individuals, corporations, and government enterprises, while Hoffmann measures the value of production and sales in the economy. Despite resulting in large part from the efforts of a single researcher, therefore, the two series may serve as independent checks on each other, and the more recent should not be too easily accepted as superseding the earlier.

68. See Tables 2 and 3. On the history of prices in the nineteenth century, see Landes, Unbound Prometheus, pp. 232ff. The price series implicit in the Hoffmann estimates is obtained by dividing income in current prices by income in 1913 prices for each year. Hoffmann's series for national product in 1913 prices was obtained by adding indexes of output in the various sectors, weighted by their total value added at the end of the period. Hoffmann, Wachstum, p. 453. His series for national expenditure summed sales of goods deflated by individual price indexes. ibid., pp. 617ff. Either method should yield the same result as deflating income in current prices by a single properly weighted price index; hence dividing the current by the constant price series yields the implied general price index.

69. See Table 3. Any common price series will give the same results with respect to relative rates of change. The figures in Table 3 may be converted into constant Hoffmann prices by first dividing by the Hoffmann-Müller price index to obtain the original current price figures, and then multiplying by the Hoffmann price index.

70. Hoffmann and Müller, Volkseinkommen, p. 26.

71. Tilly, “Soll und Haben,” pp. 312–13; Gertrud Helling, “Die Entwicklung der Agrarproduktion in Deutschland nach den Berechnungen Walther G. Hoffmanns,” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1967, Pt. 3. For some of the more important production series dependent upon partial coverage and/or constant ratios, see Hoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 220–21 (investment in buildings), 239 (industrial machinery), 249 (public works), 265 (agricultural production), 357–59 (metal working industry), 377–78, 386–87 (food processing industry), 426–27 (trade services). See also pp. 617–18 for general procedure with regard to consumption series.

72. Hoffmann and Müller, Volkseinkommen, pp. 64–66, 86; Germany, Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reiches, N.F., vol. 211 (1913), p. 6.Google Scholar

73. Production series in Hoffmann, Wachstum, for hard coal (pp. 56, 338ff.), primary metals (pp. 70, 352ff.), meat (pp. 54, 294ff.) and total agricultural output (pp. 54, 310) rise at constant long-term rates throughout the period, further weakening the case for a sudden change in the rate of growth. Despite his best efforts, Hoffmann could find no statistical indication of a “take-off” in Germany at any time during the century, because “there was no sudden acceleration in the rates of growth in real income and in number of production series.” Idem, “The Take-off in Germany,” in Rostow, Walt W., ed., The Economics of Take-off into Sustained Growth (New York, 1963), p. 95.Google Scholar

74. Newbold, J. T. W., “The Beginnings of the World Crisis, 1873–1896,” Economic History, vol. 2 (1932);Google ScholarRostow, Walt W., “Investment and the Great Depression,” Economic History Review, vol. 8 (1938);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Rosenberg, Grosse Depression, pp. 41–42, 62–78.

75. Brusatti, Sozialgeschichte, pp. 179–80; Schmoller, Grundriss, II, 728; Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 239–40, 287; Kulisher, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, II, 501ff.; Lütge, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 519; Brinkmann, C., “The Place of Germany in the Economic History of the Nineteenth Century,” Economic History Review, vol. 3 (1933).Google Scholar

76. Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 378–487; Clapham, France and Germany, p. 334; Bruck, Werner F., Social and Economic History of Germany from William II to Hitler, 1888–1938 (London, 1938), pp. 22, 73;Google ScholarHelfferich, Karl, Deutschlands Volkswohlstand, 1888–1913, 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1914).Google Scholar

77. Clapham, France and Germany, pp. 280–81, 284, 304; Hoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 196–99, 204–6.

78. Hoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 172–73, 175.

79. See Table 3.

80. Böhme, Prolegomena, pp. 96ff.; Spiethoff, “Krisen,” pp. 70–71; Hoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 87, 104–5, 825–26.

81. Lütge, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 417.

82. Benaerts, Origines, p. 46; Henderson, Continent, pp. 16–17; idem, Zollverein.

83. Lütge, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 467.

84. Böhme, Gorssmacht.

85. Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 182; Kulisher, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, II, 505; Böhme, Prolegomena, pp. 54ff.

86. Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 225.

87. Pflanze, Bismarck, pp. 337ff.

88. Helfferich, Volkswohlstand; Brusatti, Sozialgeschichte, pp. 179–80; Böhme, Prolegomena, pp. 39–40; Henderson, W. O., The State and the Industrial Revolution in Prussia, 1740–1870 (Liverpool, 1958);Google ScholarRitter, Ulrich P., Die Rolle des Staates in den Frühstadien der Industrialisierung: Die preussische Industrieförderung in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1961);Google ScholarMieck, Ilja, Preussische Gewerbepolitik in Berlin, 1806–1844 (West Berlin, 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89. Henderson, Prussia, p. 37; idem, Studies in the Economic Policy of Frederick the Great (London, 1963), pp. 48, 145;Google ScholarRachel, Hugo, Das Berliner Wirtschaftsleben im Zeitalter des Frühkapitalismus (Berlin, 1931), pp. 85ff., 127–28, 150;Google Scholar Barkhausen, “Aufstieg der rheinischen Industrie”; Kisch, Herbert, Prussian Mercantilism and the Rise of the Krefeld Silk Industry (Philadelphia, 1968);Google Scholar Lütge, Agrarverfassung, p. 191; Büsch, Militärsystem.

90. Tilly, Richard H., Financial Institutions and Industrialization in the Rhineland, 1815–1870 (Madison, 1966);Google Scholar Eichholtz, Junker und Bourgeoisie, pp. 124–29; Löser, Wolfgang, “Die Rolle des preussischen Staates bei der Ausrüstung der Eisenbahnen mit elektrischen Telegraphen in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1963, Pt. 4;Google ScholarHömberg, Albert K., Wirtschaftsgeschichte Westfalens (Münster, 1968), p. 146; Mieck, Gewerbepolitik, pp. 55–56, 63–67, who draws diametrically opposed conclusions from the documents cited.Google Scholar

91. Wehler, Bismarck, p. 54; Borchardt, Industrial Revolution in Germany, pp. 5–7, 36–39.

92. Barkin, Kenneth D., The Controversy over German Industrialization, 1890–1902 (Chicago, 1970), summarizes the literature.Google Scholar

93. This appears to be the thrust of reviews of national literature in Tilly, “Soll und Haben,” and of regional work in Maschke, Erich, “Industrialisierungsgeschichte und Landesgeschichte,” Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte, vol. 103 (1967),Google Scholar and may be seen in Born, Karl E., ed., Moderne deutsche Wirtschaftgeschichte (Cologne, 1966),Google Scholar and Hans-Ulrich, Wehler, ed., Moderne deutsche Sozialgeschichte (Cologne, 1966).Google Scholar The work in these volumes is often excellent, but the absence of theory, of measurement, and of systematic quantitative investigation of the hypotheses advanced remains striking. Compare the balance in Lockwood, William W., ed., The State and Industrial Enterprise in Japan (Princeton, 1965),Google Scholar or Davis, Lance E. et al. , American Economic Growth (New York, 1972).Google Scholar

94. Mottek, Wirtschaftsgeschichte.

95. , Eichholtz, Junker und Bourgeoisie, pp. iv, 34–36.Google Scholar

96. Roscher, National-Oekonomik, p. 1034; Schmoller, Grundriss, I, 544; II, 52–59; Eisermann, G., Die Grundlagen des Historismus in der deutschen Nationalökonomie (Stuttgart, 1956).Google Scholar

97. Hardach, Karl W., “Some Remarks on German Economic Historiography and its Understanding of the Industrial Revolution in Germany,” Journal of European Economic History, vol. 1 (1972), p. 38, who emphasizes the field's persistent antitheoretical bias rather than the unexamined political assumptions stressed here.Google Scholar

98. On French “stagnation” and English “retardation,” see Gerschenkron, Alexander, “Social Attitudes, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Development,” Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (New York, 1962);Google ScholarMcCloskey, Donald N., “Did Victorian Britain Fail?” Economic History Review, vol. 23 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

99. Sartorius von Waltershausen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 238.

100. Clapham, France and Germany, p. 281.

101. Tilly, “Los von England”; idem, “Soll und Haben,” p. 316.

102. Böhme may represent both aspects of this development, his Prolegomena apparently having been written partly out of dissatisfaction with the economic histories available as he was preparing his Grossmacht.

103. Engel, Enquete, p. 44.

104. In addition, the existence of the Great Depression depends upon the indicators chosen. See the review of Rosenberg, Grosse Depression, by Gerschenkron, Alexander, Journal of Economic History, vol. 28 (1968), pp. 154–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For Great Britain, see Saul, S. B., The Myth of the Great Depression, 1873–1896 (London, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

105. Gerschenkron, “Continuity in History,” pp. 34–35.

106. Henderson, W. O., “The Genesis of the Industrial Revolution in France and Germany in the 18th Century,” Kyklos, vol. 9 (1956);CrossRefGoogle ScholarDreyfus, François G., “Bilan économique des allemagnes en 1815,” Revue d'histoire économique et sociale, vol. 43 (1965).Google Scholar

107. Kuznets, Simon, “The State as a Unit in the Study of Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic History, vol. 11 (1951);CrossRefGoogle Scholar for an excellent analysis of early regional variations, see Borchardt, Knut, “Regionale Wachstumsdifferenzierung in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Friedrich Lütge Festschrift (Stuttgart, 1966).Google Scholar

108. Bridenbaugh, Carl, “The Great Mutation,” American Historical Review, vol. 68 (1963), p. 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the principles of the application of quantitative and social science methods, see Benson, Lee, Toward the Scientific Study of History (Philadelphia, 1972);Google ScholarLandes, David S. and Tilly, Charles, History as Social Science (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971).Google Scholar For examples, see Rowney, Don K. and Graham, James Q., eds., Quantitative History (Homewood, Ill., 1969);Google ScholarSwierenga, Robert P., ed., Quantification in American History (New York, 1970).Google Scholar