¹ The literature is, of course, a large one but among the more notable contributions are Kemp, Tom, Industrialisation in Nineteenth Century Europe (London, 1969);Google ScholarKindleberger, Charles P., Economic Growth in France and Britain, 1851–1950 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Landes, David S., The Unbound Prometheus (Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar

² Roehl, Richard, “French Industrialization: A Reconsideration,” Explorations in Economic History, 13 (07 1976), 233–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ O'Brien, Patrick K. and Keyder, Caglar, Economic Growth in Britain and France, 1780–1914 (London, 1978), p. 21.Google Scholar

⁴ Cameron, Rondo E. and Freedeman, Charles G., “French Economic Growth: A Radical Revision” (paper presented to the Social Science History Meeting, Chicago, 1982), p. 2.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., p. 7.

⁶ Kindleberger, Charles P., Review of “O'Brien and Keyder,” Economic History Review, 32 (05 1979), 295–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ O'Brien and Keyder, Economic Growth, p. 61.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid., p. 90.

⁹ Ibid., p. 148.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 138.

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 97, 100.

¹² Ibid., p. 167.

¹³ These results are presented in Bairoch, Paul, “Europe's Gross National Product: 1800–1975,” Journal of European Economic History, 5 (Fall 1976), 273–340;Google Scholar and in Maddison, Angus, “Phases of Capitalist Development,” in Economic Growth and Resources, ed. Matthews, Robin C. O., vol. 2 (London, 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁴ This work is reported in Crafts, N. F. R., “Gross National Product in Europe, 1870–1910: Some New Estimates,” Explorations in Economic History (forthcoming).Google Scholar

¹⁵ The procedure used by these authors is different in detail but similar in spirit to that used here to obtain the European Norm; see Chenery, Hollis B. and Syrquin, Moses, Patterns of Development, 1950–1970 (Oxford, 1975).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Full details of the regressions can be found in Crafts, N. F. R., “Patterns of Development in Nineteenth-Century Europe,” Oxford Economic Papers (forthcoming).Google Scholar

¹⁷ A fuller discussion of Britain's idiosyncrasies can be found in ibid.

¹⁸ These statements can be given greater quantitative precision. They are confirmed formally, and statistical significance is shown in the regressions in ibid., Table 3.

¹⁹ For further amplification of this point, see Kuznets, Simon S., Economic Growth of Nations (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Crafts, “Patterns of Development,” Tables 4 and 5.Google Scholar

²⁰ O'Brien and Keyder, Economic Growth, p. 31.Google Scholar

²¹ Roehl, Richard, “French Industrialization: A Reconsideration,” p. 268.Google Scholar

²² Barsby, Steven L., “Economic Backwardness and the Characteristics of Development,” this JOURNAL, 29 (09 1969), 449–72.Google Scholar

²³ Crafts, “Patterns of Development.”Google Scholar

²⁴ O'Brien and Keyder, Economic Growth, p. 90.Google Scholar

²⁵ The sources used by O'Brien, and Keyder, are Homer, S., A History of Interest Rates, 2000 B.C. to the Present (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1963);Google Scholar and Phelps, Ernest H.Brown, and Browne, Margaret, A Century of Pay (London, 1968).Google Scholar

²⁶ O'Brien and Keyder (Economic Growth, p. 88) acknowledge the disappointing rate of growth of French industrial labor productivity, a point that does not receive emphasis in Cameron and Freedeman.Google Scholar

²⁷ Carré, J., Dubois, P., and Malinvaud, E., La Croissance Française (Paris, 1972), p. 88.Google Scholar

²⁸ Levy-Leboyer's, M. data is in “Capital Investment and Economic Growth in France, 1820–1930,” in Cambridge History of Europe. ed. Mathias, P. and Postan, M. (Cambridge, 1978), vol. 7, pt. 1, pp. 292–95.Google Scholar

²⁹ For Feinstein's index of industrial production, see Feinstein, Charles H., National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdom, 1855–1965 (Cambridge, 1972), pp. T118–T119.Google Scholar

³⁰ Carré et al., La Croissance, pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

³¹ Caron, François, An Economic History of Modern France (London, 1979), pp. 15, 22, 24.Google Scholar

³² Marczewski, Jean, Le produit physique de l'économie française de 1789 à 1913 (Paris, 1965), p. XLIX.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid., p. LVI.

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ Ibid., p. LIX.

³⁶ Caron, Economic History, p. 17.

³⁷ Ibid., p. 42.

³⁸ A quasi production function equation of a Cobb-Douglas type for manufacturing output can be generated using coal consumption as a proxy for capital inputs and approximating labor force inputs by multiplying the population aged 15–64 multiplied by the fraction of males recorded by the census as engaged in manufacturing. All these data can be constructed from Mitchell, “Abstract.” Manufacturing output can be obtained using the data in Crafts, “Patterns of Development.” Estimation is over a pooled sample of available European data for 1850–1910 and the results are as follows (t-statistics in parentheses). TIME is a variable taking I for observations from 1850, 2 for 1860, …7 for 1910. If a simpler equation is adopted the results are: If the French dummy variable is also combined with capital, neither FRENCH LABOR nor FRENCH CAPITAL are statistically significant.

³⁹ Brown, Phelps and Browne, Century of Pay, pp. 46, 432–37.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ O'Brien and Keyder, Economic Growth, p. 149.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Derived from Carré et al., La Croissance, p. 150.Google Scholar

⁴² Calculated using Levy-Leboyer, “Capital Investment,” p. 267,Google Scholar and Kanefsky, J., “Motive Power in British Industry and the Accuracy of the 1870 Factory Return,” Economic History Review, 32 (08 1979), p. 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Carré et al., La Croissance, p. 151.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ This is based on Feinstein, Charles H., “Capital Formation in Britain,” Table 26 in Mathias and Postan, Cambridge Economic HistoryGoogle Scholar, and on subsequent growth of the capital stock as shown in Matthews, Robin C. O. et al. , British Economic Growth 1856–1973 (Stanford, 1982), Tables 8.1 and 8.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ O'Brien and Keyder. Economic Growth, pp. 91–100.Google Scholar