Hier können Sie Studien über eine thematische Zuordnung auswählen. Alle Studien wurden (genau) einem Thema zugeordnet.
- Arbeit
- Bauen
- Bevölkerung
- Bildung
- Einkommen
- Energie
- Geld
- Gesundheit
- Handel
- Hanse
- Industrie
- Innovation
- Konjunktur
- Kriminalität
- Kultur
- Landwirtschaft
- Migration
- Preise
- Sozialstaat
- Staatsfinanzen
- Städte
- Umwelt
- Unternehmen
- Verbrauch
- Verkehr
- Versicherungen
- VGR
- Wahlen
- Übergreifend
- SIMon: Social Indicators Monitor 1950-2013
- Demonstrationsbeispiele
Studien Zeitreihen |
ZA 8204 | Arbeit | Tipton, Frank B., Regionale Differenzierung in der ökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert. |
1400 Zeitreihen (1847 - 1907) 35 Tabellen |
Beschreibungsansicht schließen |
Bibliographische Angaben
Studiennummer: ZA 8204
Studientitel: Regionale Differenzierung in der ökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert.
Erhebungs- bzw. Untersuchungszeitraum: 1847 - 1907
Primärforscher: Tipton, Frank B.
Veröffentlichung (gedruckte Veröffentlichung): Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press.
Empfohlene Zitation (Datensatz):
Tipton, Frank B., (1976 [2006]) Regionale Differenzierung in der ökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert.
Daten entnommen aus:
GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. histat.
Studiennummer 8204
Datenfile Version 1.0.0
Studientitel: Regionale Differenzierung in der ökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert.
Erhebungs- bzw. Untersuchungszeitraum: 1847 - 1907
Primärforscher: Tipton, Frank B.
Veröffentlichung (gedruckte Veröffentlichung): Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press.
Empfohlene Zitation (Datensatz):
Tipton, Frank B., (1976 [2006]) Regionale Differenzierung in der ökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert.
Daten entnommen aus:
GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. histat.
Studiennummer 8204
Datenfile Version 1.0.0
Inhalt der Studie
Mehr
Studienbeschreibung:
Die Studie ist ein Beitrag zur regionalen Erwerbsstruktur in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert. Den Schwerpunkt bilden die sektoralen Erwerbsstrukturunterschiede zwischen preußischen Provinzen (teils auch Regierungsbezirken) und außerpreußischen deutschen Bundesstaaten für die Zeit von 1861 bis 1907. Zielsetzung der Untersuchung ist es, Hypothesen über die die regionale Verteilung der deutschen Industrialisierung im 19. Jahrhundert zu überprüfen. Tipton verwendet als Maß den Grad der Spezialisierung der Beschäftigten auf industrielle Berufe und unterscheidet insgesamt 32 Regionen (preußische Provinzen, deutsche Einzelstaaten) im Deutschen Reich. Er analysiert die konkreten Veränderungen der regionalen Entwicklungsmuster in einem breiten Rahmen erklärender Variablen, wobei die regionale Spezialisierung eine zentrale Erklärungsgröße darstellt. „The growth and changing distribution of the labour force have been used as indicators of each region’s development. Alternative measures such as income, value of output, or interregional freight shipments involve much greater conceptual difficulties … The distribution of the labour force reveals the structure of productive activity in a region clearly and directly. It has immediate implications in the political sphere, since pressure groups are often organized with reference to common productive employment. It adds a social dimension, since the style of life in a region will be directly affected by the distribution of employment between sectors and industries” (Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 152).
Als Ursache der von ihm ab 1860 verstärkt beobachteten Differenzen sieht er die Verteilung des Gewerbes im Raum an. Tipton kommt im ganzen zu dem Schluss, dass sich die Unterschiede der Erwerbsstruktur in dieser Zeit der Industrialisierung Deutschlands kontinuierlich verschärften und sich zwischen den industrialisierten Regionen des Ruhrgebiets, Sachsens, Berlins, Oberschlesiens, Elsaß-Lothringen einerseits und den östlichen preußischen Provinzen andererseits eine immer größere Kluft auftrat. Diesen Pr0zeß will er nicht zu sehr vereinfachen: Auch unter den Industrieregionen verstärkten sich die Unterschiede; auch tertiäre Regionen wie Hamburg und Bremen spezialisierten sich immer mehr; auch im Westen gab es zurückgebliebene Agrarregionen.
“During the last third of the eighteenth century, Germany began to move toward the uncomfortable modern condition in which change seems the only constant. Measured at the level of national aggregates, the process of sustained economic development in Germany paralleled the experience of other nations in the modern epoch. Throughout the nineteenth century population and income rose dramatically and the share of agriculture declined as industry expanded. Change was rapid within the growing industrial sector as well. Resources were drawn into expanding industries, and as demand and supply conditions slowed the expansion of early leading sectors they were replaced by others, requiring still further transformation of the economic and social fabric.
The position of regions is analogous to that of industries within the national economy. The conditions of modern economic growth confront each regional economy with the necessity of change. Development presents new opportunities, but also threatens existing structures, and shifts among regions can be extremely rapid because of the relatively free flow of resources within the national free trade area. Because of this, and because regions are political as well as economic entities, problems of regional growth and "balance" are receiving increased attention, and many nations have adopted regional planning as an important element of economic policy.
Government policy and general economic conditions provide a framework of opportunity within which regions may act, but action depends as well on the responsiveness of individuals and social groups within the region. Study of regional development within the emerging German national economy provides an opportunity to observe the interaction of internal structure with external conditions in a number of different but closely related cases. Each region's observed economic performance may be explained with reference to a number of theoretical constructs, but those constructs depend on certain assumptions, whose fulfillment in turn reflects social conditions which were the outcome of previous historical development. A theory of growth applicable in one context may therefore prove inappropriate in another. If a comparative approach serves on occasion to clarify relationships which at first seem obscure, it also on occasion indicates that relationships which at first seem simple may be in fact quite complex.
The regions of Germany differed widely in their responses to the challenges confronting them. There were several distinct types of development in Germany, conditioned not only by the "complex preconditions" within each region, but by the development of other regions as well. Throughout the nineteenth century regions diverged from each other and from the national average. A general index of regional specialization in agriculture, industry, and services rose between 1861 and 1882, between 1882 and 1895, and between 1895 and 1907, and scattered earlier figures indicate a similar process in operation. A systematic approach to regional development therefore seems particularly appropriate, but attempts to compare regional patterns within the framework of the German national economy have been rare. National works have commonly attempted to identify a single date after which Germany as a whole was definitively "industrial" and have given little or no consideration to regional variations in development. Regional histories have often been provincial in their isolation from each other and from the national context. This is unfortunate, for not only did regional development depend to some extent on variations in social structure and political alignments; the political impact of economic growth in general had an important regional dimension.
Many regions were independent states before unification and regional interests played an important role in imperial politics. At the same time the position of the regional economies changed as they gradually ceased to be isolated exporters to foreign markets and became integral parts of a national economy in which the impact of development was more widespread. Competition and migration linked regions together, accentuating the benefits and penalties already inherent in their economic situations.
The position of regions within the national economy impinges directly on more general questions of the impact of economic development and national political integration. In many nations, regional per capita incomes have diverged sharply during periods of rapid economic growth .s Growth has also frequently been accompanied by the emergence of large depressed regions; often these backward districts were relatively progressive exporters of agricultural products in earlier periods. Germany repeated these patterns as it did the more general outlines of modern economic growth. As regional productive structures became less alike, per capita incomes also diverged. Some regions seemed to grow and become rich at the direct expense of others.
Unequal sharing of the benefits of economic growth poses problems for poorly integrated national communities, because regions form an obvious and easy focus for the mobilization of political opposition. In the context of rapid growth, traditional regional identifications may be reinforced by anxieties raised by the general decline of agriculture and the transformation of traditional social structure. This is particularly likely where the national community is of recent creation and where the constituent elements have a strong tradition of autonomy, as in Germany. Depending on the situation, divergence of regional economic and social structures may result in internal violence, or internal divisions may be projected outward into imperialist projects.,, Such problems are usually studied at the level of national aggregates, but where regional structures are diverging, the national perspective may obscure important dynamic elements in the system. Not only do regions form a conscious focus for loyalty; their economic structures will also to some extent determine the objective foundations for political action. Rather than a unitary structure, the nation may in these circumstances be better conceptualized as an interactive system composed of relatively independent regional units.
Changes in the position of regional elites relative to the timing of economic development and the growth of nationalism are of particular importance. German nationalism has been seen both as unique, an ideal embedded in German culture, and as problematical, an ideal whose delayed and difficult realization set Germany apart from other nations. Nationalism may also be related more generally to changing requirements of social integration. As nationalism in developing nations today, German nationalism may be considered in part an ideology fostered by groups committed to economic growth, a new mode of thinking which both breaks down traditional particularist loyalties and provides a new focus of loyalty to those uprooted by change. To remain in power traditional elites must assume leadership of both economic and political change as development proceeds.
In Germany the pattern of regional economic development was reflected in the struggle over the definition of the emerging national community. In the late eighteenth century local elites led the development of industry in Saxony and western Germany and of an export oriented agriculture in eastern Prussia. In the early nineteenth century conflict between central governments and local communities hampered industrial development in the southern states and in Prussia's western provinces. Following the revolutions of 1848, the Prussian monarchy and bureaucracy gradually adopted the rhetoric and symbolism of nationalism previously wielded by the liberal middle classes, and particularly by western commercial and industrial leaders. Loyalty to the Crown and the logic of Bismarck's successes forced the eastern agricultural elite to accept the new situation. Nationalism became conservative, and Germany was united under Prussian leadership. Within the new empire, however, the eastern landlords responded to economic pressure with a seemingly paradoxical rejection of modernization and a mystical appeal to unity directed at both its beneficiaries and its victims. They received important though inconstant support from western industrialists, and they and the West faced the hostility of older industrial centers such as Saxony and newer industrial interests in Silesia, central, and southwestern Germany. These developments took place within a changing framework conditioned to an important degree by the increasing divergence of regional economic structures”.
(Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 3-6).
“Patterns of Regional Development
The following chapters ask why each region diverges from the national average, and why at this particular time. The fact of increasing specialization focuses attention on the "significant" regions in each period, both those where development was rapid and those where it was not. Analysis of these differences leads to consideration of the internal workings of the regional economies in relation to the movement of aggregate measures of national growth. The origins of modern economic growth in Germany are connected with the emergence of the two regions diverging significantly from the national average structure in 1861, the agricultural eastern provinces of Prussia and the industrial Kingdom of Saxony. Both developed more rapidly after 1770 than before, though they did not realize their full potential until the 1830s.
In the eastern provinces the policies of Frederick William I made it profitable for noble owners and nonnoble lessees to farm large estates, using the labor services of the resident peasantry and selling the bulk of their grain to the royal magazines. In the 1770s, however, the landlords began to squeeze the peasants off the land, expanding their personal holdings and exporting their increased harvests. Following the Prussian collapse at Jena and Auerstedt, land ownership was increasingly concentrated, the resulting superstructure of large grain-exporting estates resting on a foundation of small peasants, cottagers, and artisans. Prosperity came for the landlords with rising world grain prices in the 1830s and continued through the early 1870s.
Industrial growth in the Kingdom of Saxony accelerated in the late eighteenth century. A highly skilled and mobile labor force, entrepreneurial response to opportunity led by local communities and government policies favorable to industrial growth stimulated development. The reorganization of the central government following the Seven Years' War strengthened tendencies favoring industrial growth, concentrating energies on domestic development rather than foreign adventure, and government policies continued to favor industrial growth in the nineteenth century. Hostile administrative actions undermined local guilds and monopolies, increasing occupational mobility, and rapid peasant emancipation gained Saxony the benefits of a responsive system of family farms, well suited to the country's mountainous terrain and dense population.
A considerable increase in regional specialization accompanied growth in Germany between 1861 and 1882, but the relation of specialization to national development was not as close as before. The middle years of the century bridged an earlier period when development centered in relatively isolated regional export economies and a later period in which specialization revealed the gap opening between successful and unsuccessful regions in a more fully integrated national economy. The increasing specialization of the eastern provinces after 1861 began to lose its previous connection with national growth. Though opening internal markets the landlords came to regard as their own, the railway also made escape easier for the dissatisfied worker and subjected the landlords to new foreign competition. The "agricultural crisis" had arrived, with its national economic and political implications. Saxony also suffered in the new situation as shifting demand and relatively poor mineral resources hampered its textile and machinery industries.
Set against the more difficult position of the East and Saxony was the emergence of the Ruhr as the single most important industrial district in Germany. As a producer of industrial goods it was a competitor with Saxony; as a user of manpower, an even more dangerous competitor with the East. The western provinces had been well endowed by their local industrial tradition, especially in the form of skilled labor. Early development had been fostered by local communities, confirmed and strengthened by a long period of French administration. Despite these auspicious prospects, neither the Rhineland nor Westphalia was as important an industrial area in 1861 as was the Kingdom of Saxony. Development accelerated after 1850 with the introduction of new technologies made possible by a lessening of tension between the Prussian central government and western industrial interests. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, development had been scattered relatively evenly throughout the West, but between 1850 and 1880 the Ruhr became a distinct region within the provinces of Rhineland and Westphalia and began to grow at a phenomenal rate, often at the expense of other western industrial regions.
By the 1880s specialization seems to have lost its earlier connection with development. The most progressive regions tended to decline in specialization as their growth increasingly dominated the national average. Regions penalized by the railway network increased their specialization, but this had come to be a measure of their backwardness rather than their relative efficiency. The rise in the general index of specialization indicated the centralization of growth in a very few centers, in large part dictated by the specific pattern of railway development and accompanied by massive transfers of population which had a further negative impact on the penalized regions. Saxon specialization continued to decline steadily after 1882 and the specialization of the Ruhr also dropped after 1895. The Ruhr replaced Saxony as the largest industrial district in Germany. The crucial difference between the two regions was the supply of hard coal, but Saxon industrial growth, especially in the metal industry, was very rapid after 1895 nonetheless. A reserve of skilled labor, entrepreneurial flexibility, and active government support of railway construction were important in stimulating this new cycle of development. At the same time, both Saxony and the Ruhr were subjected to competition from new or resurgent industrial centers in Lorraine, central Germany, and Silesia.
The continued decline of the eastern agricultural provinces relative to the newer urban and industrial regions further west is easily explained in terms of relative costs, but although the scarcity of resources in the East cannot be discounted, neither should it be overestimated. Beginning in the 1890s several large iron-smelting plants opened along the Baltic Coast, plants at least potentially competitive with those in the Ruhr. The short-lived government plan for the industrialization of West Prussia was based on this possibility and was bitterly opposed by agricultural interests. The major factor affecting locational relationships remained the continuing expansion of the railway system, an expansion even more amenable to political control and direction than the iron industry. Other districts, especially in central Germany, based moderate industrialization partly on the density of their railway networks, but the East did not avail itself of this course. Economic decline and the myopia of the local elite gained national political importance from the influence of agrarian pressure groups on the Conservative party, but all parties were to some extent subject to regional influences. In particular, divisions between regionally centered industrial pressure groups worked to split and weaken the liberal parties at the center of the political spectrum. The course of regional development therefore worked with other influences to lessen the slim basis for compromise in a society already seriously split along the lines of class, culture, political philosophy, and religion”.
(Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 13-16).
Die Studie ist ein Beitrag zur regionalen Erwerbsstruktur in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert. Den Schwerpunkt bilden die sektoralen Erwerbsstrukturunterschiede zwischen preußischen Provinzen (teils auch Regierungsbezirken) und außerpreußischen deutschen Bundesstaaten für die Zeit von 1861 bis 1907. Zielsetzung der Untersuchung ist es, Hypothesen über die die regionale Verteilung der deutschen Industrialisierung im 19. Jahrhundert zu überprüfen. Tipton verwendet als Maß den Grad der Spezialisierung der Beschäftigten auf industrielle Berufe und unterscheidet insgesamt 32 Regionen (preußische Provinzen, deutsche Einzelstaaten) im Deutschen Reich. Er analysiert die konkreten Veränderungen der regionalen Entwicklungsmuster in einem breiten Rahmen erklärender Variablen, wobei die regionale Spezialisierung eine zentrale Erklärungsgröße darstellt. „The growth and changing distribution of the labour force have been used as indicators of each region’s development. Alternative measures such as income, value of output, or interregional freight shipments involve much greater conceptual difficulties … The distribution of the labour force reveals the structure of productive activity in a region clearly and directly. It has immediate implications in the political sphere, since pressure groups are often organized with reference to common productive employment. It adds a social dimension, since the style of life in a region will be directly affected by the distribution of employment between sectors and industries” (Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 152).
Als Ursache der von ihm ab 1860 verstärkt beobachteten Differenzen sieht er die Verteilung des Gewerbes im Raum an. Tipton kommt im ganzen zu dem Schluss, dass sich die Unterschiede der Erwerbsstruktur in dieser Zeit der Industrialisierung Deutschlands kontinuierlich verschärften und sich zwischen den industrialisierten Regionen des Ruhrgebiets, Sachsens, Berlins, Oberschlesiens, Elsaß-Lothringen einerseits und den östlichen preußischen Provinzen andererseits eine immer größere Kluft auftrat. Diesen Pr0zeß will er nicht zu sehr vereinfachen: Auch unter den Industrieregionen verstärkten sich die Unterschiede; auch tertiäre Regionen wie Hamburg und Bremen spezialisierten sich immer mehr; auch im Westen gab es zurückgebliebene Agrarregionen.
“During the last third of the eighteenth century, Germany began to move toward the uncomfortable modern condition in which change seems the only constant. Measured at the level of national aggregates, the process of sustained economic development in Germany paralleled the experience of other nations in the modern epoch. Throughout the nineteenth century population and income rose dramatically and the share of agriculture declined as industry expanded. Change was rapid within the growing industrial sector as well. Resources were drawn into expanding industries, and as demand and supply conditions slowed the expansion of early leading sectors they were replaced by others, requiring still further transformation of the economic and social fabric.
The position of regions is analogous to that of industries within the national economy. The conditions of modern economic growth confront each regional economy with the necessity of change. Development presents new opportunities, but also threatens existing structures, and shifts among regions can be extremely rapid because of the relatively free flow of resources within the national free trade area. Because of this, and because regions are political as well as economic entities, problems of regional growth and "balance" are receiving increased attention, and many nations have adopted regional planning as an important element of economic policy.
Government policy and general economic conditions provide a framework of opportunity within which regions may act, but action depends as well on the responsiveness of individuals and social groups within the region. Study of regional development within the emerging German national economy provides an opportunity to observe the interaction of internal structure with external conditions in a number of different but closely related cases. Each region's observed economic performance may be explained with reference to a number of theoretical constructs, but those constructs depend on certain assumptions, whose fulfillment in turn reflects social conditions which were the outcome of previous historical development. A theory of growth applicable in one context may therefore prove inappropriate in another. If a comparative approach serves on occasion to clarify relationships which at first seem obscure, it also on occasion indicates that relationships which at first seem simple may be in fact quite complex.
The regions of Germany differed widely in their responses to the challenges confronting them. There were several distinct types of development in Germany, conditioned not only by the "complex preconditions" within each region, but by the development of other regions as well. Throughout the nineteenth century regions diverged from each other and from the national average. A general index of regional specialization in agriculture, industry, and services rose between 1861 and 1882, between 1882 and 1895, and between 1895 and 1907, and scattered earlier figures indicate a similar process in operation. A systematic approach to regional development therefore seems particularly appropriate, but attempts to compare regional patterns within the framework of the German national economy have been rare. National works have commonly attempted to identify a single date after which Germany as a whole was definitively "industrial" and have given little or no consideration to regional variations in development. Regional histories have often been provincial in their isolation from each other and from the national context. This is unfortunate, for not only did regional development depend to some extent on variations in social structure and political alignments; the political impact of economic growth in general had an important regional dimension.
Many regions were independent states before unification and regional interests played an important role in imperial politics. At the same time the position of the regional economies changed as they gradually ceased to be isolated exporters to foreign markets and became integral parts of a national economy in which the impact of development was more widespread. Competition and migration linked regions together, accentuating the benefits and penalties already inherent in their economic situations.
The position of regions within the national economy impinges directly on more general questions of the impact of economic development and national political integration. In many nations, regional per capita incomes have diverged sharply during periods of rapid economic growth .s Growth has also frequently been accompanied by the emergence of large depressed regions; often these backward districts were relatively progressive exporters of agricultural products in earlier periods. Germany repeated these patterns as it did the more general outlines of modern economic growth. As regional productive structures became less alike, per capita incomes also diverged. Some regions seemed to grow and become rich at the direct expense of others.
Unequal sharing of the benefits of economic growth poses problems for poorly integrated national communities, because regions form an obvious and easy focus for the mobilization of political opposition. In the context of rapid growth, traditional regional identifications may be reinforced by anxieties raised by the general decline of agriculture and the transformation of traditional social structure. This is particularly likely where the national community is of recent creation and where the constituent elements have a strong tradition of autonomy, as in Germany. Depending on the situation, divergence of regional economic and social structures may result in internal violence, or internal divisions may be projected outward into imperialist projects.,, Such problems are usually studied at the level of national aggregates, but where regional structures are diverging, the national perspective may obscure important dynamic elements in the system. Not only do regions form a conscious focus for loyalty; their economic structures will also to some extent determine the objective foundations for political action. Rather than a unitary structure, the nation may in these circumstances be better conceptualized as an interactive system composed of relatively independent regional units.
Changes in the position of regional elites relative to the timing of economic development and the growth of nationalism are of particular importance. German nationalism has been seen both as unique, an ideal embedded in German culture, and as problematical, an ideal whose delayed and difficult realization set Germany apart from other nations. Nationalism may also be related more generally to changing requirements of social integration. As nationalism in developing nations today, German nationalism may be considered in part an ideology fostered by groups committed to economic growth, a new mode of thinking which both breaks down traditional particularist loyalties and provides a new focus of loyalty to those uprooted by change. To remain in power traditional elites must assume leadership of both economic and political change as development proceeds.
In Germany the pattern of regional economic development was reflected in the struggle over the definition of the emerging national community. In the late eighteenth century local elites led the development of industry in Saxony and western Germany and of an export oriented agriculture in eastern Prussia. In the early nineteenth century conflict between central governments and local communities hampered industrial development in the southern states and in Prussia's western provinces. Following the revolutions of 1848, the Prussian monarchy and bureaucracy gradually adopted the rhetoric and symbolism of nationalism previously wielded by the liberal middle classes, and particularly by western commercial and industrial leaders. Loyalty to the Crown and the logic of Bismarck's successes forced the eastern agricultural elite to accept the new situation. Nationalism became conservative, and Germany was united under Prussian leadership. Within the new empire, however, the eastern landlords responded to economic pressure with a seemingly paradoxical rejection of modernization and a mystical appeal to unity directed at both its beneficiaries and its victims. They received important though inconstant support from western industrialists, and they and the West faced the hostility of older industrial centers such as Saxony and newer industrial interests in Silesia, central, and southwestern Germany. These developments took place within a changing framework conditioned to an important degree by the increasing divergence of regional economic structures”.
(Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 3-6).
“Patterns of Regional Development
The following chapters ask why each region diverges from the national average, and why at this particular time. The fact of increasing specialization focuses attention on the "significant" regions in each period, both those where development was rapid and those where it was not. Analysis of these differences leads to consideration of the internal workings of the regional economies in relation to the movement of aggregate measures of national growth. The origins of modern economic growth in Germany are connected with the emergence of the two regions diverging significantly from the national average structure in 1861, the agricultural eastern provinces of Prussia and the industrial Kingdom of Saxony. Both developed more rapidly after 1770 than before, though they did not realize their full potential until the 1830s.
In the eastern provinces the policies of Frederick William I made it profitable for noble owners and nonnoble lessees to farm large estates, using the labor services of the resident peasantry and selling the bulk of their grain to the royal magazines. In the 1770s, however, the landlords began to squeeze the peasants off the land, expanding their personal holdings and exporting their increased harvests. Following the Prussian collapse at Jena and Auerstedt, land ownership was increasingly concentrated, the resulting superstructure of large grain-exporting estates resting on a foundation of small peasants, cottagers, and artisans. Prosperity came for the landlords with rising world grain prices in the 1830s and continued through the early 1870s.
Industrial growth in the Kingdom of Saxony accelerated in the late eighteenth century. A highly skilled and mobile labor force, entrepreneurial response to opportunity led by local communities and government policies favorable to industrial growth stimulated development. The reorganization of the central government following the Seven Years' War strengthened tendencies favoring industrial growth, concentrating energies on domestic development rather than foreign adventure, and government policies continued to favor industrial growth in the nineteenth century. Hostile administrative actions undermined local guilds and monopolies, increasing occupational mobility, and rapid peasant emancipation gained Saxony the benefits of a responsive system of family farms, well suited to the country's mountainous terrain and dense population.
A considerable increase in regional specialization accompanied growth in Germany between 1861 and 1882, but the relation of specialization to national development was not as close as before. The middle years of the century bridged an earlier period when development centered in relatively isolated regional export economies and a later period in which specialization revealed the gap opening between successful and unsuccessful regions in a more fully integrated national economy. The increasing specialization of the eastern provinces after 1861 began to lose its previous connection with national growth. Though opening internal markets the landlords came to regard as their own, the railway also made escape easier for the dissatisfied worker and subjected the landlords to new foreign competition. The "agricultural crisis" had arrived, with its national economic and political implications. Saxony also suffered in the new situation as shifting demand and relatively poor mineral resources hampered its textile and machinery industries.
Set against the more difficult position of the East and Saxony was the emergence of the Ruhr as the single most important industrial district in Germany. As a producer of industrial goods it was a competitor with Saxony; as a user of manpower, an even more dangerous competitor with the East. The western provinces had been well endowed by their local industrial tradition, especially in the form of skilled labor. Early development had been fostered by local communities, confirmed and strengthened by a long period of French administration. Despite these auspicious prospects, neither the Rhineland nor Westphalia was as important an industrial area in 1861 as was the Kingdom of Saxony. Development accelerated after 1850 with the introduction of new technologies made possible by a lessening of tension between the Prussian central government and western industrial interests. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, development had been scattered relatively evenly throughout the West, but between 1850 and 1880 the Ruhr became a distinct region within the provinces of Rhineland and Westphalia and began to grow at a phenomenal rate, often at the expense of other western industrial regions.
By the 1880s specialization seems to have lost its earlier connection with development. The most progressive regions tended to decline in specialization as their growth increasingly dominated the national average. Regions penalized by the railway network increased their specialization, but this had come to be a measure of their backwardness rather than their relative efficiency. The rise in the general index of specialization indicated the centralization of growth in a very few centers, in large part dictated by the specific pattern of railway development and accompanied by massive transfers of population which had a further negative impact on the penalized regions. Saxon specialization continued to decline steadily after 1882 and the specialization of the Ruhr also dropped after 1895. The Ruhr replaced Saxony as the largest industrial district in Germany. The crucial difference between the two regions was the supply of hard coal, but Saxon industrial growth, especially in the metal industry, was very rapid after 1895 nonetheless. A reserve of skilled labor, entrepreneurial flexibility, and active government support of railway construction were important in stimulating this new cycle of development. At the same time, both Saxony and the Ruhr were subjected to competition from new or resurgent industrial centers in Lorraine, central Germany, and Silesia.
The continued decline of the eastern agricultural provinces relative to the newer urban and industrial regions further west is easily explained in terms of relative costs, but although the scarcity of resources in the East cannot be discounted, neither should it be overestimated. Beginning in the 1890s several large iron-smelting plants opened along the Baltic Coast, plants at least potentially competitive with those in the Ruhr. The short-lived government plan for the industrialization of West Prussia was based on this possibility and was bitterly opposed by agricultural interests. The major factor affecting locational relationships remained the continuing expansion of the railway system, an expansion even more amenable to political control and direction than the iron industry. Other districts, especially in central Germany, based moderate industrialization partly on the density of their railway networks, but the East did not avail itself of this course. Economic decline and the myopia of the local elite gained national political importance from the influence of agrarian pressure groups on the Conservative party, but all parties were to some extent subject to regional influences. In particular, divisions between regionally centered industrial pressure groups worked to split and weaken the liberal parties at the center of the political spectrum. The course of regional development therefore worked with other influences to lessen the slim basis for compromise in a society already seriously split along the lines of class, culture, political philosophy, and religion”.
(Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 13-16).
Methodologie
Mehr
Untersuchungsgebiet:
Deutsches Reich, 1861 bis 1907: 32 Regionen (preußische Provinzen, deutsche Einzelstaaten; auf der Basis der Regierungsbezirke).
(A) Ost- und Westpreußen; (B) Ostpreußen; (C) Westpreußen; (D) Posen; (E) Pommern; (F) Regierungsbezirk Oppeln; (G) Regierungsbezirke von Breslau und Liegnitz; (H) Regierungsbezirk von Frankfurt; (I) Regierungsbezirk von Potsdam; (J) Berlin; (K) Mecklenburg-Schwerin und Mecklenburg-Strelitz; (L) Schleswig Holstein; (M) Hannover; (N) Hannover, Oldenburg, Braunschweig, Schaumburg-Lippe; (O) Lübeck, Bremen, Hamburg (Hansestädte); (P) Königreich Sachsen; (Q) Sachsen (Preußen); (R) Regierungsbezirk von Magdeburg, Anhalt; (S) Regierungsbezirke von Merseburg und Erfurt, thüringische Staaten; (T) Regierungsbezirke von Münster und Minden (Nordrhein-Westfalen), Waldeck, Lippe; (U) Regierungsbezirke von Düsseldorf und Arnsberg (Ruhr); (V) Regierungsbezirk von Aachen; (W) Regierungsbezirk von Köln; (X) Regierungsbezirke von Trier und Koblenz; (Y) Hessen-Nassau, Oberhessen; (Z) Bayern (ohne Rheinpfalz); (AA) Württemberg, Hohenzollern; (BB) Baden; Hessen (ohne Oberhessen); (DD) Rheinpfalz; (EE) Lothringen; (FF) Oberelsass und Unterelsass.
“Several principles guided the selection of regions to be studied. The regional divisions follow the political boundaries either of Prussian provinces or of federal states because these divisions were most important in political life. So far as possible, the regions have been held constant over time to provide a consistent frame of reference. They have been made contiguous and compact to avoid the inflated migration and freight shipment figures which would result from fragmented composition or from the stipulation of borders very long relative to area. Regional size is considered to be the total population, but none of the regions is large relative to the national total, either with regard to population or to area, and all are at least roughly comparable to one another. Locational factors within each region are therefore approximately constant, and none has growth rates inflated by having begun from an especially small base.
Application of these principles required a number of compromises. In central Germany a large number of independent federal states were very small and often consisted of noncontiguous territories. They have been combined into larger regions following the practice of the railway shipment statistics. The "Hanse cities" of Lübeck, Bremen, and Hamburg are treated as a single region, since singly they would be too small and together with all the surrounding territories that formed their common hinterland they would be too large. Berlin is considered a separate region, because of its size and because of its role as a nodal center in the development of northeastern Germany. Where the administrative districts of Prussian provinces or federal states experienced widely different courses of development, they have been divided to highlight that development when data permit. Lorraine and Upper Silesia are treated separately, and the province of Brandenburg has been divided into the districts of Potsdam around Berlin and of Frankfurt to the east. The "Ruhr" consists of the Rhenish district of Düsseldorf and the Westphalian district of Arnsberg. The areas dominated by coal mining and heavy industry in the Ruhr Valley proper and to the north are therefore combined with the textile and small-scale metalworking districts to the south and west. Data for these smaller districts were not published in the earlier censuses, but later data and local studies allow some account to be taken of their quite different structures and traditions.
Regional divisions have been selected to throw light on the relationship between politics and economics. Most of the regions are "homogeneous" in terms of their export industries or "nodal" urban centers of radial transportation networks. Most correspond fairly closely to the divisions emphasized by economic geographers. At the same time most are political units of importance and distinct cultural entities as well. More narrowly economic definitions of regions have been avoided. Hierarchies of central places and distances from centers of population density do not define clear regional boundaries, and patterns of the flow of goods define a separate set of regions for each good studied. However, even: within the economic sphere all problems are related and their totality must be studied in congruent regions. Contemporaries thought and acted in terms of those regions and their boundaries, not in terms of smoothly sloping cost gradients. On the other hand, purely political criteria have been rejected when districts within a political unit clearly diverged in their development, because the consciousness of belonging to a single group, on which the assertion that a region is a "live organism" must rest, can only develop around a common experience ultimately based on shared productive activity”.
(Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 6-10).
Deutsches Reich, 1861 bis 1907: 32 Regionen (preußische Provinzen, deutsche Einzelstaaten; auf der Basis der Regierungsbezirke).
(A) Ost- und Westpreußen; (B) Ostpreußen; (C) Westpreußen; (D) Posen; (E) Pommern; (F) Regierungsbezirk Oppeln; (G) Regierungsbezirke von Breslau und Liegnitz; (H) Regierungsbezirk von Frankfurt; (I) Regierungsbezirk von Potsdam; (J) Berlin; (K) Mecklenburg-Schwerin und Mecklenburg-Strelitz; (L) Schleswig Holstein; (M) Hannover; (N) Hannover, Oldenburg, Braunschweig, Schaumburg-Lippe; (O) Lübeck, Bremen, Hamburg (Hansestädte); (P) Königreich Sachsen; (Q) Sachsen (Preußen); (R) Regierungsbezirk von Magdeburg, Anhalt; (S) Regierungsbezirke von Merseburg und Erfurt, thüringische Staaten; (T) Regierungsbezirke von Münster und Minden (Nordrhein-Westfalen), Waldeck, Lippe; (U) Regierungsbezirke von Düsseldorf und Arnsberg (Ruhr); (V) Regierungsbezirk von Aachen; (W) Regierungsbezirk von Köln; (X) Regierungsbezirke von Trier und Koblenz; (Y) Hessen-Nassau, Oberhessen; (Z) Bayern (ohne Rheinpfalz); (AA) Württemberg, Hohenzollern; (BB) Baden; Hessen (ohne Oberhessen); (DD) Rheinpfalz; (EE) Lothringen; (FF) Oberelsass und Unterelsass.
“Several principles guided the selection of regions to be studied. The regional divisions follow the political boundaries either of Prussian provinces or of federal states because these divisions were most important in political life. So far as possible, the regions have been held constant over time to provide a consistent frame of reference. They have been made contiguous and compact to avoid the inflated migration and freight shipment figures which would result from fragmented composition or from the stipulation of borders very long relative to area. Regional size is considered to be the total population, but none of the regions is large relative to the national total, either with regard to population or to area, and all are at least roughly comparable to one another. Locational factors within each region are therefore approximately constant, and none has growth rates inflated by having begun from an especially small base.
Application of these principles required a number of compromises. In central Germany a large number of independent federal states were very small and often consisted of noncontiguous territories. They have been combined into larger regions following the practice of the railway shipment statistics. The "Hanse cities" of Lübeck, Bremen, and Hamburg are treated as a single region, since singly they would be too small and together with all the surrounding territories that formed their common hinterland they would be too large. Berlin is considered a separate region, because of its size and because of its role as a nodal center in the development of northeastern Germany. Where the administrative districts of Prussian provinces or federal states experienced widely different courses of development, they have been divided to highlight that development when data permit. Lorraine and Upper Silesia are treated separately, and the province of Brandenburg has been divided into the districts of Potsdam around Berlin and of Frankfurt to the east. The "Ruhr" consists of the Rhenish district of Düsseldorf and the Westphalian district of Arnsberg. The areas dominated by coal mining and heavy industry in the Ruhr Valley proper and to the north are therefore combined with the textile and small-scale metalworking districts to the south and west. Data for these smaller districts were not published in the earlier censuses, but later data and local studies allow some account to be taken of their quite different structures and traditions.
Regional divisions have been selected to throw light on the relationship between politics and economics. Most of the regions are "homogeneous" in terms of their export industries or "nodal" urban centers of radial transportation networks. Most correspond fairly closely to the divisions emphasized by economic geographers. At the same time most are political units of importance and distinct cultural entities as well. More narrowly economic definitions of regions have been avoided. Hierarchies of central places and distances from centers of population density do not define clear regional boundaries, and patterns of the flow of goods define a separate set of regions for each good studied. However, even: within the economic sphere all problems are related and their totality must be studied in congruent regions. Contemporaries thought and acted in terms of those regions and their boundaries, not in terms of smoothly sloping cost gradients. On the other hand, purely political criteria have been rejected when districts within a political unit clearly diverged in their development, because the consciousness of belonging to a single group, on which the assertion that a region is a "live organism" must rest, can only develop around a common experience ultimately based on shared productive activity”.
(Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 6-10).
Quellentypen:
Amtliche Statistiken.
Amtliche Statistiken.
Mehr
Verwendete Quellen (ausführliches Verzeichnis):
(Zitiert aus: Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 166-169).
1847:
Data for Bavaria and Rheinpfalz from Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs Bayern 10 (1862). Data for Baden from Rudolf Dietz, Die Gewerbe im Grossherzogtum Baden (Karlsruhe, 1863). Figures for mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction. Dietz presents a wide range of official figures relating to the economy of Baden in the 1850s.
1849:
Data for the Kingdom of Saxony from Zeitschrift des koniglichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus 25 (1879). The original figures were the results of an occupational census undertaken by the Saxon Statistical Office, rearranged to fit the categories of the Imperial census of 1875. The census covered all employed persons, including domestic servants.
1861:
Data for Prussia from Preussische Statistik 5 (1864) cover all employed persons except for those in mining. The latter are taken from Preussische Statistik 40 (1878): 92. Complete figures are given for provinces and for administrative districts. Data for the Kingdom of Saxony from Zeitschrift des königlichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus 25 (1879) cover all employed persons. Data for Württemberg from Württembergische Jahrbücher . . . , Jahrgang 1862, Heft 2 (1863), for Bavaria and Rheinpfalz from Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs Bayern 10 (1862) and for Baden from Dietz, Baden, cover mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction only.
1867:
Data for Prussia from Preussische Statistik 16 (1869) cover all employed persons but combine manufacturing and construction into a single category. Complete figures are given for provinces and for ad ministrative districts. Includes Schleswig-Holstein, Hannover, and Hessen-Nassau, all annexed by Prussia in 1867.
1871:
Data for the entire empire from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, Bd. 14, Heft 3, Abteilung 3 (1875), pp. 124-47, cover all employed persons but only according to broad sectoral classifications. Mining, manufacturing, and construction make up one category, while transportation is grouped with trade and hotels. The division between the industrial and service sectors is therefore not comparable to that used for the other years. Within each household, the distinctions between workers, servants and other dependents was considered imprecise. The assignment of peasant-artisans to either industry or agriculture was not uniform, nor was the use of the category of miscellaneous personal service and wage labor. Some enumerators tried to place laborers under one or another of the sectoral categories, while others placed virtually all "laborers" in the "miscellaneous" category.
1875:
Data for the entire empire from Statistik des deutschen Reiches 34 (1879). An industrial census, limited to mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction, and taking the firm rather than the individual as its unit of observation. The continuing effects of the 1873 crash and a severe cold wave at the time of the census probably affected the results in ways which it is impossible to determine exactly. The definition of an independent firm was extremely broad, and persons in many small "firms" should actually have been listed as the employees of firms for which they worked at home 42 On the other hand, greater precision with regard to definitions and the date to which responses were supposed to refer were held to make the 1875 census superior to its 1861 predecessor.
1882:
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupational census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 4 (1884) and of the industrial census from ibid. 7 (1886). These are large adminis trative units (Prussian Regierungsbezirke and provinces of the other states). Data for county (Kreis) units were not published, but there are maps showing employment per ten thousand population in each county for selected industries in ibid. 6 (1886). The results of the occupational census are repeated in more convenient form and compared with the 1895 figures in ibid. 111 (1899): 60*-75*, but do not list domestic servants residing with their employers separately. There is a brief regional comparison of the 1882 and 1875 occupational censuses showing employment per one thousand population and per square kilometer for industry classifications in ibid. 6 (1886). As in 1875 there was a tendency to overstate the number of firms and understate their size. Where several types of product were produced by the same establishment, the establishment was counted as a separate firm in each industry and its workers divided according to the type of product with which they were "usually" occupied. Where several establishments were under the same ownership, each was counted as a separate firm. The Imperial Statistical Office never solved this problem, and consequently the official figures were held to understate the growth of large firms relative to total employment. With regard to the occupational census, no distinction was made between an individual's major source of income and the amount of time spent in a given occupation, and the definition of part-time employment is therefore not precise. In addition agriculturalists with part-time industrial occupations apparently preferred to cite the latter as their "main" employment.
1895:
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupational census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 104 (1897) for Prussia and ibid. 105 (1897) for the other states. Industrial census figures from ibid. 118 (1898) : 351ff. cover large administrative units, and county results were published in ibid. 117 (1898) and 118 (1898): 2-350.
1907:
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupational census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 204 (1909) for Prussia and ibid. 205 (1910) for the other states. Industrial census figures from ibid. 218 (1909) and 219 (1909) are given only for county and provincial units, but the county units can be added together to give figures for the intermediate administrative districts. There is a regional comparison of the 1907 figures with the 1895 results, showing employment per ten thousand population and average size of firm for the industry groups in ibid. 220/221 (1914), Anhang, 221 *ff. A tabular comparison of the industrial classifications of 1907 with those of 1895 and 1882 is inside the cover of ibid. 213 (1910). None of the changes significantly affected the relatively broad industrial divisions used here”.
(Zitiert aus: Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 166-169).
1847:
Data for Bavaria and Rheinpfalz from Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs Bayern 10 (1862). Data for Baden from Rudolf Dietz, Die Gewerbe im Grossherzogtum Baden (Karlsruhe, 1863). Figures for mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction. Dietz presents a wide range of official figures relating to the economy of Baden in the 1850s.
1849:
Data for the Kingdom of Saxony from Zeitschrift des koniglichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus 25 (1879). The original figures were the results of an occupational census undertaken by the Saxon Statistical Office, rearranged to fit the categories of the Imperial census of 1875. The census covered all employed persons, including domestic servants.
1861:
Data for Prussia from Preussische Statistik 5 (1864) cover all employed persons except for those in mining. The latter are taken from Preussische Statistik 40 (1878): 92. Complete figures are given for provinces and for administrative districts. Data for the Kingdom of Saxony from Zeitschrift des königlichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus 25 (1879) cover all employed persons. Data for Württemberg from Württembergische Jahrbücher . . . , Jahrgang 1862, Heft 2 (1863), for Bavaria and Rheinpfalz from Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs Bayern 10 (1862) and for Baden from Dietz, Baden, cover mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction only.
1867:
Data for Prussia from Preussische Statistik 16 (1869) cover all employed persons but combine manufacturing and construction into a single category. Complete figures are given for provinces and for ad ministrative districts. Includes Schleswig-Holstein, Hannover, and Hessen-Nassau, all annexed by Prussia in 1867.
1871:
Data for the entire empire from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, Bd. 14, Heft 3, Abteilung 3 (1875), pp. 124-47, cover all employed persons but only according to broad sectoral classifications. Mining, manufacturing, and construction make up one category, while transportation is grouped with trade and hotels. The division between the industrial and service sectors is therefore not comparable to that used for the other years. Within each household, the distinctions between workers, servants and other dependents was considered imprecise. The assignment of peasant-artisans to either industry or agriculture was not uniform, nor was the use of the category of miscellaneous personal service and wage labor. Some enumerators tried to place laborers under one or another of the sectoral categories, while others placed virtually all "laborers" in the "miscellaneous" category.
1875:
Data for the entire empire from Statistik des deutschen Reiches 34 (1879). An industrial census, limited to mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction, and taking the firm rather than the individual as its unit of observation. The continuing effects of the 1873 crash and a severe cold wave at the time of the census probably affected the results in ways which it is impossible to determine exactly. The definition of an independent firm was extremely broad, and persons in many small "firms" should actually have been listed as the employees of firms for which they worked at home 42 On the other hand, greater precision with regard to definitions and the date to which responses were supposed to refer were held to make the 1875 census superior to its 1861 predecessor.
1882:
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupational census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 4 (1884) and of the industrial census from ibid. 7 (1886). These are large adminis trative units (Prussian Regierungsbezirke and provinces of the other states). Data for county (Kreis) units were not published, but there are maps showing employment per ten thousand population in each county for selected industries in ibid. 6 (1886). The results of the occupational census are repeated in more convenient form and compared with the 1895 figures in ibid. 111 (1899): 60*-75*, but do not list domestic servants residing with their employers separately. There is a brief regional comparison of the 1882 and 1875 occupational censuses showing employment per one thousand population and per square kilometer for industry classifications in ibid. 6 (1886). As in 1875 there was a tendency to overstate the number of firms and understate their size. Where several types of product were produced by the same establishment, the establishment was counted as a separate firm in each industry and its workers divided according to the type of product with which they were "usually" occupied. Where several establishments were under the same ownership, each was counted as a separate firm. The Imperial Statistical Office never solved this problem, and consequently the official figures were held to understate the growth of large firms relative to total employment. With regard to the occupational census, no distinction was made between an individual's major source of income and the amount of time spent in a given occupation, and the definition of part-time employment is therefore not precise. In addition agriculturalists with part-time industrial occupations apparently preferred to cite the latter as their "main" employment.
1895:
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupational census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 104 (1897) for Prussia and ibid. 105 (1897) for the other states. Industrial census figures from ibid. 118 (1898) : 351ff. cover large administrative units, and county results were published in ibid. 117 (1898) and 118 (1898): 2-350.
1907:
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupational census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 204 (1909) for Prussia and ibid. 205 (1910) for the other states. Industrial census figures from ibid. 218 (1909) and 219 (1909) are given only for county and provincial units, but the county units can be added together to give figures for the intermediate administrative districts. There is a regional comparison of the 1907 figures with the 1895 results, showing employment per ten thousand population and average size of firm for the industry groups in ibid. 220/221 (1914), Anhang, 221 *ff. A tabular comparison of the industrial classifications of 1907 with those of 1895 and 1882 is inside the cover of ibid. 213 (1910). None of the changes significantly affected the relatively broad industrial divisions used here”.
Mehr
Anmerkungen:
(Zitiert aus: Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 153-166).
Agricultural Employment: Estimates Based on 1907 Participation Rates
In the absence of independent data it seems that corrections of the official figures designed to reveal the "true" numbers of workers should rest on the fewest and simplest assumptions possible, and be based on relationships obtained from the most reliable returns available. The definitions used in 1907 are clearly superior, broad enough to include all fully employed family members yet clearly excluding those only partly occupied in the agricultural enterprise. The regional variations in the female participation rates reported in 1907 reflect structural differences known to have existed. The rates lie below forty per cent in the areas of large estates and wage labor in the North and East, and over fifty per cent in the southern and western regions dominated by small peasant holdings and family labor. In all regions the total number of agricultural holdings and their distribution by size reported in 1907 remained very close to that reported in 1895, indicating that the structure of the agricultural sector had not changed dramatically in these twelve years. Moreover, reported increases in female agricultural participation rates, though large, were of the same order of magnitude in nearly all regions, the 1907 rates being typically sixty to one hundred per cent higher than 1895. Regions under the uniform administration of Prussia, though scattered throughout Germany, showed exceptionally uniform large increases. A sudden change in conditions of employment in the agricultural sector of this magnitude should have had a significant differential impact on the widely varying regional structures, changing participation rates in some regions much more than in others. The change should have been reflected in the distribution of participation rates, but was not. Regions tended to occupy the same relative positions in 1907 they had held in 1895. Given the large variations in structure and output among regions, the reported increases in the female agricultural participation rate indicate not a uniform change in national labor conditions, but the uniform inclusion in 1907 of full-time female farm laborers who had not been reported in earlier censuses.
The Kingdom of Saxony enjoyed the services of perhaps the most experienced and efficient independent statistical office in Germany, and the figures recorded there may serve as a partial check on evaluations of the work of the Imperial Statistical Office. The Saxon agricultural participation rate was reported to be fifty-two per cent in 1849 and fifty-three per cent in 1907, a striking similarity over half a century. The intervening figures, though they fluctuate over a distressingly large range, show no trend, and absolute employment in agriculture declines over the entire period. The fluctuations reported in agricultural population and participation rates seem to be related to seasonal variations, and the steady decline in employment agrees with expectations for this mountainous and heavily industrial region. The female agricultural participation rate in Saxony was reported to be thirty-six per cent in 1882, forty per cent in 1895, and forty-one per cent in 1907. The 1907 figures thus seem to reflect faithfully a structure of employment which, despite changes in agriculture's international and domestic situation, had remained relatively unchanged for two generations.
Since the 1907 census results appear the most reliable, they have been used as the basis for estimates of agricultural employment in the earlier years. Male workers are assumed to have been reported consistently and completely. Estimates of female employment have been derived for each region by multiplying the reported female agricultural population by the region's 1907 female agricultural participation rate. Domestic servants residing in agricultural households present special problems. Before 1882 males listed as servants apparently were agricultural laborers. In 1867, when the Prussian census limited the category of servant to those "providing personal services," the reported number of servants was low and the reported number of agricultural laborers approximately equaled the total of laborers and servants reported in 1861. In 1882, when a more precise definition was expanded to the entire empire, the number of reported male servants dropped to insignificance. Male domestic servants reported by agricultural households therefore have been included in the total of male agricultural workers. Reported female domestic servants, on the other hand, decline regularly throughout the period, and therefore are assumed to have been in fact primarily domestic servants (see tables A.1 and A.2).
These estimates rest on the extreme assumption that the organization of work in the agricultural family remained unchanged over nearly half a century. This is almost certainly incorrect, but none of the possible influences on female participation rates acted strongly or suddenly enough to account for the massive discontinuity reported in the official figures. Agriculture declined under pressure from foreign competition, changing relative prices and unfavorable elasticities of demand. Unpaid family labor might therefore have been substituted for wage labor. Agriculture's troubles had already begun in the 1870s, however, even if it is assumed that a shift away from wage labor would raise the female participation rate. Women might have tended to replace men drawn to the expanding industrial centers by higher wages. Women as well as men answered the call of the city, however. Of the 10.3 million persons born in rural areas but residing in cities in 1907, five million were female. Further, if the independent male farmer moving to industrial or commercial employment continued to list his farm as a part-time occupation, his family probably dropped out of the occupational census altogether. The male agricultural participation rate increased between 1882 and 1907 from sixty-one to sixty-three per cent. This might have been paralleled by an increase in the female rate, but not of the size and suddenness actually reported. A slightly higher proportion of agricultural holdings were in the smaller size classes at the end of the period than at the beginning, and small holdings employed more persons per unit of land, but again the changes were neither large nor sudden enough to account for the official results.
Throughout, it is assumed that the female agricultural population was reported consistently and accurately. Quante's alternative position, that the 1907 census included many women working for part-time farmers who had not been reported in previous censuses, rests on a relatively uncertain foundation of indirect statistical inference and requires additional strong assumptions (Quante, P., 1932: Die Mithelfenden in der deutschen Landwirtschaft seit 1882, in: Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv 22). The censuses give the age structure of the total agricultural population, but not the age distribution of reported male and female workers. To estimate the pool of available family labor, Quante subtracts all persons under the age of fourteen from the totals of unemployed family members and adds total employed family members to the remainder. This sum shows an increase of some thirty thousand for men and one hundred sixty thousand for women between 1895 and 1907. Quante concludes that the increase in the female total, the corresponding rise in the number of females over fourteen in the agricultural population, and the resulting increases in the ratios of females to males, could have occurred only if the 1907 population totals included females not counted previously. In the absence of direct data on the age structure of the reported labor force, Quante assumes that no females under fourteen were reported as family employees; however, if as few as six per cent of the girls under fourteen were reported to be working in 1907, there would have been no increase in the sum of female workers and unemployed family members. Further, if the increase in total females over age fourteen in the agricultural population is to be attributed to reporting of females from "nonagricultural" families, then it must also be assumed that many families reported their female members as full-time employees on farms operated on a part-time basis, despite the fact that there was no space for such a report on the occupational census (Berufszählung) forms from which these figures come. Both full- and part-time farmers could list family members as employees in the census of agricultural enterprises (landwirtschaftliche Betriebsstatistik), however, for here the unit of enumeration was the farm, regardless of whether or not it was considered the family's main occupation. In 1907 some 7.4 million full-time employed family members were reported in the census of agricultural enterprises, and 3.8 million in the occupational census. If part-time farmers had listed female family workers in the occupational census, these figures should have been much closer together. The large difference in the figures indicates that the female agricultural population reported in 1907 is consistent with that reported in earlier censuses, including only members of families which considered their main occupation on the date of the census to be agriculture.
The use of the 1907 female participation rates yields plausible results in all regions, despite its extreme assumptions. Absolute employment in agriculture rises from 1861 to a peak in 1882 and then declines, paralleling the growth and decline of the agricultural population and corresponding to the increasing severity of the agricultural crisis after 1880. The only exceptions are increasingly agricultural and encapsulated districts such as eastern Bavaria and the Rhenish Eifel, where a rise in agricultural employment after 1882 reflected the extinction of older handicraft and industrial traditions. Use of the 1907 participation rate in effect approximates an upper limit to the number of women employed in agriculture in the earlier years. Forces affecting female participation rates were weak and contradictory while the possible overstatement of family labor in the earlier years is offset by the exclusion of female servants. The assumption of a constant female participation rate yields estimates superior to the unreliable official totals and is preferable to an attempt to judge changes in the rate in the absence of independent information.
Industrial Employment
The industrial sector includes mining and smelting, manufacturing, construction, and transportation. Mining is often classified with agriculture because it is a "primary" industry involved in the extraction of natural resources, and transportation with services because it is a "tertiary" industry producing an intangible product. Both are included with industry because of the size and social organization of their productive units, and because of their close connection with manufacturing output and employment.
The definition of major occupation used by the Imperial Statistical Office in the censuses of 1882, 1895, and 1907 tended to overstate the share of industry in total employment. An individual's major occupation was considered to be that which contributed most to his "social position," defined as the style of life arising from long practice or formal training in the field. Income was explicitly not the most important criterion, and individuals were instructed to disregard momentary employment if it differed from the major occupation. Therefore persons tended to list the occupation for which they had been trained regardless of whether their present occupation was truly "momentary" or not. A tendency for part-time industrial occupations to be listed in preference to agricultural or commercial employment resulted in part from failure to recognize non monetary income as such. More important, however, was the artisan's belief that his industrial trade set him apart from the mass of peasants. Similarly, the artisan generally preferred to think himself different from a shopkeeper and continued to list himself as the producer of goods which in fact he increasingly received ready made from a factory.These biases probably account for some of Germany's relatively high share of industry and low share of service in total employment.
The German statistics offer two possibilities for the measurement of industrial employment, and the two methods can lead to inconsistent results. The occupational census (Berufszdhlung) questioned each person as to his occupation. The industrial census (Betriebszdhlung, Gewerbezdhlung) took the firm as the unit of enumeration and asked the number of employees in each. Since individuals were not asked whether they were actually employed and to what extent, the occupational census overstated employment. More serious is the problem of the distribution of employment between industries. A person whose occupation would seem to place him in one industry may actually be employed in another, for instance a woodworker employed in the metal industry. One of Germany's great statisticians asserted that the "great mass" of industrial workers were unable to tell correctly in what industry they were employed.
We are concerned both with the total impact of the industrial sector and with the relative development of its various subdivisions. The subjective judgment of the individual that he "belonged" to indus try seems to be the decisive factor in the former case, despite the uncertainties mentioned. Therefore total employment in the industrial sector (line 4 in the Appendix tables) is taken from the occupational censuses. For the subdivisions (lines 6 to 16), the industrial censuses are used because of their greater accuracy. The percentages given relate to the sum of these figures and not to the figure for total industrial employment. Since the subjective responses do not indicate whether a person was actually employed or not, "employment" as given in the Appendix tables refers to total available labor force. Manufacturing totals generally refer to current employment.
In all regions industrial growth provided the leitmotif of the development process, and differing rates of increase of industrial employment caused much of the observed increase in regional specialization. The definition of economic structure in terms of the labor force poses problems here, however, because artisan and small scale production has been included with factory and large scale production and treated as equivalent. This has seemed justified despite the inherent bias against capital intensive regions. Artisans and factory organization were equivalent in so far as they met the same needs for industrial products. In all regions, a shift toward employment in large scale enterprise accompanied industrial growth, the structural transformation indicating that the old needs were being met in new ways. In rapidly growing regions, factory employment was nearly always based on earlier artisan traditions. Favored centers expanded production over wider areas while less favored centers declined. The development of total employment in industry therefore indicates the success of the transformation in each area, though somewhat indirectly.
In general, the branches of manufacturing follow the definitions of the Imperial Statistical Office of "occupational groups" (Berufsgruppen) and relate either to a type of raw material or output categories.
Metals includes both Group V (metalworking) and Group VI (machinery, instruments, and tools). The division of the Imperial Statistical Office does not appear to follow any consistent principle, whether with regard to process (such as reheating), type of product (capital goods as opposed to consumption goods or intermediate as opposed to final products), or size and organization of firm. More important, changes in definition between 1861 and 1875 make it impossible to obtain comparable figures for each group, though the total of the two groups covers the same categories of employment on both dates. The general categories of "smith" and "machinist" used in 1861 (and which made up about forty per cent of employment in metals in Württemberg and Bavaria) had been broken up into several relatively specialized categories in 1875. This is possibly as much a reflection of changed economic reality as of increased statistical sophistication. In the United States all blacksmiths, as well as most jewelers, would have been classified as service workers. The smelting of metallic ores is included with mining.
Clay, glass, and sand is Group IV and includes the quarrying and production of goods from nonmetallic minerals. Woods is Group XII, which begins at the entrance of the sawmill and includes all products with wood as their primary material. Textiles is Group IX and includes the preparation, spinning, weaving, finishing, and dyeing of all textile products. Some dyeing was included in the service sector in the United States. Clothing is Group XIV, including dressmaking, tailoring, and shoemaking, all categories of service employment in the United States. Group XV, cleaning, barbering, and hairdressing, was combined with the clothing industry before 1907. Since its components are readily identifiable, it has been removed and placed with professional employment in the service sector. Food and drink, which includes tobacco, is Group XIII. Other includes Group VII (chemicals); Group VIII (fats and oils); Group X (paper); Group XI (leather); Group XVII (printing); and Group XVIII (commercial arts).
Service Employment
The service sector includes trade and commerce, hotels and restaurants, domestic service, professional, government, and military. The coverage of the service sector was less broad in Germany than in the United States. Nearly all the individuals who in the United States would have been classified under "other personal services" were included in various branches of manufacturing in Germany. With regard to the course of modern economic growth, the German concept is probably more appropriate to an earlier period, and the United States approach to a later period, since the problem results from artisans ceasing to make the products they sell or repair. The final category in the occupational census, those of independent means or without profession, has been eliminated from total employment, as those involved existed on transfer income and were therefore not economically active in our sense.
Trade and hotels includes all commercial and sales employment and all employment in hotels and restaurants. The two categories are not always separable and appear to increase at about the same rate in most regions, and therefore are grouped together. Professional includes cleaning, barbering, and hairdressing. Government includes the legal profession.
The domestic service category differs from that of the occupational census. Servants "residing in their employer's home" (im Haushalt ihrer Herrschaft lebend) were listed separately and not included in total employment by the Imperial Statistical Office. Their relation to their employer was considered essentially noneconomic, and their activity dominated by "purposes of the household," in the same sense as housewives and other family members. The inconsistency of including in total employment those domestic servants not residing in their employers' homes was justified in this view because they had independent households. Resident servants were listed separately from family members though, in order that those "following the private economic point of view" could include them with total employment. Here, the social position of domestic servants has seemed less important than the fact that they could have found - and increasingly did find - employment elsewhere in the economy. Therefore resident servants have been included with nonresident in total employment.
The Imperial Statistical Office also included laborers who could not be classified elsewhere with nonresident servants. The category of domestic service may therefore have been inflated by as much as fifteen per cent in 1882, but the possible overstatement had declined to less than 10 per cent in 1907. Most of the miscellaneous laborers were probably agricultural workers, and the share of agriculture in total employment may therefore be understated by from one to two per cent.
The number of domestic servants and miscellaneous laborers recorded in the Prussian census of 1861 appears to be too low when compared with the figures for 1867 and 1882. Even if it is assumed that only females in this category in 1867 were domestic servants and that the 1861 census listed no miscellaneous laborers, the 1861 figures would still range only from thirty to fifty per cent of the 1867 figures. It is unlikely that the number of domestic servants rose that much in only six years. The understatement of the 1861 totals probably results from a failure to include servants who resided in their employers' households. The agricultural population in particular was grouped under the category "wives, children, and dependents" of the head of the household, but nonagricultural households seem to have been affected as well. In 1867 the category was much broader, obviously intended to include all persons who provided personal service but were not members of the family. The 1867 figures, moreover, agree quite well with the 1882 figures, where the explicit distinction between resident and nonresident domestics was introduced. In each region, therefore, the number of domestic servants in 1861 has been estimated by multiplying the total population in 1861 by the 1867 ratio of domestic servants to total population”.
(Zitiert aus: Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 153-166).
Agricultural Employment: Estimates Based on 1907 Participation Rates
In the absence of independent data it seems that corrections of the official figures designed to reveal the "true" numbers of workers should rest on the fewest and simplest assumptions possible, and be based on relationships obtained from the most reliable returns available. The definitions used in 1907 are clearly superior, broad enough to include all fully employed family members yet clearly excluding those only partly occupied in the agricultural enterprise. The regional variations in the female participation rates reported in 1907 reflect structural differences known to have existed. The rates lie below forty per cent in the areas of large estates and wage labor in the North and East, and over fifty per cent in the southern and western regions dominated by small peasant holdings and family labor. In all regions the total number of agricultural holdings and their distribution by size reported in 1907 remained very close to that reported in 1895, indicating that the structure of the agricultural sector had not changed dramatically in these twelve years. Moreover, reported increases in female agricultural participation rates, though large, were of the same order of magnitude in nearly all regions, the 1907 rates being typically sixty to one hundred per cent higher than 1895. Regions under the uniform administration of Prussia, though scattered throughout Germany, showed exceptionally uniform large increases. A sudden change in conditions of employment in the agricultural sector of this magnitude should have had a significant differential impact on the widely varying regional structures, changing participation rates in some regions much more than in others. The change should have been reflected in the distribution of participation rates, but was not. Regions tended to occupy the same relative positions in 1907 they had held in 1895. Given the large variations in structure and output among regions, the reported increases in the female agricultural participation rate indicate not a uniform change in national labor conditions, but the uniform inclusion in 1907 of full-time female farm laborers who had not been reported in earlier censuses.
The Kingdom of Saxony enjoyed the services of perhaps the most experienced and efficient independent statistical office in Germany, and the figures recorded there may serve as a partial check on evaluations of the work of the Imperial Statistical Office. The Saxon agricultural participation rate was reported to be fifty-two per cent in 1849 and fifty-three per cent in 1907, a striking similarity over half a century. The intervening figures, though they fluctuate over a distressingly large range, show no trend, and absolute employment in agriculture declines over the entire period. The fluctuations reported in agricultural population and participation rates seem to be related to seasonal variations, and the steady decline in employment agrees with expectations for this mountainous and heavily industrial region. The female agricultural participation rate in Saxony was reported to be thirty-six per cent in 1882, forty per cent in 1895, and forty-one per cent in 1907. The 1907 figures thus seem to reflect faithfully a structure of employment which, despite changes in agriculture's international and domestic situation, had remained relatively unchanged for two generations.
Since the 1907 census results appear the most reliable, they have been used as the basis for estimates of agricultural employment in the earlier years. Male workers are assumed to have been reported consistently and completely. Estimates of female employment have been derived for each region by multiplying the reported female agricultural population by the region's 1907 female agricultural participation rate. Domestic servants residing in agricultural households present special problems. Before 1882 males listed as servants apparently were agricultural laborers. In 1867, when the Prussian census limited the category of servant to those "providing personal services," the reported number of servants was low and the reported number of agricultural laborers approximately equaled the total of laborers and servants reported in 1861. In 1882, when a more precise definition was expanded to the entire empire, the number of reported male servants dropped to insignificance. Male domestic servants reported by agricultural households therefore have been included in the total of male agricultural workers. Reported female domestic servants, on the other hand, decline regularly throughout the period, and therefore are assumed to have been in fact primarily domestic servants (see tables A.1 and A.2).
These estimates rest on the extreme assumption that the organization of work in the agricultural family remained unchanged over nearly half a century. This is almost certainly incorrect, but none of the possible influences on female participation rates acted strongly or suddenly enough to account for the massive discontinuity reported in the official figures. Agriculture declined under pressure from foreign competition, changing relative prices and unfavorable elasticities of demand. Unpaid family labor might therefore have been substituted for wage labor. Agriculture's troubles had already begun in the 1870s, however, even if it is assumed that a shift away from wage labor would raise the female participation rate. Women might have tended to replace men drawn to the expanding industrial centers by higher wages. Women as well as men answered the call of the city, however. Of the 10.3 million persons born in rural areas but residing in cities in 1907, five million were female. Further, if the independent male farmer moving to industrial or commercial employment continued to list his farm as a part-time occupation, his family probably dropped out of the occupational census altogether. The male agricultural participation rate increased between 1882 and 1907 from sixty-one to sixty-three per cent. This might have been paralleled by an increase in the female rate, but not of the size and suddenness actually reported. A slightly higher proportion of agricultural holdings were in the smaller size classes at the end of the period than at the beginning, and small holdings employed more persons per unit of land, but again the changes were neither large nor sudden enough to account for the official results.
Throughout, it is assumed that the female agricultural population was reported consistently and accurately. Quante's alternative position, that the 1907 census included many women working for part-time farmers who had not been reported in previous censuses, rests on a relatively uncertain foundation of indirect statistical inference and requires additional strong assumptions (Quante, P., 1932: Die Mithelfenden in der deutschen Landwirtschaft seit 1882, in: Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv 22). The censuses give the age structure of the total agricultural population, but not the age distribution of reported male and female workers. To estimate the pool of available family labor, Quante subtracts all persons under the age of fourteen from the totals of unemployed family members and adds total employed family members to the remainder. This sum shows an increase of some thirty thousand for men and one hundred sixty thousand for women between 1895 and 1907. Quante concludes that the increase in the female total, the corresponding rise in the number of females over fourteen in the agricultural population, and the resulting increases in the ratios of females to males, could have occurred only if the 1907 population totals included females not counted previously. In the absence of direct data on the age structure of the reported labor force, Quante assumes that no females under fourteen were reported as family employees; however, if as few as six per cent of the girls under fourteen were reported to be working in 1907, there would have been no increase in the sum of female workers and unemployed family members. Further, if the increase in total females over age fourteen in the agricultural population is to be attributed to reporting of females from "nonagricultural" families, then it must also be assumed that many families reported their female members as full-time employees on farms operated on a part-time basis, despite the fact that there was no space for such a report on the occupational census (Berufszählung) forms from which these figures come. Both full- and part-time farmers could list family members as employees in the census of agricultural enterprises (landwirtschaftliche Betriebsstatistik), however, for here the unit of enumeration was the farm, regardless of whether or not it was considered the family's main occupation. In 1907 some 7.4 million full-time employed family members were reported in the census of agricultural enterprises, and 3.8 million in the occupational census. If part-time farmers had listed female family workers in the occupational census, these figures should have been much closer together. The large difference in the figures indicates that the female agricultural population reported in 1907 is consistent with that reported in earlier censuses, including only members of families which considered their main occupation on the date of the census to be agriculture.
The use of the 1907 female participation rates yields plausible results in all regions, despite its extreme assumptions. Absolute employment in agriculture rises from 1861 to a peak in 1882 and then declines, paralleling the growth and decline of the agricultural population and corresponding to the increasing severity of the agricultural crisis after 1880. The only exceptions are increasingly agricultural and encapsulated districts such as eastern Bavaria and the Rhenish Eifel, where a rise in agricultural employment after 1882 reflected the extinction of older handicraft and industrial traditions. Use of the 1907 participation rate in effect approximates an upper limit to the number of women employed in agriculture in the earlier years. Forces affecting female participation rates were weak and contradictory while the possible overstatement of family labor in the earlier years is offset by the exclusion of female servants. The assumption of a constant female participation rate yields estimates superior to the unreliable official totals and is preferable to an attempt to judge changes in the rate in the absence of independent information.
Industrial Employment
The industrial sector includes mining and smelting, manufacturing, construction, and transportation. Mining is often classified with agriculture because it is a "primary" industry involved in the extraction of natural resources, and transportation with services because it is a "tertiary" industry producing an intangible product. Both are included with industry because of the size and social organization of their productive units, and because of their close connection with manufacturing output and employment.
The definition of major occupation used by the Imperial Statistical Office in the censuses of 1882, 1895, and 1907 tended to overstate the share of industry in total employment. An individual's major occupation was considered to be that which contributed most to his "social position," defined as the style of life arising from long practice or formal training in the field. Income was explicitly not the most important criterion, and individuals were instructed to disregard momentary employment if it differed from the major occupation. Therefore persons tended to list the occupation for which they had been trained regardless of whether their present occupation was truly "momentary" or not. A tendency for part-time industrial occupations to be listed in preference to agricultural or commercial employment resulted in part from failure to recognize non monetary income as such. More important, however, was the artisan's belief that his industrial trade set him apart from the mass of peasants. Similarly, the artisan generally preferred to think himself different from a shopkeeper and continued to list himself as the producer of goods which in fact he increasingly received ready made from a factory.These biases probably account for some of Germany's relatively high share of industry and low share of service in total employment.
The German statistics offer two possibilities for the measurement of industrial employment, and the two methods can lead to inconsistent results. The occupational census (Berufszdhlung) questioned each person as to his occupation. The industrial census (Betriebszdhlung, Gewerbezdhlung) took the firm as the unit of enumeration and asked the number of employees in each. Since individuals were not asked whether they were actually employed and to what extent, the occupational census overstated employment. More serious is the problem of the distribution of employment between industries. A person whose occupation would seem to place him in one industry may actually be employed in another, for instance a woodworker employed in the metal industry. One of Germany's great statisticians asserted that the "great mass" of industrial workers were unable to tell correctly in what industry they were employed.
We are concerned both with the total impact of the industrial sector and with the relative development of its various subdivisions. The subjective judgment of the individual that he "belonged" to indus try seems to be the decisive factor in the former case, despite the uncertainties mentioned. Therefore total employment in the industrial sector (line 4 in the Appendix tables) is taken from the occupational censuses. For the subdivisions (lines 6 to 16), the industrial censuses are used because of their greater accuracy. The percentages given relate to the sum of these figures and not to the figure for total industrial employment. Since the subjective responses do not indicate whether a person was actually employed or not, "employment" as given in the Appendix tables refers to total available labor force. Manufacturing totals generally refer to current employment.
In all regions industrial growth provided the leitmotif of the development process, and differing rates of increase of industrial employment caused much of the observed increase in regional specialization. The definition of economic structure in terms of the labor force poses problems here, however, because artisan and small scale production has been included with factory and large scale production and treated as equivalent. This has seemed justified despite the inherent bias against capital intensive regions. Artisans and factory organization were equivalent in so far as they met the same needs for industrial products. In all regions, a shift toward employment in large scale enterprise accompanied industrial growth, the structural transformation indicating that the old needs were being met in new ways. In rapidly growing regions, factory employment was nearly always based on earlier artisan traditions. Favored centers expanded production over wider areas while less favored centers declined. The development of total employment in industry therefore indicates the success of the transformation in each area, though somewhat indirectly.
In general, the branches of manufacturing follow the definitions of the Imperial Statistical Office of "occupational groups" (Berufsgruppen) and relate either to a type of raw material or output categories.
Metals includes both Group V (metalworking) and Group VI (machinery, instruments, and tools). The division of the Imperial Statistical Office does not appear to follow any consistent principle, whether with regard to process (such as reheating), type of product (capital goods as opposed to consumption goods or intermediate as opposed to final products), or size and organization of firm. More important, changes in definition between 1861 and 1875 make it impossible to obtain comparable figures for each group, though the total of the two groups covers the same categories of employment on both dates. The general categories of "smith" and "machinist" used in 1861 (and which made up about forty per cent of employment in metals in Württemberg and Bavaria) had been broken up into several relatively specialized categories in 1875. This is possibly as much a reflection of changed economic reality as of increased statistical sophistication. In the United States all blacksmiths, as well as most jewelers, would have been classified as service workers. The smelting of metallic ores is included with mining.
Clay, glass, and sand is Group IV and includes the quarrying and production of goods from nonmetallic minerals. Woods is Group XII, which begins at the entrance of the sawmill and includes all products with wood as their primary material. Textiles is Group IX and includes the preparation, spinning, weaving, finishing, and dyeing of all textile products. Some dyeing was included in the service sector in the United States. Clothing is Group XIV, including dressmaking, tailoring, and shoemaking, all categories of service employment in the United States. Group XV, cleaning, barbering, and hairdressing, was combined with the clothing industry before 1907. Since its components are readily identifiable, it has been removed and placed with professional employment in the service sector. Food and drink, which includes tobacco, is Group XIII. Other includes Group VII (chemicals); Group VIII (fats and oils); Group X (paper); Group XI (leather); Group XVII (printing); and Group XVIII (commercial arts).
Service Employment
The service sector includes trade and commerce, hotels and restaurants, domestic service, professional, government, and military. The coverage of the service sector was less broad in Germany than in the United States. Nearly all the individuals who in the United States would have been classified under "other personal services" were included in various branches of manufacturing in Germany. With regard to the course of modern economic growth, the German concept is probably more appropriate to an earlier period, and the United States approach to a later period, since the problem results from artisans ceasing to make the products they sell or repair. The final category in the occupational census, those of independent means or without profession, has been eliminated from total employment, as those involved existed on transfer income and were therefore not economically active in our sense.
Trade and hotels includes all commercial and sales employment and all employment in hotels and restaurants. The two categories are not always separable and appear to increase at about the same rate in most regions, and therefore are grouped together. Professional includes cleaning, barbering, and hairdressing. Government includes the legal profession.
The domestic service category differs from that of the occupational census. Servants "residing in their employer's home" (im Haushalt ihrer Herrschaft lebend) were listed separately and not included in total employment by the Imperial Statistical Office. Their relation to their employer was considered essentially noneconomic, and their activity dominated by "purposes of the household," in the same sense as housewives and other family members. The inconsistency of including in total employment those domestic servants not residing in their employers' homes was justified in this view because they had independent households. Resident servants were listed separately from family members though, in order that those "following the private economic point of view" could include them with total employment. Here, the social position of domestic servants has seemed less important than the fact that they could have found - and increasingly did find - employment elsewhere in the economy. Therefore resident servants have been included with nonresident in total employment.
The Imperial Statistical Office also included laborers who could not be classified elsewhere with nonresident servants. The category of domestic service may therefore have been inflated by as much as fifteen per cent in 1882, but the possible overstatement had declined to less than 10 per cent in 1907. Most of the miscellaneous laborers were probably agricultural workers, and the share of agriculture in total employment may therefore be understated by from one to two per cent.
The number of domestic servants and miscellaneous laborers recorded in the Prussian census of 1861 appears to be too low when compared with the figures for 1867 and 1882. Even if it is assumed that only females in this category in 1867 were domestic servants and that the 1861 census listed no miscellaneous laborers, the 1861 figures would still range only from thirty to fifty per cent of the 1867 figures. It is unlikely that the number of domestic servants rose that much in only six years. The understatement of the 1861 totals probably results from a failure to include servants who resided in their employers' households. The agricultural population in particular was grouped under the category "wives, children, and dependents" of the head of the household, but nonagricultural households seem to have been affected as well. In 1867 the category was much broader, obviously intended to include all persons who provided personal service but were not members of the family. The 1867 figures, moreover, agree quite well with the 1882 figures, where the explicit distinction between resident and nonresident domestics was introduced. In each region, therefore, the number of domestic servants in 1861 has been estimated by multiplying the total population in 1861 by the 1867 ratio of domestic servants to total population”.
Mehr
Sachliche Untergliederung der Datentabellen:
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Deutschland (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Ost- und West-Preussen (1861-1882)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Ost-Preussen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in West-Preussen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Posen (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Pommern (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Oppeln, Oberschlesien (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Breslau, Liegnitz (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Frankfurt/Oder (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Potsdam (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Berlin (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Schleswig-Holstein (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hannover (1867-1882)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hannover, Oldenburg, Braunschweig,
Schaumburg-Lippe (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Lübeck, Bremen, Hamburg (Hansestädte) (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur im Königreich Sachsen (1849-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Sachsen (Preussen) (1861-1882)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Magdeburg, Anhalt (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Merseburg, Erfurt, Thüringen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Münster, Minden, nördl. Westfalen,
ohne Lippe, Waldeck (1861-1875)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Münster, Minden, nördl. Westfalen,
mit Lippe, Waldeck (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Düsseldorf, Arnsberg (Ruhr) (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Aachen (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Köln (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Trier, Koblenz (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hessen-Nassau, Oberhessen Posen (1867-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Bayern (1847-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Württemberg, Hohenzollern (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Baden (1847-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hessen ohne Oberhessen (1867-1882)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hessen mit Oberhessen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Rheinpfalz (1847-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Lothringen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur im Elsass (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Deutschland (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Ost- und West-Preussen (1861-1882)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Ost-Preussen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in West-Preussen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Posen (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Pommern (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Oppeln, Oberschlesien (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Breslau, Liegnitz (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Frankfurt/Oder (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Potsdam (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Berlin (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Schleswig-Holstein (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hannover (1867-1882)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hannover, Oldenburg, Braunschweig,
Schaumburg-Lippe (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Lübeck, Bremen, Hamburg (Hansestädte) (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur im Königreich Sachsen (1849-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Sachsen (Preussen) (1861-1882)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Magdeburg, Anhalt (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Merseburg, Erfurt, Thüringen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Münster, Minden, nördl. Westfalen,
ohne Lippe, Waldeck (1861-1875)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Münster, Minden, nördl. Westfalen,
mit Lippe, Waldeck (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Düsseldorf, Arnsberg (Ruhr) (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Aachen (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Köln (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Trier, Koblenz (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hessen-Nassau, Oberhessen Posen (1867-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Bayern (1847-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Württemberg, Hohenzollern (1861-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Baden (1847-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hessen ohne Oberhessen (1867-1882)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hessen mit Oberhessen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Rheinpfalz (1847-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Lothringen (1882-1907)
Beschäftigungsstruktur im Elsass (1882-1907)
Bearbeitungshinweise
Datum der Archivierung: Januar 2006.
Jahr der Online-Publikation: 1976
Bearbeiter in GESIS: Rainer Hinterberg/Jürgen Sensch
Version:Version 1.0.0
Zugangsklasse: A
Jahr der Online-Publikation: 1976
Bearbeiter in GESIS: Rainer Hinterberg/Jürgen Sensch
Version:Version 1.0.0
Zugangsklasse: A
Materialien zur Studie
Diese Studienbeschreibung als DDI-XML.