DDI3.1 Dokumentation für Studie 'Regionale Differenzierung in der ökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert.' ZA8204 Regionale Differenzierung in der ökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert. Tipton, Frank B. GESIS - Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften GESIS - Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften doi:10.4232/1.8137 Regionale Differenzierung in der ökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert. 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). ZA8204_ConCom de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_UniSch de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_Uni de.gesis 1.0.0 Historische Sozialforschung DXDE Deutsches Reich (1871-1945) DE Deutschland DDDE Deutsche Demokratische Republik (1949-1990) Countries and Regions (ISO3166-1/2) Countries and Regions (ISO3166-1/2) 1847 1907 Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press. Online-Datenbank HISTAT https://www.histat.gesis.org ZA8204_SU de.gesis 1.0.0 Weitere Hinweise ZA8204_Arc de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_OrgSch de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_Org_DC de.gesis 1.0.0 1847 1907 Quantitative Daten zur historischen Statistik ZA8204_SU de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_VarSch de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_Var de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_SU de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_VarSch de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_Var de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_LogPro de.gesis 1.0.0 Excel ZA8204_LogPro de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_LogPro de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_LogRec de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_PhyDatPro de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_PhyStrSch de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_PhyStr de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_PhyRecSeg 0 ZA8204_LogPro de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_LogPro de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_LogRec de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_LogPro de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_LogPro de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_LogRec de.gesis 1.0.0 0 ZA8204_PhyDatPro de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_RecLaySch de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_RecLay de.gesis 1.0.0 doi:10.4232/1.8137 0 ZA8204_Arc de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_OrgSch de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_Org_AR de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204 A Daten und Dokumente sind für die akademische Forschung und Lehre freigegeben. doi:10.4232/1.8137 Daten und Dokumente sind für die akademische Forschung und Lehre freigegeben. GESIS - Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften GESIS https://www.gesis.org/ Tipton, Frank B. 2026-08-15 ZA8204_Arc de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_OrgSch de.gesis 1.0.0 ZA8204_Org_AR de.gesis 1.0.0 Histat 2.0 nach DDI 3.1 Export