Was industrialisation a single process common to all the major European countries or were there critical differences between 'leader' and 'follower' states?

It is significant to note that in much of Germany 'rural house-hold production [continued] long after the [emergence of] Lancashire-style textile factories [in] Prussia during the 1830's.' (Block2, p.82). The continued emphasis on small-scale production techniques in Germany marks an important deviation from the British model. Indeed Waites goes on to draw attention to this fact with his observation that 'there is a clear difference in "patterning" between Britain and Belgium on the one hand, and France and Germany on the other.' (Block2, p.84). It must also be noted that, in Britain at least, industrialisation saw radical changes in the social demographics of the country and a marked decline in the importance of agriculture in the economy whilst German GNP still saw this as a dominant factor in the national wealth.

A look at the table showing the breakdown of active employment in Europe in the latter part of the century and comparing it with the early years of the new one, show that whilst all of the emerging economic powers of Europe were seeing significant growth in their industry it was Britain that lead the way forward, with massive increases in the numbers employed in mining, manufacturing, commerce and transportation. This supports the suggestion that the reason for Britain's success lay in the fact that she was better equipped to press her industrial might by having the technological wherewithal to ship her manufactures to the marketplace in a manner as yet not achieved by, or available to, her rivals. A significant consequence of this lay in the fact that the developing nations o mainland Europe looked to Britain for ideas on how to grow their own economic base and then stove to replace British imports with locally produced goods which they could in turn export to their neighbours.

This kind of growth in the manufacturing industry is seen to be reflected elsewhere in Europe, although somewhat less markedly, as is the gradual decline in numbers employed in the more traditional agricultural industry. Here again I would suggest that technology played a major role sine the introduction of improved equipment meant that less men were needed to work the land. Furthermore, improvements in education coupled with expansionist views meant that the lower classes were now able to look to the future in a more positive way that had hitherto been possible for them.

It is also important to note the role of women during the period and it is here that Germany stands out from the norm since she alone of the major European powers sees an increase in the number of women employed in all major areas of work although the numbers overall are shown to have been increasing across Britain and Europe. This could, if taken in isolation, be held to disprove the leader/follower theory entirely since Britain was clearly the first of the modern industrial super powers. However, to do so would be foolhardy in the extreme as is born out by Waites' statement that 'French women were more likely to be employed outside the house than in any other European country' (Block 2, p.86)

A major influence in the industrialisation of Europe was the improved system of communications that came about following the introduction of the railway since goods could be more easily transported than previously, thereby reducing the need to produce for a localised market. The advent of steam power for shipping served only to increase the effect and opened up new markets across the world. Here again Britain led the way, although other traditional naval powers were also to the fore. However, it should be noted that GNP in Britain grew at a level below that of the 'achieved by later industrialising countries' (Block2, p91)

Waites even goes so far as to argue that Britain's 'industrial development was...atypical of Europe' since manufactured goods represented a far higher percentage of her exports than both France and Germany when they were at comparable stages of industrialisation. He further asserts that 'Britain...followed one path of development' whilst other follower nations followed an entirely different route.

The French, for example, took much longer to leave the countryside and move into an urban, industrialised, polluted environment than was the case in Britain although Waites ascribes to the view that the wider ownership of land in France was at least partly responsible for this. Furthermore, he notes just how important the growth of service industries were to Britain's exports in the second half of the century and we can still see the benefits of these in the modern era in which Britain continues to play a major role within the financial sphere, one that is disproportionate to the reduced status of Britain as a manufacturing country.

British industry began with the manufacturing or so-called 'upstream' process, producing intermediate and producer goods before extending into 'downstream' processes. By contrast, France began by producing finished articles, the 'haute couture' industry being a major contributor, and began to work backwards towards generating the raw materials-i.e. working "upstream". However, in all of the emerging nations of Europe the importance of coal cannot be ignored and both Britain and France benefited from enormous natural resources which they able to employ to good effect and it is in mining and cotton spinning where 'the effects of Imitation were most evident' (Block2, p99)

In conclusion, I would suggest that there is clear evidence that the countries of continental Europe undoubtedly gained from the example and experience offered by Britain in industrialising their own economies. However, it would be grossly inaccurate to suggest that Britain led and others simply followed since it is equally clear that this is not the case. What is not in doubt is that in Germany, France, and elsewhere they were able to look at the British model and take advantage of lessons that had been often harshly learned and benefit from them. In addition, they were able to import British goods into their home markets and then set about producing similar goods themselves-in much the same way that "counterfeit" branded goods are again hitting contemporary headlines.

Gary Archer, M2632321

A221, TMA03 Page 1 of 2