Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-22T13:52:54.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Did the United States and Germany Overtake Britian? A Sectoral Analysis of Comparative Productivity Levels, 1870–1990

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Stephen N. Broadberry
Stephen N. Broadberry
Affiliation:
Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A sectoral analysis of comparative labor productivity levels over the period 1870 to 1990 suggests mechanisms of catching-up and forging ahead that are rather different from those found in the conventional literature. Both Germany and the United States caught up with and overtook Britain in terms of aggregate labor productivity largely by shifting resources out of agriculture and improving their relative productivity position in services rather than by improving their position in manufacturing. Although capital played some role, the changes in comparative labor productivity also reflected changes in comparative total factor productivity, related to technology and organization.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 375 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abramovitz, Moses, and David, Paul A.. “Reinterpreting Economic Growth: Parables and Realities.” American Economic Review 63 (1973): 428–39.Google Scholar
Abramovitz, Moses, and David, Paul A.. “Convergence and Deferred Catch-up.” In The Mosaic of Economic Growth edited by Ralph, Landau, Taylor, Timothy and Wright, Gavin, 21–62. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Albers, Ronald, van Ark, Bart, and Rensman, Marieke. “Capital Intensity and Productivity Performance in the U.K. and the U.S.A, 1840–1990.” Unpublished paper, University of Groningen, 1996.Google Scholar
van Ark, Bail. “Comparative Productivity in British and American Manufacturing.” National Institute Economic Review 142 (1992): 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balke, Nathan S., and Gordon, Robert J.. “The Estimation of Prewar Gross National Product: Methodology and New Evidence.” Journal of Political Economy 97 (1989): 38–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, Gordon. Information, Mediation and Institutional Development: The Rise of Large-Scale Enterprise in British Shipping, 1870–1919. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N. “Manufacturing and the Convergence Hypothesis: What the Long Run Data Show.” this JOURNAL 53 (1993): 772–95.Google Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N. “Technological Leadership and Productivity Leadership in Manufacturing since the Industrial Revolution: Implications for the Convergence Debate.” Economic Journal 104 (1994): 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N. “Comparative Productivity in British and American Manufacturing During the Nineteenth Century.” Explorations in Economic History 31 (1994): 521–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N.The Productivity Race: British Manufacturing in International Perspective, 1850–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N. “Forging Ahead, Falling Behind and Catching-Up: A Sectoral Analysis of Anglo-American Productivity Differences, 1870–1990.” Research in Economic History 17 (1997): 1–37.Google Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N. “Anglo-German Productivity Differences 1870–1990: A Sectoral Analysis.” European Review of Economic History 1 (1997): 247–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N., and Fremdling, Rainer. “Comparative Productivity in British and German Industry, 1907–37.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 52 (1990): 403–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N., and Wagner, Karin. “Human Capital and Productivity in Manufacturing During the Twentieth Century: Britain, Germany and the United States.” In Quantitative Aspects of Post-War European Economic Growth edited by van Ark, Bart and Crafts, N.F.R., 244–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Carson, Daniel. “Changes in the Industrial Composition of Manpower since the Civil War.” In Studies in Income and Wealth 11 (1949): 46–134. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. JrThe Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, Stanley. “The Decline and Rise of Textile Merchanting.” Business History 32, no. 4 (1991): 171–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenery, Hollis, Robinson, Sherman, and Syrquin, Moshe. Industrialization and Growth: A Comparative Study. Oxford: World Bank and Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Crafts, N. F. R.British Economic Growth During the Industrial Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
David, Paul A., “Real Income and Economic Welfare Growth in the Early Republic, Or, Another Try at Getting the American Story Straight.” Unpublished paper, All Souls College, Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar
David, Paul A., and Wright, Gavin. “Increasing Returns and the Genesis of American Resource Abundance.” Discussion Paper no. 472, Center for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University, 1996.Google Scholar
Deaton, Angus, and Muellbauer, John. Economics and Consumer Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, Edward F.Why Growth Rates Differ: Postwar Experience in Nine Western Countries. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1967.Google Scholar
Denison, Edward F. “Economic Growth.” In Britain's Economic Prospects edited by Caves, Richard E., pp. 231–78. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1968.Google Scholar
Drummond, Ian M.Imperial Economic Policy. 1917–1939: Studies in Expansion and Protection. London: Allen and Unwin, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbaum, Bernard, and Lazonick, William. “An Institutional Perspective on British Decline.” In The Decline of the British Economy edited by Elbaum, Bernard and Lazonick, William, 1–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Feinstein, Charles H.National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdom, 1855–1965. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Feinstein, Charles H. “Sources and Methods of Estimation for Domestic Reproducible Fixed Assets, Stocks and Works in Progress, Overseas Assets and Land.” In Studies in Capital Formation in the United Kingdom, 1750–1920 edited by Feinstein, Charles H. and Pollard, Sidney, pp. 257–471. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Food and Agriculture Organization. Yearbook. Rome.Google Scholar
Gallman, Robert E. “Commodity Output, 1839–1899.” In Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century edited by Parker, William N., 13–71. Princeton: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1960.Google Scholar
Gallman, Robert E. “Investment Flows and Capital Stocks: U.S. Experience in the Nineteenth Century.” In Quantity and Quiddity: Essays in U.S. Economic History edited by Kilby, Peter, 214–54. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Gemmell, Norman, and Wardley, Peter. “The Contribution of Services to British Economic Growth, 1856–1913.” Explorations in Economic History 27 (1990): 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Martin, and Kravis, Irving B.. An International Comparison of National Products and the Purchasing Power of Currencies. Paris: Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, 1954.Google Scholar
John, Habakkuk H.. American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Walther G.Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houthakker, Hendrik S. “An International Comparison of Household Expenditure Patterns, Commemorating the Centenary of Engel's Law.” Econometrica 25 (1957): 532–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houthakker, Hendrik S., and Taylor, Lester D.. Consumer Demand in the United States: Analyses and Projections. 2d ed.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Jones, Eric L.The Development of English Agriculture, 1815–1873. London: Macmillan, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Geoffrey. British Multinational Banking, 1830–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Kaldor, Nicholas. Causes of the Slow Rate of Growth of the United Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Kendrick, John W.Productivity Trends in the United States. Princeton: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1961.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, Charles P.European Postwar Growth: The Role of Labor Supply. Princeton: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirner, W.Zeitreihen für das Anlagevermögen der Wirtschaftsbereiche in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1968.Google Scholar
Lebergott, Stanley. “Labor Force and Employment, 1800–1960.” In Output, Employment and Productivity in the United States after 1800 edited by Brady, Dorothy S., 117–204. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1966.Google Scholar
Lee, Clive H.The British Economy Since 1700: A Macroeconomic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Lewis, Frank D. “Explaining the Shift of Labor from Agriculture to Industry in the United States: 1869–1899.” this JOURNAL 39 (1979): 681–98.Google Scholar
Lomax, K. S. “Production and Productivity Movements in the United Kingdom since 1900.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 122 (1959): 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, D. N. “Did Victorian Britain Fail?” Economic History Review 23 (1970): 446–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddison, Angus. Economic Growth in the West. London: Allen & Unwin, 1964.Google Scholar
Maddison, Angus, Phases of Capitalist Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Maddison, , “Growth and Slowdown in Advanced Capitalist Economies: Techniques of Quantitative Assessment.” Journal of Economic Literature 25 (1987): 649–98.Google Scholar
Maddison, , Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Maddison, , Monitoring the World Economy, 1820–1992. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1995.Google Scholar
Milgrom, Paul, and Roberts, John. “The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy and Organization.” American Economic Review 80 (1990): 511–28.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Brian R.British Historical Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard R., and Wright, Gavin. “The Rise and Fall of American Technological Leadership: The Postwar Era in Historical Perspective.” Journal of Economic Literature, 30 (1992): 1931–64.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, William D. “The Recent Productivity Slowdown.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, (1972): 493–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, Patrick K., and Leandro, Prados de la Escosura. “Agricultural Productivity and European Industrialization.” Economic History Review 45 (1992): 514–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Mahony, Mary. “Productivity Levels in British and German Manufacturing Industry.” National Institute Economic Review 139 (1992): 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Mahony, Mary. “Measures of Fixed Capital Stocks in the Post–War Period: A Five–Country Study.” In Quantitative Aspects of Post–War European Economic Growth edited by van Ark, Bart and Crafts, N.F.R., 165–214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
O'Mahony, Mary, Oulton, Nicholas, and Vass, Jennet. “Productivity in Market Services: International Comparisons.” Discussion Paper no. 105, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, London, 1996.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
Labour Force Statistics. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Paige, Deborah, and Bombach, Gottfried. A Comparison of National Output and Productivity of the United Kingdom and the United States. Paris: Orgamsation for European Economic Co-operation, 1959.Google Scholar
Piore, Michael J., and Sabel, Charles F.. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic, 1984.Google Scholar
Prais, S. J.Productivity, Education and Training: An International Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Prasada, Rao D. S. “Intercountry Comparisons of Agricultural Output and Productivity.” Economic and Social Development Paper no. 112, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 1993.Google Scholar
Reader, William J.Professional Men: The Rise of the professional Classes in Nineteenth–Century England. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966.Google Scholar
Rostas, László. Comparative Productivity in British and American Industry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.Google Scholar
Rowthorn, Robert E., and Wells, John R.. De-Industrialization and Foreign Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, William D.Capitalism, Culture and Economic Decline in Britain, 1750–1990. London: Routledge, 1993.Google Scholar
Smith, Anthony D., Hitchens, David M. W. N., and Davies, Stephen W.. International Industrial Productivity: A Comparison of Britain, America and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Soskice, David W. “Social Skills from Mass Higher Education: Rethinking the Company–Based Initial Training Paradigm.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 9, no. 3 (1993): 101–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt. Lange Reihen zur Wirtschaftsentwicklung. Wiesbaden, 1988.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt Volkswirtschafthiche Gesamtrechnungen 1950 bis 1990. Fachserie 18, Reihe S.15. Wiesbaden, 1991.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt. Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
U.K. Board of Trade. Final Report on the Third Census of Production of the United Kingdom (1924). London, 1930.Google Scholar
U.K. Central Statistical Office. National Income Statistics: Sources and Methods. London, 1956.Google Scholar
U.K. Central Statistical Office Annual Abstract of Statistics. London.Google Scholar
U.K. Central Statistical Office National Income, Expenditure and Output. London.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Income and Product Accounts of the United States, 1929–1982. Washington, DC, 1983.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Fixed Reproducible Tangible Wealth in the United States, 1925–85. Washington, DC: GPO, 1987.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States, Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Survey of Current Business. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
Webb, Steven B. “Agricultural Protection in Wilhelminian Germany: Forging an Empire with Pork and Rye.” this JOURNAL 42 (1982): 309–26.Google Scholar
Wiener, Martin J.English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, 1850–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Wright, Gavin. “The Origins of American Industrial Success.” American Economic Review 80 (1990): 651–58.Google Scholar