The economic characteristics of the UK:
In 2006, the overall pace of UK economic growth gradually improved and became more robust and balanced. The main driver of economic growth is still the service industry. Throughout 2006, the UK GDP growth rate gradually increased, reaching 2.3, 2.6, and 2.8 respectively; in the fourth quarter, it exceeded expectations and reached 3.0. Investors are optimistic about the UK economic prospects. At the same time, everyone has also seen the inflation rate and unemployment rate. The existence of risk issues such as interest rate, overall analysis shows that the British economy in 2006 is in a moderate growth trend.
England and France in the Eighteenth Century
—A preliminary study of the comparative economic growth of the two countries
For economic historians interested in key issues of growth , the comparison method should be very effective. If his task consists in analyzing the movement of different variables and examining their respective effects on the economic revolution, then, to this extent, a comparison of the experiences of several countries will certainly greatly expand the field of his research and strengthen his proposals - or tests - The ability to hypothesise. Yet this approach has only been used—with rare exceptions—in a discursive manner. In this article, the author wants to explore the important issue of the origin of the industrial revolution from a comparative perspective, but I am fully aware of the recklessness and rashness of my work. Everyone knows that Britain was the first country to achieve a technological breakthrough, and that this achievement was achieved spontaneously through its own efforts and without outside help. But there are different opinions on how to explain the British economic and technological leadership. If the British economy in the 18th century is systematically compared with the economy of another country, France (which was the best choice because it was the largest power in continental Europe at the time), people will find more clearly that those countries that were only the British factors that would determine the unique phenomenon of the British Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.
The first key issue that needs to be pointed out is that on the eve of the French Revolution, Britain's leading position and France's backwardness were already very obvious. This situation did not appear suddenly in the short term. The gap between the two countries was already evident at the beginning of the 18th century, at the end of the reign of Louis XIV. In order to explain the differences between the socio-economic structures of the two countries, we should take into account a long time period, that is, going back to the Middle Ages. It is impossible to complete the work here, but at least we can point out that the objective situation in the 17th century had a different impact on the two economies, which was at least part of the reason for the gap between the two countries in the early 18th century.
Thirty years ago, John U. Neff proposed that the reason why Britain became the first country to start the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century was that it was different from other countries, especially France. Yes, it had already undergone the first industrial revolution in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, so its lead was two centuries earlier than is often thought. But his arguments were criticized in Britain and have little impact today. Britain's "First Industrial Revolution" was a figment of Neff's imagination, and he vastly overestimated the significance of certain technological inventions and the growth of a handful of new industries (with the exception of the coal industry, all others were insignificant, and he Ignoring an important industrial sector - the wool textile industry is growing very slowly), and finally, he also greatly overestimated the significance of a small number of non-representative large enterprises in corporate organizations.
However, it is worth mentioning that Neff pointed out the rapid growth of coal production and consumption in England after 1540 and its technological significance, which led to the creation of some new technologies, which It is completely foreign to the European continent, like coke ovens. This new fossil fuel provides a new impetus for innovation that France lacks. On the other hand, as Neff mentions, British industrial output grew faster than France between 1540 and 1640. Since 1640, Britain has had an absolute advantage in terms of mining and metallurgical output. The per capita output of glass, woolen products, etc., and even the per capita output of the entire industry is higher than France.
However, the real differences between the two countries occurred after 1640, not before. In France, as many studies have shown - the "tragedy of the 17th century" made this period of economic history very bleak.
After experiencing relative prosperity in the first quarter of the 17th century, the 1630s began a long era of depression, with the economy nearly collapsing during the Fronde in the mid-century. This bad situation lasted until the 1720s. Within a century, prices were low, especially for agricultural products, which were extremely unstable. Frequent and profound economic and demographic crises, coupled with terrible "mortality rates" and shortages of currency, paralyzed commercial activities and affected land rent prices. and profits - unemployment and impoverishment. These well-known phenomena have caused stagnation or even decline in industrial production. P. Gubert and P. Tokunaga clearly saw this in Beauvais and Amiens, two large woolen industry centers. situation. In Beauvais, the decline was approximately 40% from 1624 to 1720, and industrial activity in Amiens came to a standstill during the Fronde and did not return to the level of the beginning of the century until 1680. Even if the fortunes of other areas were slightly better, we still have to admit that the depression after 1630 was long and profound. From this point of view, Kolber's industrialization policy was really a helpless move to fight against this depression; but due to the harsh conditions at the time, deflation, sluggish prices, and a downward trend in income and consumption, all his efforts achieved was A semi-failure result. It is true that some industrial initiatives survived and later developed - such as the woolen industry in Languedoc - but many of the new businesses quickly declined and disappeared. Generally speaking, if the entire Kolber era was If industry develops, it will be very unstable and not obvious. Recent research suggests that French industry showed signs of recovery toward the end of Louis XIV's reign—long thought to be a disastrous period—despite two major wars, frequent famines, and the exile of Protestants. We saw a new entrepreneurial spirit among merchants, deflation eased, and France opened new markets in Spanish America. These signs of recovery were undoubtedly the harbinger of growth after 1715, but it was still limited by the catastrophes of war and famine. Even if some positive aspects can be found in the French economy in the seventeenth century, overall the overall situation was very unfavorable, and it is generally accepted today that the French population in 1715-20 was lower than the level in 1640.
On the other side of the Channel, the situation in the 17th century was very different. If recent research on French economic history only differs in degree of pessimism, then British historians generally hold a moderately optimistic view of their country's economic development.
Of course Britain There was no way to avoid the adverse situation of the 17th century. It also experienced several periods of stagnation and difficulty, such as in the 1620s, during the Civil War, and at times during the war with Louis XIV; its main industry, woolen textiles, experienced several crises, and its growth continued throughout the 17th century. Relatively weak, poverty and unemployment caused serious problems. But England did not experience the long, severe and frequent depressions that France experienced after 1630. The low prices that spread throughout Europe only affected Britain later, later than France, around 1650, and its amplitude was smaller; its short-term price fluctuations were not as dramatic as France's, and their impact on the economy was smaller. F.J. Fischer concluded that Britain's industry and agriculture experienced slow but significant growth in the 17th century. Although the number of people increased during the same period, per capita income probably also increased.
After 1660, there were many other signs of development not found in France. For example, the expansion of the British internal market was especially due to the development of London, which developed more rapidly than Paris; the "border" counties also developed, such as Lancashire's cotton textile industry, which took off earlier than France. Finally, in the 17th century, Britain's foreign trade showed a long-term rapid increase, especially because of its early colonial expansion; starting in the 1660s, Britain became an important country for re-exporting foreign goods, while France's colonies and colonial trade were almost negligible during the same period.
It was precisely because of this slow but steady growth that by the beginning of the 18th century Britain had established a clear superiority over France in several important areas (although its modernity cannot be overestimated). The first is agriculture. Technological improvements had already taken place in many areas of Britain, resulting in higher and more stable yields than in France, which explains why agricultural failures were less catastrophic. Then comes the industrial technology aspect.
As mentioned above, the innovations brought about by the use of coal fuel. At the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, innovation activities became more active due to the financial investment of Savary, Newcomen and Darby. In terms of foreign trade, Britain is higher not only in per capita terms but also in absolute terms. Its merchant fleet is larger and its commercial capital accumulation is faster.
Finally, Britain’s advantages are particularly evident in the financial field. The national debt system and the establishment of the Bank of England show that it is far ahead of France in terms of political and economic structure. Louis XIV also tried to establish National Bank, but failed due to opposition from financiers who believed that such a bank was incompatible with "pure monarchy". Later, John Law tried to artificially transplant the British fiscal system to France, with disastrous results. .
In 1688, Gregory King believed that Britain was already richer than any other country except the Netherlands. He estimated that France's per capita income was 20% lower than Britain's; a generation later, in Shortly after the Peace of Utrecht was signed, Daniel Defoe wrote that Britain was "the most prosperous and richest country in the world." These comments are well-founded because Britain experienced relative prosperity and growth during the 17th century, but the French economy was stagnant or even in decline. Whatever the reasons for this difference - differences in socio-economic structure (especially in the countryside), political situations such as the Fronde (far more damaging than the English Civil War), the burden of Louis XIV's wars ( France (which exhausted its energy in fighting the Allies) was larger than Britain - but this fact was fundamental: when the economic situation improved in the 18th century and the French economy began to grow, France and Britain were no longer on the same starting line. Compared with the latter, it has many obstacles and obvious lags. The Industrial Revolution was only the culmination of a long phase of evolution and development. Therefore, in order to understand the take-off of the British economy in the last third of the 18th century, it is important to note that Britain had already experienced nearly two centuries of growth, albeit with several interruptions. , but it did not last long, while the French economy only began to grow after a century of depression, and it lasted less than half a century before the industrial revolution. In Rostow's words, Britain's "preparation for takeoff" was longer, more accumulated, and more mature than France's. Therefore, after the "tragedy of the 17th century" after 1630, France had clearly fallen behind Britain. Although it grew relatively fast in the 18th century, it could no longer catch up with Britain.
If the economic fortunes of the two countries were in contrast in the 17th century, then in the three-quarters of a century from the end of Louis XIV's war to the Revolution, the situation was completely different: the economies of the two countries grew at the same time. , the statistics we have show that the pace of growth in Britain and France is surprisingly similar.
Looking at an area we know well, namely foreign trade, France is growing even faster than the UK.
The official average annual foreign trade volume (import + export + re-export) of Britain and Wales was 13 million pounds in 1716-20 and 31 million pounds in 1784-88, which is an increase of 1.4 times. According to Arnoux's figures, France's average annual foreign trade volume was 215 million livres in 1716-20 and 1.062 billion in 1784-88; an increase of almost four times. Of course, the rate schedules on which official British calculations were based were relatively consistent and thus provided an index of the general state of trade, whereas Arnoux's estimates were based on prevailing prices, which had increased by about 60% between 1730-80. % (at least for agricultural products), so Arnoux’s figures should be subject to some deductions. Even so, the scale of French trade was at least triple that of Britain. Moreover, the figure for 1716-20 proposed by Ruggiero Romano based on detailed statistical data is lower than Arnoux's figure (the annual average is 155 million). In this way, even after deducting the factor of price increase, France's share in these 3/4 Century trade increased fourfold. From 1716 to 2020, France's total foreign trade barely reached half of Britain's. By the eve of the revolution, its total volume was basically the same as Britain's (of course, the per capita figure was significantly lower than Britain's).
Of course, it should also be taken into account that France's foreign trade level was very low at the end of Louis XIV, but by the eve of the revolution, its growth rate was faster than that of Britain.
In addition, in several important areas of international trade, France achieved or maintained a dominant position in the 18th century. France exported a large amount of industrial products to the Spanish American Empire through the Port of Cadiz, and it was still the primary supplier of industrial products to Spain and its American Empire; while Britain only monopolized the trade of Portugal and Brazil to a limited extent; but Britain controlled Italy and Levante's Market. The cultivation of sugar cane and coffee grew rapidly in the island of Santo Domingo, and their prices were lower than those of the products in the British Antilles, which the French took from the British as the British islands were depleted and prices increased. A large amount of colonial trade was carried out, and re-exports to Northern Europe also developed rapidly. In addition, in general, the British had little success in the continental European market because they encountered protectionist barriers and French competition everywhere; British re-exports to the continent developed slowly: from the early 18th century to the 1780s, they only doubled. However, it was only around 1785 that Britain's "modern" industrial products began to invade the mainland, and the share of mainland trade in Britain's foreign trade also declined, from 4/5 to less than half. The development of British trade was almost entirely due to colonial trade, especially trade with the North American territories. Until the independence of the 13 colonies, British industrial products enjoyed almost complete monopoly there. This "Americanization" of foreign trade also applied to a lesser extent to France, whose colonial trade increased ninefold between 1716-20 and 1784-88, despite its defeat in the Seven Years' War, but was no more common than outside Europe. The trade volume only accounts for 38% of the total. Therefore, France's foreign trade is more oriented towards Europe than the UK's. The development speed of trade with Europe is slightly slower than the overall speed, but significantly higher than the development speed of Britain's trade with the continent.
But this optimistic picture of French foreign trade should be discounted in several aspects. During the first half of this period - that is, before the Seven Years' War - France's relative position was more favourable. Until the late 1940s, the development of British trade was "unproductively slow" (R. Davis), and woolen textiles and re-exports stagnated; only from 1748 did it grow rapidly - with an average annual growth rate of 3.9% from 1745-60. Although French trade was hit by the "John Law System", its initial growth rate was still similar to that of Britain. It began to accelerate from about 1735 and doubled in less than 20 years (1736-39 to 1749-55). ), this was the golden age of French foreign trade. But this momentum was suddenly interrupted by the Seven Years' War, during which French commerce was driven from the sea by the "Royal Navy" and the total was reduced by 50%, while British trade continued to develop. From 1763 to 1771, French foreign trade rebounded strongly, but mainly to regain lost ground, but then there was an obvious stagnation in the 1970s, and during the American Revolutionary War, it retreated significantly. It was not until the eve of the Revolution that French foreign trade began to grow again, and reached a new high by 1793. Another year of collapse. On the British side, although trade slowed down in the 1970s and the United States experienced another crisis during the war, it was slightly faster than France after the Seven Years' War. After the signing of the Peace Treaty in 1783, it grew strongly again until the end of the century. There are signs that France's competitiveness has weakened since the 1970s, and it has lost its position in the Levant and Spain and Spanish America (the protectionist policies of Charles III were particularly damaging to the French). The development of British trade was more stable because it was less affected by war.
Another weakness of France's foreign trade is its obvious dependence on Saint-Domingue. In the 1980s, this colony accounted for 3/4 of France's total colonial trade and 1/3 of its total exports in re-exports. , most of which this island has to offer. Re-export is also important to Britain, but the British Empire is broader and more diverse, and its colonial trade is richer. By 1776, the population of the 13 North American colonies, one of the important factors in foreign trade, was growing rapidly and their living standards were higher. , the amount of finished products required is large and diverse. In addition, the proportion of industrial products in British exports was higher than that of France. Around 1780, the figures for the two countries were 2/3 and 2/5 respectively. Among French export products, coffee, sugar and wine ranked first, followed by textiles. and silk.
Some researchers believe that the growth of French trade in the 18th century was purely superficial and of little practical significance to the national economy because most of it was just merchant trade. But don't forget that the same was true for British trade, and that the industries of some of the great ports, such as Bordeaux, Nantes, and Rouen, had a direct impact on colonial trade, exporting textiles, sugar tools, canvas, and rope for slaves. etc., provided cannon for ocean-going ships, and as intermediaries for rural industry, these ports also brought farmers into international trade. To be sure, a considerable part of French industrial products found its way into the Antilles and Spanish American markets, and as with Britain, the expansion of trade was a strategic factor in industrial development, which we will now examine.
Given the scarcity of quantitative data and unreliable statistics, this task is indeed tricky. As far as Britain is concerned, according to W. Hoffmann's index, it increased 2 times from 1700 to 1790; and more recently, according to Dean and Cole's index, the index of real output of British trade and industry rose from 100 in 1700 to 285 in 1790. , with an average annual growth rate of 1.17%; the export index during the same period was more prominent, rising from 100 to 383. On the French side, Jean Malshevsky once led a "History of French Economic Econometrics" group, which has so far only published a provisional data, only involving industry; according to these data, France in the 10 years from 1701 to 10 The average annual output of handicrafts and industry, calculated at current prices, was approximately 385 million livres. From 1781 to 1790, the average annual output was 1.574 billion, with an annual growth rate of 1.91%. But the more perfected revised growth rate would be down to 1%, which is very close to Dean and Cole's figure. This figure was consistent with the growth rate of French foreign trade at that time. From the early 18th century to before the Great Revolution, the pace of industrial growth in the two countries was surprisingly close. This view will be confirmed if we compare the development of major industries on both sides.
The main performance of the British economic results in 2006:
In the first three quarters of 2006, the British economy maintained a steady growth trend, and the gross domestic product (GDP) increased after the first and second quarters. After 0.7 and 0.8, the third quarter still maintained an increase of 0.7. If calculated on an annual growth rate basis, the GDP growth rates in the first three quarters were 2.3, 2.6 and 2.8 respectively. The service industry still maintained strong growth momentum, and industrial production and construction also achieved slight growth. According to the forecast of the British Treasury, the British economic growth rate will reach 2.6 in 2006, while the growth rate is expected to be 2.4 in 2007. In 2006, the British economic growth was strong, the unemployment rate remained at a low level, and inflation was under control. The following is the performance of the British economic results:
1. Significant economic performance: Inflationary pressure forced the central bank to raise interest rates again. In order to curb inflation caused by the increase in various basic living expenses, the Bank of England announced on November 9 that it would raise the bank's basic interest rate by 0.25 percentage points, from 4.75 to 5, the highest level in the past five years. Interest rates were raised for the second time this month. On the one hand, the Bank of England must control inflation, and at the same time, it must avoid a slowdown in consumption caused by rising interest rates.
2. Market performance: consumer spending, retail industry and real estate market continue to prosper. In the second quarter of 2006, British household consumption expenditure began to emerge from its long-term downturn. The British real estate market is currently active, with mortgage loans and house prices maintaining strong growth momentum. The large influx of foreign buyers has caused the price of high-end residential areas in central London worth more than 1.5 million pounds to soar by more than 20%.
3. Overall economic performance: the main driving force of economic growth - the service industry. Since the second quarter of 2006, the services industry, which accounts for more than 70% of the UK economy, has returned to strong growth. In the third quarter, the service industry grew again by 0.8 after growing by 0.9 in the previous quarter. Among them, the increase in the output of the manufacturing and energy industries was the main reason for the growth of industrial production, with increases of 0.7 and 0.8 respectively. However, the mining industry, including oil and natural gas, shrank significantly, down 3. Production growth in the construction industry was unchanged from the previous quarter, at 0.5.
____________________
France’s economic characteristics:
France is not rich in natural resources. Most of the iron ore needed is imported. Coal reserves are approximately 21 billion tons (including 10 billion tons of lignite), and bauxite reserves are 90 million tons. Non-ferrous metal reserves are very small and almost all of them depend on imports. 99% of the required oil and 75% of the natural gas are imported. The hydropower resources are about 10 million kilowatts, and the development and utilization of hydropower resources and geothermal energy are relatively full. The forest area is 15 million hectares, with a coverage rate of more than 25%.
The main industrial sectors include mining, metallurgy, automobile manufacturing, shipbuilding, machinery manufacturing, textiles, chemicals, electrical appliances, power industry, daily consumer industry, food industry and construction industry. Emerging industries such as nuclear energy, petrochemical industry, ocean development, military industry, aviation and aerospace and other sectors have developed rapidly. Nuclear power equipment capabilities, oil and oil processing technology rank second in the world, second only to the United States. The aviation and aerospace industry ranks third after the United States and Russia. The steel industry and textile industry rank sixth in the world. However, the traditional industrial sectors still dominate the industry, with steel, automobiles and construction as the three pillars. With the development of the tertiary industry, the proportion of industry in the national economy has gradually declined. France is the world's second largest exporter of agricultural products after the United States. The output of wheat, corn, potatoes, sugar beets, grapes and beef ranks first in Western Europe. Agricultural land accounts for 58% of the country's total area.
The proportion of the service industry in the French economy has gradually increased. The service industry includes commerce, transportation, telecommunications, hotels, restaurants, water supply, sanitation, repair and other sectors. The business volume of telecommunications, information, tourism services and transportation sectors increased significantly. France is a unique tourist country. Tourist attractions include Paris, the Mediterranean and Atlantic coast scenic areas and the vast Alps. There are also some historical cities, castles along the Loire River, fishing villages in Brittany and Normandy, Corsica, etc.
France has a developed transportation industry and is very convenient by land, water and air. In 1990, the total length of railways was 34,000 kilometers, of which 12,600 kilometers were electrified; France is at the forefront of the world in developing high-speed trains. In September 1981, the high-speed train on the Paris-Lyon railway line was officially put into use. In December 1989, France developed the latest high-speed train with a speed of 482.4 kilometers per hour. In 1989, the total length of national highways was 805,200 kilometers, and the highway network spread across the country, including 6,763 kilometers of expressways. French inland shipping is mainly operated by the state. The total length of inland waterways is 8,568 kilometers, of which 4,613 kilometers are canals. 75% of France’s imported materials and 20% of its exported materials must be transported by sea. The main seaports are Marseille and Le Havre. There are three major airlines in France: Air France, United Airlines and Domestic Airlines. Among them, Air France ranks third in the world in terms of passenger traffic. In order to enhance competitiveness, domestic airlines and United Airlines decided to merge into Air France in 1991. The main airports are Charles de Gaulle and Orly in Paris.
The main source of French government revenue is taxation. The tax rate is higher than that of the United States, Japan and other countries, accounting for 45.6% of GDP.
France’s foreign exports rank fourth in world trade, behind the United States, Germany, and Japan. France is the world's third largest arms exporter. Imported commodities mainly include energy and industrial raw materials, while exported commodities include machinery, automobiles, chemical products, steel, agricultural products, food, clothing, cosmetics, and arms. The main trading partners are Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, Russia, China, etc.
France’s foreign investment increased rapidly, becoming the third largest investor in the world in 1991. Investment is mainly concentrated in member countries of the European Community, accounting for 47.7% of the total. Investment in the United States and OPEC member states, Africa and Latin America is also relatively high, mostly in the industry, energy, and service sectors. France's development assistance to the Third World mainly targets French-speaking African countries. From 1971 to 1980, foreign countries purchased 45,000 hectares of French land through real estate investment, accounting for approximately 1% of the French land area.
Foreign investment in France's industrial sector is accelerating, with investment in France from EU member states accounting for 50% of total foreign investment; followed by the United States, which accounts for about 22%. The total foreign investment in France in 1990 was 49 billion francs. The French government is taking measures to encourage foreign investment in France.
France’s social welfare is relatively complete. Since 1983, the amount of social welfare has accounted for 30.6% of national income. Social insurance includes medical care, work-related injuries, family allowances, pensions, care for the disabled, etc.