Did English Workers Have A Higher Standard Of Living Then Their French Counterparts Or Vice Versa? Essay, Research Paper
Did English workers have a higher standard of living then their French counterparts or vice versa? What was the impact of the French
revolution and the British industrial revolution on living standards in the two
countries?The measurement of standards of living is a contentious
subject in the fields of both economic history and economic development.? Real wages are the most common measure of
standards of living, and the relative ease of their calculation makes their use
valuable.? However real wages do not
tell the full story.? Other
environmental and social factors heavily influence standards of living.? Factors such as access to clean air, clean
water and political representation are but a selection of a plethora of other
indicators.? These variables are often
difficult to quantify empirically and much of the evidence for these factors is
qualitative in nature.? Different people
place different values on non-monetary factors.? Williamson regards clean air as a luxury item, whereas others
would regards it as a necessity or even a right.? The subjective nature of such standard of life measures fits
uneasily with more precise quantitative real wage measures.? I hope to examine both real wage and non
monetary evidence whilst answering this question, before examining the effects
of two very differing revolutions on the relative standards of living in
Britain and France.If real wages are taken to be an accurate measure of
standards of living then almost all historians would agree that British workers
enjoyed a higher standard of living than their French counterparts.? Even O?Brien and Keyder admit that in some
periods of the 19th century French real wages were 45% below those
in Britain.? These figures corroborate
evidence from contemporary observers, such as Arthur Young, which suggested
French real wages were lower than British ones.? O?Brien and Keyder argue that real wages tell us very little
about welfare standards, especially when used for comparative purposes.? They suggest that real wage estimates are bias
in favour of England?s more heavily salaried and waged population.? In 1860 87% of Britain?s workf0orce were
salaried or waged, but in 1906 only 46% of the French labour force was waged or
salaried. The persistence of peasant, family run farms in France was the
primary reason for this much smaller percentage. Real wage levels tell us of
the standards of living of only a minority of the French population.? Demographic structure also distorts these
figures.? The slow rate of population
growth in France lessened the dependency ratio.? The real wage in England had to support more people than the real
wage in France.? Real wages are also a
poor indicator of average earnings.? The
proletarianisation of the workforce in Britain meant that urban workers
suffered more heavily from unemployment and a higher incidence of casual
labour.? In other words not everyone
received the real wage all of the time.?
Again, the persistence of a more peasant based agriculture ensured that
less workers were unemployed or casually employed. The slower separation of the
means of production in France whereby the peasants maintained control over land
and capital meant that wages were but one source of income.? Peasants in France accrued income from their
capital and land.? English workers were
largely landless and accrued income almost entirely from wages.? One cannot dispute that British real wages
were consistently and appreciably above those in France, but as we have seen
real wages, especially in France, are a poor indicator of both average earnings
and standards of living.? This finding
is further strengthened upon examination of contemporary accounts.? Birbeck talks of the: ?Superior condition of
the (French) working class? whilst Colman talks of the French as: ?more civil,
cleanly, industrious frugal, sober, or better dressed people?.? Indeed Colman contrasts his positive view of
the French workers with a more negative view of English agricultural workers:
?The very poor condition of a large portion of the English agricultural labouring
population must be acknowledged?.? These
contemporary accounts help us to conclude that real wage data is often
uninformative and indeed often misleading as an indicator of standards of
living.We see in the work of O?Brien and Keyder a revision of the
assessment of French living standards.?
French living standards were not dramatically lower than those of
Britain.? Crafts suggests that contrary
to the traditional belief (Kemp, Kindleberger etc) peasant farming was not a
restraint on the living standards of the French workers.? Traditionally the slower and later
industrialisation of France has been seen as a primary reason for significantly
lower standards of living in France.?
Crafts model shows that the fertility restraint in France in the 18th
and 19th century was enough to mitigate the adverse implications on
standards of living of slow structural change.?
Crafts modelled a situation whereby Britain retained a peasant system of
farming at the expense of industrial expansion and found that the utility of
the British workers would have increased at the expense of the utility of the
capitalists.? However this conclusion
was drawn with the strong assumption that Britain would have experienced a
population stabilisation via fertility restraint.? This switch from capitalist to peasant farming would have reduced
agricultural productivity, real GNP and the level of the capital stock.? Crafts therefore backs O?Brien in suggestion
French industrialisation as seriously retarded by the agrarian structure, but
also suggests, again like O?Brien, that this structure aided the utility of the
peasants.? A more rapid
industrialisation in France would have been more painful for the majority of
the French population.? It must be
stressed that the demographic implications of large peasant agricultural sector
are vital in explaining this model.? We can use O?Brien?s and Crafts findings to help analyse the
effect of the French Revolution on living standards.? The French Revolution strengthened the position of French farming
in a number of ways.? Peasant property
rights were fortified and a large portion of biens nationaux were sold to
peasants at low prices.? Indeed in the
new Department Nord the share of the land held by the peasantry increased from
3 to 42% after the revolution.? The
inflation that accompanied the revolution allowed peasants to invest more
heavily in land and capital as previous debts were heavily devalued via newly
depreciated money.? The strengthening of
the peasants? position helped to maintain the peasant hold on agriculture,
which according to Crafts and O?Brien not only retarded industrialisation, but
allowed for a higher standard of living than a more rapid structural
transformation.? The standard of living
gains from increased income for increased landholdings and the removal of debt
burden can be seen as more static income accruing gains.The optimistic view of the effects on standard of living of
the industrial revolution is that industrialisation increased real wage gains
and welfare.? Williamson?s and Lindert?s
measure of real wages sees a near doubling of real wages between 1820 and
1850.? They conclude that average
workers were much better off from the 1830s onwards than at any time before
1820.? However the start of the
Industrial Revolution is traditionally positioned in the mid to late 18th
century.? Williamson explains this
apparent paradox by suggesting the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars
hindered capital accumulation and growth to the extent that real wages remained
relatively constant.? Williamson and
Lindert defend these impressive gains by maintaining that these increases were
not at the expense of a decline in real wages for women and children and by
stating that no conceivable level of unemployment could have cancelled out the real
wage improvements.? The co-authors also
provide an answer to the question of the effect of more qualitative urban
disamenities.? They see a premium being
added to industrial wages to compensate for the problems of urban squalor.? Statistically they rate the value put on
these human costs as ?not large enough to cancel even a tenth of blue collar
worker?s real wage?.? Williamson also
warns historians not to assess 19th century living conditions by 21st
century standards.? We gain an insight
into the level of importance that Williamson places on the so-called urban
disamenities when he states that: ?clean air, water and uncongested space are
luxury goods?.Feinstein?s own real wage figures paint a much more
pessimistic view of the effects of the industrial revolution on standards of
living.? Feinstein?s cost of living
index differs from Williamson?s in that it fails to highlight a post 1820
decline in prices.? The inclusion of a
more realistic rent measure, a more appropriate textile factor and a more representative
food bundle all serve to increase the cost of living index after 1820.? This leads to a reduction in the real wage
increases proposed by Williamson.?
Indeed Feinstein believes that it was only after 1850 that British
workers enjoyed substantial and sustained advances in real wages.? Feinstein calculates that between 1778/82
and 1853/57 the increase in average weekly earnings was barely 30%.? This relatively meagre increase is combined
with a dependency ratio increase and the 1834 decline in poor law provisions to
reduce the improvement to a mere 10-15%.?
Feinstein places more emphasis on qualitative factors.? He cites Huck, who saw an increase in infant
mortality from 1813-46, and Wrigley and Schofield, who ?suggest the possibility
of a substantial worsening of mortality in infancy and childhood in the early
19th century?, as studies consistent with a significant
deterioration in the standard of living of the urban industrial working
population.? Feinstein?s view is that
the majority of workers enjoyed a century of hard labour with little or no
advance from an already low standard of living before they began to experience
the true benefits of the economic transformation that they had helped to
create.? Allen sheds a different light
on the standard of living question by suggesting that the difference in real
wages seen between northwestern Europe (including Britain) and continental
Europe were a result of economic developments in the 17th and not
the 18th century.? He sees
the minor increase in real wages of the early 19th century as a
minor cycle within a bigger trend.? The
industrial revolution did not substantially increase real wages, but Britain?s
position as the most productive manufacturer in the world allowed her to
maintain her relatively high real wages.?
The industrial revolution allowed the maintenance of an existing level
of standards of living, and it was not until the 1870s that real gains in
living standards were achieved for the workers.Using real wages alone we can safely say that Britain?s
workers were better off than their French counterparts for the majority of the
19th century.? However, as
contemporary accounts show real wages are but one part of a proper standard of
living analysis.? The maintenance of a
peasant farming system lessens the value of real wages as a measure of
standards of living in France.? It is
also improper to suggest that British style industrialisation would have raised
French living standards.? Both Crafts
and O?Brien show that the maintenance of a peasant farming system, whilst
retarding industrialisation, allowed for a greater standard of living for the
peasantry.? Yes, the standard of living
may well have been lower in France than in Britain, but the standard could have
been significantly lower if France had adopted the British path to
industrialisation.? Comparing the living
standards of the two countries is perhaps less valuable than analysing the
possible effects of the adoption of differing paths of economic development.? The welfare effects of the industrial
revolution in Britain are less clear-cut than they once were.? The real wage statistics have been
pertinently revised and show a downgrading of improvement, whilst Williamson?s
rather right-wing dismissal of urban disamenities is inappropriate.? Urban conditions were poor and Feinstein
successfully argues for deterioration in mortality rates and general
health.? It would be harsh to suggest
that the industrial revolution lessened standards of living, but overly
optimistic to say that they were greatly improved in the short to medium term.