............................................
FLOWS OF CAPITAL AND FORMS OF INDUSTRY
IN EUROPE, 1500-1900
(Revised,Version)
by
Charles Tilly
University of ~ i c h i ~ a n
April 1982
\. CRSO Working Paper No. 263.
Copies available through:
Center for Research on Social Organization
University of Michigan
330 ~ a c k a r dStreet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
FLOWS OF CAPITAL AND FORMS OF INDUSTRY
IN EUROPE, 1500-1 900
Charles Tilly
University of Michigan
Prepared for presentation to the Eighth World Congress of
Economic History, Budapest, August 1982
REVISED VERSION: MARCH 1982
Early Forms of Capitalist Industry
"Manufacture,"
w r i t e s John Merrington, "enormously e x p a n d s t h e s o c i a l
productivity of labour by t h e multiplication of detailed functions, subordinating whole
a r e a s of the country and branches of production t o the urban capitalist
..."
But,
says Merr ing ton:
Production is only modified by subdivision of tasks; t h e labour process itself
merely taken over from preceding modes of production.
With t h e a d v e n t o f
m a c h i n e production this framework is qualitatively altered; capital seizes hold
of t h e r e a l s u b s t a n c e of t h e labour p r o c e s s , d y n a m i c a l l y r e s h a p i n g a n d
d i v e r s i f y i n g a l l b r a n c h e s of p r o d u c t i o n by t h e technical-organisational
transformation of t h e productive process. The removal of a l l f e t t e r s on t h e
mobility of labour and the separation of one secondary process a f t e r another
from agriculture
opens the way t o an accelerated, permanent urbanisation
based on the 'concentration of the motive power of society in big cities' (Marx)
and t h e subordination of agriculture as merely o n e b r a n c h of industry. T h e
dominance of the town is no longer externally imposed: i t is now reproduced a s
part of the accumulation process, transforming and spatially reallocating r u r a l
p r o d u c t i o n ' f r o m within'.
The t e r r i t o r i a l division of labour is redefined,
enormously a c c e n t u a t i n g regional i n e q u a l i t i e s : f a r f r o m o v e r c o m i n g r u r a l
c a p i t a l i s t urbanisation merely reproduces it, subordinating
backwardness
t h e country on a more intensive basis (Merrington 1975: 87-88).
...
...
Merrington's gloss on Marx challenges the unilinear view of industrialization that took
hold of western thought during t h e nineteenth century.
Not for Merrington, or Marx,
t h e i d e a of a b a c k w a r d c o u n t r y s i d e in t h e midst of which progressive centers of
concentrated manufacturing grew up.
Not for either one t h e notion of "penetration"
of slow-moving r u r a l a r e a s by urban i d e a s a n d goods.
T h e Marxist account of
industrialization begins with' an intensive interaction of city and village.
Y e t Merrington's summary
--
a n d manj; a n o t h e r l i k e i t
--
holds t o t h e
conventional emphasis on machine production as t h e g r e a t break within the process of
industrialization.
P r i o r t o t h a t 'break, he tells us, "Production is only modified by
subdivision of tasks; t h e labour process itself is merely t a k e n o v e r f r o m p r e c e d i n g
modes of p'roduction."
There Merrington (and perhaps Marx as well) slips into error.
For the more European historians delve into t h e early experience of industrialization,
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 1
t h e more they discover profound transformations of the relations of production prior
t o t h e extensive'mechanization of industry.
The farther t h e inquiry goes, the more i t
a p p e a r s t h a t redeployment of capital and labor' makes the big differences, and t h a t
mechanizatiori is only one of several means by which t h a t redeployment o c c u r r e d in
Europe.
.
M o r e c a r e f u l e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e o s t e n s i b l y p e r i p h e r a l p r o c e s s e s of
"protoindustrialization" and "deindustrialization" r e v e a l s t w o i m p o r t a n t f a c t s : first
. .
t h a t f a r f r o m being m a r g i n a l ' t o the main processes of
European industrialization,
protoindustrialization and deindustrialization were essential features of the growth of
capital-concent rated urban industry; second, t h a t despite their apparently antithetical
character, protoindustrialization and deindustrialization resulted f rofn s i m i l a r c a u s e s ,
.-
and depended closely on each other.
I t would not do, however, t o dissolve the distinction between the labor process
of protoindustrialization and t h e labor process of mechanized urban industrialization.
The techniques of production and its supervision changed relatively little in European
protoindustrialization; t h e big alterations occurred in t h e connections among producing
units and in the relations between the suppliers of capital and the suppliers of labor.
Yet those alterations had widespread consequences: t h e y . produced . a s c a t t e r e d b u t
f a s t - g r o w i n g population of f a m i l i e s t h a t were essentially dependent on the sale of
their labor power for survival
-- a
proletariat, in t h e classic sense of t h e word.
With the .concentration of capital, t h e urban relocation of production, and t h e
introduction of machines with inanimate sources of power, t h e routines of work a n d
t h e r e l a t i v e power of capitalists and workers t o control them changed dramatically.
The active sites of proletarianization moved t o c i t i e s , f a c t o r i e s , a n d o t h e r l a r g e
o r g a n i z a t i o n s , as proletarians took on their more familiar guise: producing on other
people's premises with other people's materials and tools, working on fixed schedules
under close surveillance.
Broadly speaking, manufacturing went from a stage in which
capitalists sought out labor wherever they could find it, and intervened r a t h e r l i t t l e
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 2
in t h e labor process itself, t o a stage in which they strove
-
--
on balance, successfully
t o reshape the entire process on the.ir own terrain, and their own terms.
Even in
t h e stage of drastic technical change, the concentration and reorganization of capital
played a central part.
This paper, then,
. .
continues the discussion restarted by John Merrington's useful
gloss on Marx.
It draws extensively on recent local and regional studies, e s p e c i a l l y
t h o s e t h a t h a v e swirled around the controversial concept of nprotoindustrialization".
It ends up agreeing with the main
points of Merrington's analysis, but cavilling with a
. .
I
n u m b e r of Merrington's details and emphases.
In particular, i t disputes Merrington's
emphasis on mechanization as t h e g r e a t break in t h e process of industrialization.
The
paper's main Usks are:
1. t o s k e t c h how t h a t t r a n s i t i o n t o c a p i t a l - c o n c e n t r a t e d m a n u f a c t u r i n g
occur red,
2. t o place protoindustrialization and deindustrialization within t h e process,
3.
t o bring out t h e importance of shifts in t h e deployment of capital,
4. t o show t h e c o n t i n u o u s i n t e r a c t i o n of c i t y and country. throughout the
process, and
5.
t o s t r e s s h o w m u c h of t h e w h o l e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o c c u r r e d in t h e
countryside, prior t o t h e massive development of factories, s t e a m power, a n d
large-scale machine production.
T h a t t h e s k e t c h will be sketchy goes without saying.
If i t helps reveal what is at
s t a k e in the current scholarly debates over p r o t o i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n a n d d e i n d u s t r i a l ization, it will serve i t s purpose.
Protoindustrialization
..
T h a n k s t o ' t h e r e c e n t a r t i c u l a t i o n of e c o n o m i c a n d d e m o g r a p h i c history,
students of European industrialization a r e at last becoming aware of of t h r e e b a s i c
f a c t s about the development of industrial capitalism.
First, there is the widespread
expansion of industrial production in villages a n d s m a l l towns, long b e f o r e power-
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 3
d r i v e n f a c t o r i e s played a significant part in manufacturing
--
protoindustrialization.
Theri, there is thd c o n s i d e r a b l e p r o l e t a r i a n i z a t i o n of t h e v i l l a g e a n d small-town
population b e f o r e t h e massive population redistiibution of t h e nineteenth century.
Finally, there is the interdependence between t h e pre-factory expansion of i n d u s t r i a l
production and the proletarianization.
Although Europeans' of t h e seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had no reliable
explanations of these changes, they certainly had a n i d e a t h a t s o m e s u c h c h a n g e s
were happening.
As of 1688, Gregory King estimated t h a t of t h e 1.4 million families
in England, 364,000 were "labouring p e o p l e a n d o u t s e r v a n t s " a n d a n o t h e r 400,000
" c o t t a g e r s and paupers" (King 193611696: 31).
As of 1760, J o s e p h ' Massie was
counting a total of 1.5 million families in England and Wales; of them, according t o
Massie, 100,000 w e r e r u r a l producers of wool, silk, and other fabrics, and another
100,000 were producers of "Wood, Iron, etc." in t h e countryside; Massie also counted
200,000. families of husbandmen and 200,000 families of rural laborers (Mathias 1957:
42-43).
If so, roughly 40 percent of t h e entire population depended mainly on wages,
and at least 13 percent drew their wages from manufacturing.
By . 1803,
Patrick Colquhoun .thought that t h e 2.2 million f a m i l i e s o f England
,
. I
and Wales included 340,000 who were laborers in husbandry, 260,000 pauper laborers,
and another 490,000 artisans, handicraft workers, mechanics, laborers in manufactures,
t
building, mines, c a n a l s , etc., m o s t of whom were landless wage-workers
--
not t o
mention another 222,000 individuals Colquhoun called "vagrants" (Colquhoun 1806: 23).
According t o any of these informed guesses, close t o half of all families in England
and Wales lived chiefly from t h e sale of their labor power, and a sizeable m i n o r i t y
w o r k e d mainly in m a n u f a c t u r i n g .
S i n c e no more than 750,000 of t h e 2.2 million
families lived in towns of 2,000 or more, a g r e a t many of these proletarians clearly
eked out their lives in t h e countryside.
England and Wales were neither precocious nor unique.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 4
In t h e Dutch region of
.
T w e n t e , well known through Slicher van Bath's careful studies, 25.2 percent of the
population of 1502 were employed outside .of agriculture; by 1795, the figure was 47.9
p e r c e n t (Faber et al. 1965: 83).
Karlheinz Blaschke's comprehensive enumeration of
. . for t h e three centuries a f t e r 1350 displays a great progression
t h e Kingdom of Saxony
of the "gardeners and cottars" who supplied the bulk of the region's textile workers.
The p e r c e n t a g e distribution of Saxony's r u r a l population followed t h i s p a t t e r n
(Blaschke 1967: 190-191):
peasants
gardeners, cottars
village labor
noble landlords
total
1550
1750
1843
73.5
38.6
20.4
6.8
47.9
70.9
18.8
12.7
8.2
0.8
99.9
0.8
100.0
0.5
100.0
In the case of Saxony, t h e absolute number of peasant households remained relatively
constant over the three centuries; established places on t h e land were few.
But the
absolute number of rural proletarians grew enormously, with the result that peasants
diminished radically as a share of the total population.
Saxony's creation of a rural industrial labor force had many parallels elsewhere.
In 1774, the percent distribution of the labor force in Basel's rural hinterland went as
follows (Gschwind 1977: 369):
peasants
17.6
petty trades
27.3
handicrafts
29.1
shop workers
26.0
total
100.0
82.4 p e r c e n t of t h e workers in this eighteenth-century "rural" area, that is, earned
their wages outside of agriculture.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 5
L e t us t a k e one last case from Bavaria.
In a set of villages around Dachau,
t h e distribution of t h e labor force changed only moderately b e t w e e n 1675 a n d 1800
(Hanke 1969: 243):
1675
1700
1750
1800
peasants
22
22
21
25
dependent workers
36
38
36
26
independent day-laborers
10
12
13
17
non-agricultural trades and c r a f t s .
32
28
30
32
-
100
100
100'
100
total
In the Dachau region, the later eighteenth century brought a decline in the proportion
of dependent w o r k e r s who l a c k e d t h e i r own l e g a l r e s i d e n c e s in t h e villages, a
significant increase in t h e number of independent day-laborers, and a modest rise in
t h e proportion of peasant households.
As t i m e w e n t on, a c c o r d i n g t o G e r h a r d Hanke, t h e c r a f t workers of Old
Bavaria became a "semi-peasant" class; the population "re-ruralized".
At all four
p o i n t s in t i m e , n e v e r t h e l e s s , more t h a n half t h e labor force consisted of people
employed mainly outside of agriculture.
Elsewhere in southern Bavaria, rural industry
r e mained t h e c h i e f a c t i v i t y well into the nineteenth century; genuine l'ruralization"
c a m e quite recently (Fried 1975).
Yet, Hanke points out, historians of Bavaria long
described the region as if it had been an essentially peasant economy.
The "grounds
on which previous ,research drew a picture of a peasant Old Bavaria" (as Hanke titles
o n e s e c t i o n of his study) included both the nineteenth-century predominance of the
p e a s a n t r y a n d t h e t e n d e n c y of t h e poor a n d t h e u n o f f i c i a l l y s e t t l e d t o e l u d e
s e v e n t e e n t h - a n d e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y d o c u m e n t s ( H a n k e 1969: 22 1).
reasoning
--
A fortiori.
supposing t h a t if peasants predominated in t h e nineteenth c e n t u r y t h e y
m u s t h a v e predominated even more in earlier centuries
the myth.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 6
--
made it easier t o accept
T h e m y t h h a s crumbled.
By now a generation's research has made i t clear
t h a t important parts of the eighteenth-century European countryside teemed with nonp e a s a n t s and hummed with manufacturing.
We a r e gradually coming t o recognize,
furthermore, t h a t "cottage industry" w a s n o t simply a p a l e a n t i c i p a t i o n of "real'!
i n d u s t r y , a n d not simply a casual supplement t o agriculture, but a powerful system
with i t s own logic.
What Must We Explain?
N i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y e c o n o m i c historians, from Marx t o Schmoller, were well
aware ,of cottage industry and related forms of production.
century, Sombart wrote extensively on the Verlagssystem
In t h e e a r l y t w e n t i e t h
- the
system in which small
merchants gathered r a w m a t e r i a l s a n d moved t h e m a t e r i a l s t h r o u g h a s c a t t e r e d
n e t w o r k of p i e c e w o r k e r s u n t i l t h e y had finished goods t o market.
All subsequent
economic histories have given r u r a l i n d u s t r y a p l a c e in t h e European landscape.
Nevertheless, t h e last few decades' work has renewed the question.
The renewal has
had several features:
1. r e v e a l i n g t h e enormous 'extent of small-scale industrial production .before
t h e rise of t h e factory, and establishing i t s predominance 'in many rural areas;
2. displaying t h e f r e q u e n t r e g i o n a l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between intensive but
s m a l l - s c a l e a n d r u r a l p r o d u c t i o n b e f o r e 1850 a n d r a p i d l a r g e - s c a l e
industrialization -- especially outside of heavy industry -- a f t e r 1850;
3. showing t h a t small-scale rural industry competed e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h l a r g e r scale urban production for a century or more;
4. developing a sense t h a t small-scale r u r a l p r o d u c t i o n m a y h a v e played a
crucial role in the development of industrial capitalism.
The fourth feature has inevitably excited t h e greatest controversy.
The controversy
has heightened when it has c o m e t o hypotheses t h a t the growth of small-scale rural
production a ) provided the prime means of p r i m i t i v e c a p i t a l a c c u m u l a t i o n , b) had
r e c u r r e n t demographic consequences which accelerated population growth and tended,
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 7
i n t h e medium a n d long run, t o immiserate i t s workers, c ) therefore promoted the
growth of a poorly-paid proletariat, which eventually became a major source of labor
power for large-scale capitalist production.
.
A t t h e i r e x t r e m e ( f o r e x a m p l e , in t h e s t a t e m e n t s of Kriedte, Medick, and
Schlumbohm) these hypotheses sum t o an alternative account of t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m
feudalism to capitalism. They present an alternative t o the classic Marxist account in
which three kinds of c a p i t a l
--
m e r c h a n t c a p i t a l , c a p i t a l a c c u m u l a t e d in urban
m a n u f a c t u r i n g , a n d a g r a r i a n c a p i t a l w r e s t e d f r o m a dispossessed p e a s a n t r y
coalesced t o provide the basis for large-scale production.
--
The new h y p o t h e s e s a l s o
p o s e a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e c l a s s i c l i b e r a l a c c o u n t , in which expanding trade and
developing technology interacted t o make large-scale production more e f f i c i e n t t h a n
o t h e r forms.
With so c r u c i a l a n o u t c o m e at issue, s m a l l wonder t h a t b i t t e r
arguments continue t o rage.
-
Small wonder, furthermore, t h a t t h e very word "proto-
i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n " ( w i t h its suggestion of a d i s t i n c t i v e b u t standard stage in t h e
creation of modern industry) should raise objections, a n d m a k e s o m e s c h o l a r s (e.g.
Hudson 1981) prefer the unthreatening simplicity of "cottage industry".
. ,
Terminology will not resolve t h e historical questions.
.
Nevertheless, I see g r e a t
advantages in adopting a broad, ,dynamic, question-posing definition of protoindustrialProtoindustrialization,, in my view, is t h e increase in manufacturing activity
ization.
by means of t h e multiplication of very small producing units and small t o medium
accumulations of. capital.
Negatively, it consists of t h e i n c r e a s e in m a n u f a c t u r i n g
w i t h o u t l a r g e producing. units and great accumulations of capital.
Such a definition
differs from the semi-official ,statement p r o p o s e d by F r a n k l i n Mendels a n d P i e r r e
Deyon
--
protoindustrialization as the presence of peasant production for an extra-
regional market in a s i t u a t i o n of , t i g h t i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n a g r i c u l t u r e a n d
industry
--
change.
Second, it is at once open and agnostic; i t leaves open t o investigation t h e
in t w o c r u c i a l ways.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 8
F i r s t , my definition is dynamic; i t refers t o a
c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r w h i c h t h e m u l t i p l i c a t i o n of s m a l l u n i t s a n d s m a l l c a p i t a l
accumulations actually occurs; in principle, i t allows for the possibility t h a t p r o t o -
I
i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n o c c u r r e d in c i t i e s , isolated from agriculture, strongly oriented t o
1
nearby markets.
I
m a r k e t s b e c o m e promising hypotheses concerning t h e conditions for protoindustrial-
Thus t h e agriculture-industry interdependence and t h e extra-regional
ization, rather than features of the process which a r e present by definition.
1
Given such a b r o a d definition, t h e r e is no q u e s t i o n t h a t during t h e t w o
I
i!
~
.
centuries a f t e r 1650 Europe underwent substantial protoindustrialization: manufacturing
grew rapidly via the multiplication of small producing units and modest accumulations
I
of capital.
Large units and big capital may well have experienced a relative decline.
N o t t h a t e v e r y t h i n g s t a y e d t h e same: f a r . f r o m it!
F i r s t , as t h e n e t w o r k s of
producers and. m e r c h a n t s p r o l i f e r a t e d , t h e s t r u c t u r e of t r a d e a l t e r e d , a n d l a r g e
i n d u s t r i a l r e g i o n s c a m e t o life.
middlemen grei
In t h e world of c h e a p goods a n d cheap labor,
up as never before.
l i v e s of w o r k e r s
--
Second, protoindustrialization t r a n s f o r m e d t h e
e x p a n d i n g t h e t i m e . t h e y s p e n t on non-agricultural pursuits,
increasing their dependence on the demand for their products, confronting them with
p e t t y merchants who had a strong interest in cutting their costs, and especially their
costs of labor'.
Most likely
-- but
this is where t h e controversy begins
--
protoindus-
trialization also tended t o promote population growth, proletarianization, and a way of
life in which fluctuations in employment opportunities affected family strategies and
welfare as never before.
T h e " p r o t o i n d u s t r i a l model" f r a m e d by Mendels, Medick, Levine, and others
enters t h e intellectual scene a t ' e x a c t l y t h i s point.
It states a s e t of c o n n e c t e d
hypo t h e s e s a b o u t t h e c a u s e s , correlates, and consequences of protoindustrialization.
The main arguments run as follows:
1. In so f a r as population d e n s i t y w a s high, agriculture within a compact
region w a s divided b e t w e e n l a r g e c o m m e r c i a l f a r m s a n d s m a l l h o l d i n g s ,
!
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 9
o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r profitable out-migration were few, and external markets for
goods whose production required low capital investment w e r e a v a i l a b l e , p e t t y
merchants were likely t o promote protoindustrialization.
2. To t h e extent t h a t these conditions obtained and protoindustrialization -- a n
i n c r e a s e in manufacturing through the multiplication of small producing units
and modest concentrations of capital - occurred, the populations involved were
Likely t o reorient their family strategies from the inheritance of places on the
land or in restricted c r a f t s to opportunities for paid employment.
3.
T h e s i m u l t a n e o u s or s e a s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t of i n d u s t r i a l workers in
agriculture (both on their own account and as wage-labor f o r l a r g e f a r m e r s )
r e d u c e d t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n c o s t of l a b o r , r a i s e d t h e land p r o d u c t i v i t y of
a g r i c u l t u r e , a n d a c c e n t u a t e d t h e o r i e n t a t i o n of w o r k e r f a m i l i e s t o p a i d
employment.
4.
F r e q u e n t l y , t h i s r e o r i e n t a t i o n t o employment opportunities meant rising
marital fertility, increased nuptiality, and a n a s y m m e t r i c a l response t o good
t i m e s a n d bad -- n u p t i a l i t y and fertility rising in good times, but failing t o
decline proportionately in bad times -- so t h a t t h e medium-run consequence of
f l u c t u a t i o n s in the market for industrial products was increasing vulnerability,
and immiseration.
5 . T h e p r e s e n c e of such a . vulnerable, miserable, and industrially-disciplined
'.labor force promoted m e r c a n t i l e c a p i t a l a c c u m u l a t i o n ; given l o c a t i o n a l o r
technical advantages of concentration, i t also facilitated the creation of large,
capital-intensive k i t j of production.
As we move down the list, the arguments .become increasingly controversial.
To the
e x t e n t t h a t we take them t o describe the main conditions and mechanisms of Europe's
s h i f t f r o m a g r a r i a n t o i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , they pose a dramatic challenge t o
conventional wisdom
-- whether
liberal or Marxist.
As things now stand, the fact of protoindustrialization is well established, - b u t
t h e evidence for each element of t h e "protoindustrial model" is mixed.
Part of t h e
problem is quantitative: not having a good enough inventory of relevant cases t o know
whether those populations whose b e h a v i o r s f i t t h e model w e r e r a r e , f r e q u e n t o r
preponderant.
P a r t is q u a l i t a t i v e : n o t having firm enough control over the well-
d o c u m e n t e d i n s t a n c e s t o b e s,ure how c l o s e l y t h e r e l e v a n t b e h a v i o r
--
the
asymmetrical, response to employment opportunities, the capital accumulation, and so
on
--
conformed t o the model.
P a r t of the problem, finally, is neither quantitative
nor qualitative, but descriptive: specifying in which times and places protoindustrial-
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 10
-.
i z a t i o n was a c t u a l l y o c c u r r i n g , a n d in which t i m e s and places the model should
therefore, in principle, apply: does t h e f a c t t h a t g r e a t landlords of E a s t e r n E u r o p e
s o m e t i m e s f o r c e d t h e i r serfs into industrial production a s a source of cash for the
landlord's estate, for example, challenge the model?
I think n o t
--
but clearly we
need a better specification of the model's domain.
For t h e moment, ' l e t us stop with a prudent u n d e r s t a t e m e n t : b e f o r e c a p i t a l intensive manufacturing became dominant, Europe underwent substantial
industrialization through t h e multiplication of small producing units and modest capital
concent rations over the territory of rural regions organized around mercantile cities;
in regions where t h a t happened, many of t h e changes described by the "protoindustrial
model1' seem to have occurred together.
I
I
,
As Milward and Saul sum it up:
Paradoxically, in s p i t e of t h e v e r y f e w s u c c e s s e s which g o v e r n m e n t
p o l i c i e s of industr ialisation achieved and t h e noticeable decay of many
old-established industries, the eighteenth century was a period of marked
industrialisation. The industrialisation was of a quite different kind from
t h a t which most governments had sought t o establish. Its most general
a s p e c t e v e r y w h e r e was t h e p a r t - t i m e employment of the rural labour
It
force in manufacturing activities carried on in their own homes
i s impossible n o t t o be struck by the extraordinary growth of spinning
and weaving in the countryside of many European areas. In some a r e a s
t h e manufacture of iron products, toys or watches developed in the same
way, but textiles, whether of linen, wool or the newfangled cotton were
t h e t y p i c a l r u r a l product.
T h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l transformations which
initiated t h e Industrial Revolution in Britain, were heavily c o n c e n t r a t e d
in t h e s e r u r a l textile industries and their development on the continent
may therefore be seen a s t h e t r u e precursor of t h e Industrial Revolution
there rather than the older 'manufactures'. But setting on one side the
developments of t h e I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n i t s e l f a n d looking a t t h e
m a t t e r simply f r o m t h e p o i n t of v i e w of e m p l o y m e n t in industrial
activities whether those industries were 'revolutionised' o r n o t i t would
s t i l l b e t r u e t o s a y t h a t t h e m o s t i n d u s t r i a l l a n d s c a p e s in late
eighteenth-century Europe, f o r a l l t h e i r l a c k of chimneys, w e r e t h e
c o u n t r y a r e a s around Lille, Rouen, Barcelona, Zurich, Basel and Geneva
(Milward and Saul 1973: 93-94).
...
I
1
I
I
1
Milward and Saul understate the extent to' which rural industiy served as a dominant
and full-time employment in Europe's zones of i n t e n s e p r o t o i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n .
But
t h e i r main point d e s e r v e s e m p h a s i s , b e c a u s e t h e nineteenth century forgot i t so
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 11
completely: Europe industrialized significantly before 1800, and did so mainly through
t h e employment of rural labor.
T h e dispersion of industry, however, did not destroy the orientation t o cities.
Broadly speaking, eighteenth-century Europe organized as a s e r i e s of regions, e a c h
c o n t a i n i n g a d o m i n a n t ci'ty, a s u b o r d i n a t e hierarchy of cities, and an agricultural
hinterland from which the cities drew the major part of their subsistence.
Some of
t h o s e c i t y - h i n t e r l a n d sets c o n s t i t u t e d i n d u s t r i a l systems: i n n u m e r a b l e scattered
producers, linked by petty merchants and manufacturers t o t h e m a j o r m a r k e t s a n d
large capitalists located in the regional capitals.
The list included not only the Lille,
Rouen, Barcelona, Zurich, Base1 and Geneva mentioned by Milward and Saul, but also
Leeds, Manchester, Milan, Lyon, and others as well.
Ttie bulk of the industrial labor
force located near the sources of r e l a t i v e l y c h e a p food, r a i s e d s o m e of i t s o w n
subsistence, and worked in agriculture some of t h e time.
From the viewpoint of the industrial c a p i t a l i s t , under t h e s e conditions, t h e
p r i c e of labor could r e m a i n below its c o s t of reproduction.
Higher-priced ufban
craftsmen, dependent on t h e market f o r e x p e n s i v e food a n d o r g a n i z e d t o c o n t r o l
p r o d u c t i o n and bargain f o r wages, l o s t out.
B u t city-based merchants played a
fundamental part in creating a n d s u s t a i n i n g t h e s y s t e m .
Furthermore, the more
capital-intensive branches of production, and those in which quick response t o market
changes was crucial, remained in cities or generated new, specialized urban c e n t e r s .
Finally, major p o r t c i t i e s d r e w r u r a l p r o d u c t s into international trade.
Consider
Nantes and St. Malo, whose m e r c h a n t s shipped linens f r o m h u n d r e d s of v i l l a g e s
throughout Brittany, Normandy, Perche, Maine and Anjou t o Africa and t h e Americas.
Or think of Hamburg, which "drew linen from Silesia, Saxony
. . . Westfalia,
Bohemia,
Moravia, Swabia, S t y r i a a n d S w i t z e r l a n d , b u t also f r o m c l o s e r r e g i o n s such as
Mecklenberg, Holstein, Bremen and Lubeck" (Pohl 1963: 126-127); w i t h t h e possible
exception of Bremen and Lubeck, these were essentially regions of rural protoindustry.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 12
'
If we moved o u r i m a g i n a t i o n s back t o 1750, blanked out our knowledge of
things t o come, and projected t h e future of s u c h a s y s t e m , w e would m o s t likely
predict an increasing division of labor between. town and country
--
but a division of
labor in which cities housed Europe's rentiers, officials and large c a p i t a l i s t s a s t h e y
s p e c i a l i z e d in m a r k e t i n g , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and services, but not manufacturing.
We
might well a n t i c i p a t e a c o u n t r y s i d e with a g r o w i n g p r o l e t a r i a t working in b o t h
agriculture and manufacturing.
R u r a l s i t e s , in t h a t projection, would remain the
active sites of proletarianization, while those who con trolled t h e means of production
would concentrate increasingly in cities.
Capital Concentration and i t s Correlates
T h a t is n o t w h a t happened.
Many industrial regions underwent the sequence
described for t h e uplands of Zurich by Rudolf B r a u n (1960, 1965): a n e i g h t e e n t h -
I
I
c e n t u r y explosion of textile production into the previously poor, sparsely settled and
agricultural hill country, followed by a nineteenth-century reflux t o Zurich and nearby
towns.
After protoindustrialization, deindustrialization.
In many rural areas, whether
mainly industrial or agricultural, the nineteenth century brought an exodus of wageworkers, and then of smallholders, sharecroppers, and petty tenants.
P
t o leave behind the larger farmers, both owners and leaseholders.
The result was
I t was o f t e n t o
m a k e t h e f a r m less dependent on hired labor, and more dependent on family labor,
than it had been for centuries (Friedmann 1978).
say, peasantization.
After proletarianization, we might
The active sites of proletarianization shifted t o the cities.
The phrase "industrial revolution" gives a misleading account of what changed.
I
T h e a c c o u n t is misleading b e c a u s e i t emphasizes technological changes, and draws
attention away from t h e redeployment of capital.
I
Nevertheless, t h e dramatic words
s i g n a l t h a t s o m e t h i n g d r a s t i c did happen in Europe during the nineteenth century.
What was it?
1.
Here were t h e obvious features of t h a t nineteenth-century reversal:
a g r e a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n of c a p i t a l , c o m b i n e d w i t h a readiness of
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 1 3
capitalists to shift their operations from one locus t o another, depending
on the chances for profit;
2. a n e f f o r t by c a p i t a l i s t s t o t a k e c o n t r o l of the whole productive
process, using cooptation, coercion, and reorganization t o under mine t h e
a b i l i t y of w o r k e r s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a l l o c a t i o n of t h e f a c t o r s of
production, including their own labor power;
3. grouping of t h e workers in c o m m o n locales, on coordinated work
schedules, under continuous surveillance and standard discipline, in order
t o increase the return from their labor;
4. reliance on machines and inanimate sources of power t o accomplish
those ends.
!
These measures, in their turn, had powerful consequences:
5. movement of t h e loci of production toward concentrations of c a p i t a l
and/or sources of power;
6. c o n v e r g e n c e of t h e labor f o r c e on t h o s e l o c i of production and
employment;
7.
departure of proletarians from the countryside;
8. w i t h d r a w a l o f p r o l e t a r i a n l a b o r f r o m a g r i c u l t u r e , w i t h t h e
c o n c o m i t a n t n e c e s s i t y of drawing t h e f u l l reproduction cost of labor
from non-agricultural employment;
9.
de-industrialization of many previously industrial areas.
These changes amounted t o a n 'limplosion'l of industrial production in t o c i t i e s ,
and i t s radical separation from agriculture.
Because changes of this sort prevailed when Westerners began formulating their
theories of industrial capitalism, a number of h i s t o r i c a l m i s c o n c e p t i o n s c r e p t i n t o
those theories.
Three of them in particular obscured the historical experience.
The
first was t h e idea t h a t industrialization c o n s i s t e d of t h e e x p a n s i o n of disciplined
p r o d u c t i o n in l a r g e , power-driven, machine-based, spatially-concentrated units.
The
second was the notion t h a t true proletarians worked under close surveillance in such
units, and that proletarianization therefore occurred mainly in cities and in factories.
The third embodied a false a fortiori argument, t h e s a m e o n e G e r h a r d Hanke h a s
criticized in Bavarian historiography: that if the nineteenth-century countrysides were
essentially p e a s a n t a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l , t h e n of c o u r s e t h e c o u n t r y s i d e s of e a r l i e r
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 14
centuries must have been even more essentially peasant and agricultural.
The three
misapprehensions m a d e i t e a s y , t o f o r g e t w h a t e a r l i e r g e n e r a t i o n s had s e e n f o r
themselve's: t h e g r e a t protoindustrialization of Europe's hinterlands, and the massive
proletarianization of i t s population before the nineteenth-century urban implosion.
A t t h e c o s t of oversimplification, diagrams 1 through 4 illustrate what is at
issue.
Diagram 1 points out t h a t conventional ideas of industrialization a r e implicitly
two-dimensional:
t h e y include both i n c r e a s e in t h e s c a l e of producing units and
expansion in the production of manufactured goods.
I
In principle, increasing scale can
o c c u r w i t h o u t a n e x p a n s i o n of production; w e m i g h t c a l l t h a t e x t r e m e case
concentration.
Likewise, production can expand w i t h o u t i n c r e a s e s in t h e s c a l e of
producing units; t h a t extreme, we call protoindustrialization.
A coordinated change in
both dimensions deserves t h e full name industrialization.
T h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n makes i t easier t o state the difference between standard
accounts of industrialization and the accounts t h a t have been emerging from a fuller
a p p r e c i a t i o n of p r o t o i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n .
D i a g r a m 2 c a r i c a t u r e s t h e Industrial
Revolution account: little increase in manufacturing occurred until the development of
n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s which e n t a i l e d d r a m a t i c r i s e s in t h e s c a l e of production; the
efficiency of the new technology and organization then produced a large expansion of
manufacturing.
D i a g r a m 3 describes protoindustrialization without concentration: a
large expansion of manufacturing w i t h o u t c h a n g e in t h e s c a l e of producing u n i t s
e v e n t u a l l y ceases when c o n c e n t r a t i o n elsewhere drives local producers out of the
market; t h e subsequent decline in manufacturing leaves the a r e a even less' i n d u s t r i a l
I
than when the process began.
I
D i a g r a m 4, finally, sketches an ideal-typical transition
I
f r o m protoindustrialization t o full industrialization: considerable expansion o f
I
I
'
manufacturing without increases in scale, followed by dramatic concentration.
I
1
I
I
The quantitative argument in t h e growing l i t e r a t u r e on p r o t o i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n
r u n s s o m e t h i n g l i k e this: a r e a by a r e a , t h e s i t u a t i o n described by Diagram 2
I
I
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 15
--
3. P U R E 7 W E S
"Industrial Revolution"
--
w a s q u i t e r a r e in Europe, confined mainly t o places in
which coal deposits made rapid large-scale industrialization a t t r a c t i v e t o c a p i t a l i s t s .
Situation 3
--
protoindustrialization followed by deindustrialization
- was
actually the
most frequent circumstance; small area by small area, most o f E u r o p e e n t e r e d t h e
t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y m o r e purely a g r i c u l t u r a l than it had been for centuries before.
During t h e twentieth century, t o be sure, some of those re-ruralized a r e a s , such a s
t h e region of C h o l e t in western France, again took up manufacturing as capitalists
built small factories in the countryside t o take advantage of c h e a p land a n d labor.
S i t u a t i o n 4, n e v e r t h e l e s s , d e s c r i b e s the most common path by which concentrated
industry came into being: a path from protoindustrialization t o concentration.
t h e three standard misconceptions
--
If so,
t h e e q u a t i o n of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n w i t h
concentration, t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p r o l e t a r i a n i z a t i o n w i t h c o n c e n t r a t i o n , t h e
f o r t i o r i p e a s a n t i z a t i o n of t h e past
--
a
badly d i s t o r t t h e h i s t o r y of European
industrialization.
T h e t h r e e misconceptions survive because they f i t together neatly in a linear
m o d e l of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n .
If w e think of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n a s a n i r r e v e r s i b l e
t e c h n i c a l , organizational, and cultural liberation from a traditional past, cumulative
and ever-accelerating, then it is natural t o imagine the past as monolithic and stable:
T r a d i t i o n a l Peasant Society.
A whole series of related misperceptions reinforce the
basic image: t h e supposed immobility of pre-industrial populations, t h e p a r t i c u l a r i s m
and irrationalityrof peasant life, the spread of rational calculation with industrialism,
t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of a "flight" f r o m t h e c o u n t r y s i d e as u r b a n d i v e r s i o n s a n d
opportunities appeared, the decline in social control as a consequence of urbanization
and industrialization, the shock and disorder produced by t h e f i r s t c o n f r o n t a t i o n of
r u r a l m i g r a n t s w i t h t h e d e m a n d s of u r b a n l i f e a n d work
. . . in
short, t h e
commonsense sociology of t h e nineteenth century.
As generalizations, all these ideas have shattered on contact with the last few
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 16
d e c a d e s ' r e s e a r c h on E u r o p e a n e c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a l history.
For example, Abel
Chatelain's review of temporary migration in F r a n c e . m a k e s it c l e a r how v a s t a n d
lively were the networks of labor mobility before the growth of big industrial cities,
and how in many instances the e f f e c t of industrial concentration was actually t o fix
people in place, t o slow them down.
Yet the whole complex of ideas. emerged ,at a
time when current trends gave it some plausibility: in t h e later n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y ,
m i g r a t i o n f r o m t h e c o u n t r y s i d e t o c i t i e s w a s speeding up, cities were coming to
monopolize industrial production, a new, massive, disciplined but often angry factorybased proletariat @ seem to be forming, and so on down the list.
The nineteenth-
century errors were t o generalize a momentary condition, t o extrapolate its changes
into a continuous one-directional process, t o exaggerate the turbulence and disorder of
I
t h e moment as compared t o previous moments, and t o adopt faulty notions of causes
and effects.
I
Those are serious errors, but common and understandable ones:
Deindustrialhation
S i m i l a r e r r o r s h a v e o f t e n a f f e c t e d discussions of deindustrialization.
The
frequency of deindustrialization is probably an even more difficult historical fact t o
g r a s p t h a n t h e i m p o r t a n c e of p r o t o i n d u s t r y as t h e setting for the growth of the
proletariat, because of the assumption t h a t industrialization is a n irreversible process.
If t h e p r o c e s s n o r m a l l y moves in only one direction, then its reversal is abnormal,
pathological, a failure.
True, t h e purest liberal discussion of industrialization makes
room for a competition in which while some regions succeed some other regions will
inevitably make a n e f f o r t and fail.
But t h e chief cases in point a r e n o r m a l l y
p e r i p h e r a l a r e a s brought into the sphere of an expanding industrial power.
Lgvy-Leboyer t r a c e s t h e n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y
Maurice
d e i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n under E u r o p e a n
influence in India, t h e Middle East, and Latin America, then remarks that "In Europe,
t h e evil was not unknown, although i t was less extensive," citing Sicily and southern
~ e r
I t a l y as p r i m e e x a m p l e s ( ~ G v ~ - ~ e b o1964:'186).
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 17
He t h e n a p p r o v e s t h e
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of a Belgian commission which, in 1833, countered the pleas of
Flemish merchants for restrictions on t h e e x p o r t of f l a x w i t h t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t
Flanders should be eager to sell its raw materials on the international market.
'The
case of Flanders," continues ~ G v ~ - ~ e b o y e r ,
i s o f g e n e r a l i m p o r t a n c e . International competition requires incessant
adaptation t o new structures. The balance among western c o u n t r i e s i s
t h e r e s u l t of m u l t i p l e e x c h a n g e s which involve t h e whole range of
manufactured products, w i t h n o n e h a v i n g p r i o r i t y .
Manchester
m a i n t a i n e d i t s position in w e s t e r n m a r k e t s by r e o r i e n t i n g i t s sales
upstream: for finished goods, 'its industrialists substituted spun goods, and
then textile looms. One is hard put t o s e e why new nations could not
improve their level of living by specializing in primary industry. F r o m
t h a t p o i n t of view, d e i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n i s desirable, on t h e obvious
condition t h a t the countries in question have crops which' can be used by
t h e West (Lgvy-Leboyer 1964: 193).
T o b e sure, deindustrialization is always easier t o advocate for other areas than one's
own.
It is fascinating, nonetheless, t o go through a collection of essays such as the
L'eon/Crouzet/Gascon Industrialisation e n Europe a u XIXe s i g c l e (1972) looking f o r
instances of deindustrialization in the European experience.
eye.
The instances leap t o the
J o r d i Nadal shows us t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e d e c l i n e of industrial. a c t i v i t y i n
southeastern Spain during the nineteenth century, J.R. Harris sketches the collapse of
skilled metal-working and textile production . i n Liverpool's hinterland a s t h e port itself
p r o s p e r e d during t h e s a m e c e n t u r y , Yves Lequin maps o u t t h e expansion a n d
contraction of several forms of m a n u f a c t u r i n g in t h e mountainous r e g i o n s of t h e
I s e r e , a n d so on.
In case , a f t e r case, w e see signs of a deliberate movement of
c a p i t a l a w a y f r o m unprofitab1.e i n d u s t r i e s , f o l l o w e d i n e v i t a b l y by a d e c l i n e i n
e m p l o y m e n t , a n d o f t e n c a p p e d by t h e near-disappearance of manufacturing as an
economic base.
Y v e s Lequin's evidence has a particular interest, since it provides a foretaste
of t h e m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d in his l a t e r t r e a t m e n t of Lyon's region as a whole.
Lequin's ouvriers de la &ion
lyonnaise (1977) is one of our most valuable stimuli for
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 18
r e f l e c t i o n on d e i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n .
I t d e a l s w i t h the later experience of an urban
region which went through all phases of the transformations we have been examining:
growth of a powerful silk industry heavily concentrated in the regional capital, Lyon,
during t h e seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; g r e a t concentration of capital during
t h e eighteenth century; increasing competitive pressure from other centers and other
fabrics toward the end of t h e century; dispersion of important parts of,
. , the industry
t h r o u g h o u t t h e Lyonnais region during the early nineteenth q n t u r y (see Cayez 1981
and Longfellow 1981 for recent discussions).
Lequin's s t u d y of t h e Lyonnais a f t e r
1848 demonstrates the strong orientation of industrial activity throughout the region's
scattered villages and towns t o the g r e a t merchant city, t h e repeated r e l o c a t i o n ' o f
d i f f e r e n t divisions of the textile and metal-working industries within the region, and
t h e ultimate concentration of almost all industrial a'ctivi-ty in Lyon,. i t s i m m e d i a t e
vicinity,. and a few other important cities.
His evidence'makes
a strong, if indirect,
case for t h e .peopling of Lyon's nineteenth-century industry by workers who came, not
-from agriculture, but from other industrial centers
- especially
t h e deindustrializing
I
towns and v i l l a g e s of t h e h i n t e r l a n d .
Thus it p o r t r a y s a d r a m a t i c i n s t a n c e o f
d e i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n as a redistribution of capital and labor within the same regional
system.
Not all deindustrialization, however, operates at a rekional scale, or occurs in
t h e course of the redistribution of t h e same industry.
,the
As a first rough taxonomy of
a l t e r n a t i v e s , w e m i g h t divide up the net movements of capital which produce
deindustrialization in this way:
LOCAL
WITHIN REGION
INTERREGIONAL
WITHIN
INDUSTRY
competition
reorganization
runaway shop
BETWEEN
INDUSTRIES
change in
specialty
reinvestment
flight
The nineteenth-century
~ ~ o n n = . wi os u l d t h e n q u a l i f y m a i n l y as a case o f
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 19
"reorganization":
n e t m o v e m e n t s of capital within the same industries in the same
region, which deindustrialized important p-arts of t h e h i n t e r l a n d , b u t n o t t h e whole
C l e a r l y w e w a n t t o distinguish that case from the runaway shop, or the
region.
simultaneous collapse of industry and indus~rialregion.
From t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of a n
. individual v i l l a g e or villager, they may look quite similar; from the perspective of
\
economic and social h i s t o r y
fundamentally different.
--
o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r ; n a t i o n a l policy
--- t h e y
are
The research we undertake should tell u s how and why.
Conclusions
An unwary t r a v e l e r in Paris or Lo-ndon often straightens, out the river in his
imagination, and then makes terrible deductions a b o u t t h e s h o r t e s t p a t h f r o m o n e
If he follows up those' deductions without consulting
place t o another within the city.
,
I
a well-drawn map, he finds himself wandering, worn, and confused.
nor t h e T h a m e s comes close t o describing a straight line.
Neither t h e Seine
Similarly, .a straight-line
model of industrialization is not merely inaccurate
in itself; it leads t o faulty, costly
. ,
r
deducti.ons a b o u t t h e likely consequences and correlates of t h e whole..process.
The
I
Industrial Revolution model of industrialization follows a straight line from agriculture
t o handicraft t o full-scale industry, with handicraft a weak anticipation of full-scale
industry.
That model not only exaggerates t h e role of te&hnology a n d f o r e s h o r t e n s
t h e history of industrial production, but also
- misstates
- at
least for the European experience
the relationships between urban and rural capital :and labor.
The classic
M a r x i s t model, - w i t h i t s intermediate stage of Manufacture drawing heavily on rural
labor, improves our understanding of the historical terrain by putting a n a p p r o p r i a t e
bend in . t h e river of industrialization.
.
r
It also improves on t h e Industrial Revolution
model by drawing attention t o t h e accumulation and redeployment of c a p i t a l .
Yet
t h e c l a s s i c Marxist model, -too, exaggerates the importance of technological change,
and underestimates the interdependence of changes in city and country; of alterations
in the organization of ind;stry
and agriculture.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 20
The accumulating research organized
--
p r o and con
--
around the idea of
protoindustrialization p o i n t s t h e way t o a n e n r i c h e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e whole
process of industrialization.
It n o t . only provides a clearer sense of the centrality and
complexity of small-scale productiori,
movements of capital.
but also shifts our attention from technology t o
That is all t o the good.
It will not do, however,-to construct
a new linear modid in which protoindustry ( h o w e v e r w e l l d e s c r i b e d ) b e c o m e s t h e
s t a n d a r d i n t e r m e d i a t e s t a g e in a march from an agrarian world with a few urban
o u t p o s t s of c r a f t p r o d u c t i o n t o a n i n d u s t r i a l w o r l d c o u p l i n g l a r g e c i t i e s t o
"industrialized" agriculture.
For one thing, -as we have seen;-most European areas of
protoindustrial production entered the twentieth century more purely agricultural than
t h e y had been f o r centuries bef~re.,.~andwith the family f a r m the dominant setting
for agricultural production.
For a n o t h e r , at e v e r y s t a g e w e w i t n e s s t r a n s f e r s of
c a p i t a l s i m u l t a n e o u s l y causing r i s e s in t h e industrial activity of some regions and
declines in t h e industrial activity of others.
not be linear, but dialectical.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 21
Our new models of such a process must
.
..
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A n e a r l i e r v e r s i o n of t h i s p a p e r c i r c u l a t e d as " P r o t o i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n ,
Deindustrialization, and J u s t Plain Industrialization i n European Capitalism," Working
P a p e r 2 3 5 (March, 1981) of t h e C e n t e r f o r R e s e a r c h on S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n ,
University of Michigan; t h e Preparatory Conference o n "Protoindustrialization: Theory
and Reality" (Bad Homburg, May 1981) discussed t h e paper. Thanks t o Pierre Deyon
and Franklin Mendels, t h e conf ererice organizers, f o r t h e opportunity t o discuss t h e
subject with them, t o t h e Werner-Reimers-Stiftung f o r sponsoring t h e -meeting, and t o
a l l t h e c o n f e r e n c e p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r vigorous c r i t i c i s m . T h e N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e
F o u n d a t i o n s u p p o r t s t h e research program on social change and collective action in
Europe which l i e s behind t h i s paper. I a m g r a t e f u l t o P h i l S o e r g e l a n d Dawn
Hendricks for help with bibliography.
REFERENCES
Kurt kgren et al.
1973 A r i s t o c r a t s , F a r m e r s , P r o l e t a r i a n s .
History. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Essays in Swedish Demographic
Studia Historica Upsaliensia, 47.
0
Sune Akerman, Hans Christian Johansen, and 'David Gaunt
1978 eds., Chance and Change: Social a n d E c o n o m i c S t u d i e s i n H i s t o r i c a l
D e m o g r a p h y i n t h e B a l t i c A r e a . Odense: Scandinavian Universities
Press.
E r i c L. Almquist
1979 " P r e - F a m i n e Ireland and t h e Theory of European Protoindustrialization:
'.Evidence from t h e 1841 Census," Journal of Economic History 39: 699718.
Ronald Aminzade
1981 C l a s s , P o l i t i c s , a n d E a r l y I n d u s t r i a l C a p i t a l i s m . A Study of MidNineteenth-Century Toulouse. Albany: S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of New Y o r k
Press.
Klaus J. Bade
1982 " T r a n s n a t i o n a l e Migration und A r b e i t s m a r k t im Kaiserreich. Vom
A g r a r s t a a t m'it s t a r k e r I n d u s t r i e z u m I n d u s t r i e s t a a t m i t s t a r k e r
a g r a r i s c h e n B a s i s , " i n T o n i P i e r e n k e m p e r & R i c h a r d Tilly, eds.,
H i s t o r i s c h e A r b e i t s m a r k t f orschung. E n t s t e h u n g , E n t w i c k l u n g u n d
Probleme der Vermarktung von Arbeitskraft. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Paul Bairoch
1971 l l S t r u c t u r e d e l a population a c t i v e m o n d i a l e (1700-1900),lt Annales;
Economies, SociCtCs, Civilisations 26: 960-976.
1976
flEuropels Gross National Product: 1800-1975," The Journal of European
Economic History 5: 273-340.
1977
Taille des villes, conditions de vie et d6veloppement economique.
Ecole des Hautes Etudes e n Sciences Sociales.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 22
Paris:
Paul Bairoch and J.-M. Limbor
1968 "Changes in t h e Industrial Distribution of the World Labour Force, by
Region, 1880-1960," International Labor Review 98: 311-336.
J.R. Bellerby
1958 "The Distribution of Manpower in Agriculture and lnddstry 1851-195 1,"
The Farm Economist 9: 1-1 1.
L.T. Berend and G. Ranki
1980 "Foreign T r a d e and t h e Industrialization of the European Periphery in
t h e XIXth Century," The Journal of European Economic History 9: 539584
Karlheinz Blaschke
1967
Bevolkerungsgeschichte von Sachsen bis zur industriellen Revolution.
Weimar: Bohlhaus.
Grethe Authen Blgfm
1977 ed., Urbaniseringprosessen i norden. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 3 vols.:
1. Middelaldersteden; 2. De a n l a g t e s t e d e r p& 1600-1700 t a l e t ; 3.
Industrialiseringens f orste f ase.
Douglas E. Booth
1978 "Karl Marx on S t a t e Regulation of t h e Labor Process: The English
Factory Acts," Review of Social Economy 36: 137-158.
J. Bourget
1954
11Pro16tarisation dune commune de llagglom&ration parisienne: Colombes,"
La V i e Urbaine. Urbanisme et Habitation n.s. nos. 3 et 4: 185-194.
Fernand Braudel
1979 Civilisation matgrielle, Economies et Capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe sigcle.
Paris: Armand Colin. 3 vols.
Rudolf Braun
Industrialisierung und Volksleben.
1%0
1965
Zurich: Rentsch.
Sozialer und kultureller Wandel in einem landlichen Industriegebiet.
Zurich: Rentsch.
Pierre Caspard
1979 llLIAccumulation du capital dans Itindiemage au XVIIIe siecle," Revue du
Nord 61: 115-124.
N. Caulier-Mathy
1963- "La composition dun prolCtariat industriel. Le cas de l1entre1964 prise Cockerill," Revue dHistoire de l a SidCrurgie 4: 207-222.
Pierre Cayez
1981 " U n e proto-industrialisation dCcalCe: l a ruralisation d e l a s o i e r i e
lyonnaise dans la premi&re moiti6 du X1X6me si$cle,ll Revue du Nord
63: 95-104.
Til'ly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 23
J.D. Chambers
1957 T h e V a l e of Trent, 1670-1800. A Regional Study of Economic Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. E c o n o m i c H i s t o r y R e v i e w
Supplements, 3.
Serge Chassagne
1979
"La diffusion r u r a l e d e I1industrie cotonni6re en France (1750-1850),11
Revue du Nord 61: 97-114.
1981
I1Aspects d e s ph6nom6nes dlindustrialisation et de d6sindustrialisation
darts les campagnes f r a n p i s e s a u ~ 1 X 6 m esi6cle," R e v u e d u Nord 63:
95-104.
Abel chgtelain
1976
L e s m i g r a n t s t e m p o r a i r e s e n F r a n c e . d e 1800 'a 1914: H i s t o i r e
Cconomique et s o c i a l e d e s m i g r a n t s t e m p o r a i r e s d e s c a m p a g n e s
f r a n s a i s e s du V X e sikle au debut du XXe si&le. Lille: Publications
d e llUniversite' d e Lille. 2 vols.
Hugh D. Clout
1977 "Industrial Development in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries," in
Hugh D. Clout, ed., Themes in t h e H i s t o r i c a l G e o g r a p h y of F r a n c e .
New York: Academic Press.
J o n S. Cohen and Martin L. Weitzman
1975 llEnclosures and Depopulation: a Marxian Analysis," in William N. Parker
a n d E r i c L. J o n e s , eds., E u r o p e a n P e a s a n t s a n d t h e i r M a r k e t s .
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
D.C. Coleman
1955- "Labour in t h e English Economy of the Seventeenth Century,I1
1956 Economic History Review, 2d series, 8: 280-295.
Patrick Colquhoun
1806 A Treatise on Indigence.
London: J. Hatchard.
J.P. Cooper
1967 " T h e S o c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of L a n d and Men i n England, 1436-1700,11
Economic History Review, 2d series, 20: 419-440.
Bernard Couvert, Pierre Jakubowski & Michel Pinet
1976 "MobilitC professiomelle, mobilite spatiale, et restructuration 6conomique:
L e cas du basin minier Nord-Pas-de-Calais," La Vie Urbaine 52/53/54:
115-124.
H.C. Darby
1973 ed., A New H i s t o r i c a l G e o g r a p h y of England.
University Press.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 24
Cambridge: Cambridge
Pierre Deyon
1967 Amiens capitale provinciale.
Paris: Mouton.
Etude sur l a socigte' urbaine au 17e siecle.
1979a "LIEnjeu d e s discussions a u t o u r du concept d e lprotoindustrialisation',"
Revue du Nord 61: 9-15.
1979b "La diffusion rurale des industries textiles en Flandre fransaise 5 l a fin
d e ltAncien R6gime et au d6but du XIXe siscle," Revue du Nord 61: 8395.
1981 "Un modkle h 116preuve, l e de'veloppement industriel de Roubaix d e 1762
& la fin du X I X ; ~ si&cle,ll
~
Revue du Nord 63: 59-66.
Robert S. DuPlessis & Martha C. Howell
1982 llReconsidering Early Modern Urban Economy: The Cases of Leiden and
Lille,I1 Past & Present 94: 49-84.
Richard A. Easterlin
1981 "Why Isn't t h e Whole World Developed?"
41: 1-19.
Journal of Economic History
Rudolf Endres
1975 " D e s A r m e n p r o b l e m im Z e i t a l t e r d e s Absolutismus," J a h r b u c h fiir
f rankische Landesf orschugg 34-35: 1003-1 020.
Ingrid Eriksson and John Rogers
1978 R u r a l L a b o r a n d P o p u l a t i o n C h a n g e .
S o c i a l a n d Demographic
Development in E a s t - c e n t r a l S w e d e n during t h e N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y .
Stockholm: Almqvist & W iksell. Studia Historica Upsaliensia, 100.
J.A. Faber et al.
1965 "Population Changes and Economic Developments in t h e Netherlands: A
Historical Survey," A.A.G. Bijdragen, 12: 47- 114.
Michael W. Flinn
1981 The European Demographic System, 1500-1820.
University Press.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Michael Fores
1981 "The Myth of a British Industrial Revolution," History 66: 181-198.
J.B. Foust
1975 "Ubiquitous Manufacturing," A n n a l s of t h e Association of American
Geographers 65: 13-17.
Edward Whiting Fox
1970 History in Geographic Perspective.
Norton.
The Other France.
New York: W.W.
E tieme Francois
1975 l l U n t e r s c h i c h t e n und A r m u t i n r h e i n i s c h e n R e s i d e n z s t a d t e n d e s 18.
Jahrhunderts," Vierteljahrschrift f u r Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 62:
433-464.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 25
Herman Freudenberger
1960 "Industrialization in Bohemia and Moravia in .the Eighteenth Century,I1
Journal of Central European Affairs 19: 347-356.
Pankraz Fried
1975 "Reagrarisierung in Sudbayern seit dem 19. Jahrhundert," in Hermann
Kellenbenz, ed.? Agrarische Nebengewerbe und Formen d e r Reagraris i e r u n g im s p a t m i t t e l a l t e r und 19/20. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Gustav
Fischer.
Harriet Friedmann
1978 "World Market, S t a t e , and F a m i l y Farm: Social Bases of Household
Production in t h e Era of Wage Labor," Comparative Studies i n S o c i e t y
and History, 20: 545-586.
Fridolin ~ k g e r
1927 Zum V e r l a g s s y s t e m a l s Organisationsform d e s ~ r i i h k a ~ i t a l i s m uin
s
Textilgewerbe. S t u t t g a r t : W. Kohlhammer. Beihef te z u r Vierteljahrschrift fur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, XI.
David Gaunt
1977 "Pre-Industrial Economy and Population S t r u c t u r e : T h e Elements of
Variance in Early Modern Sweden," Scandinavian Journal of History 2:
183-210.
G. Gayot
1979 "Dispersion et c o n c e n t r a t i o n de la draperie sedanaise au XVIIIe siscle:
L1entreprise des Poupart d e Neuflize,I1 Revue du Nord 61: 127-148.
Richard T. Griffiths
1979 Industrial . R e t a r d a t i o n in t h e Netherlands, 1830-1850.
Martinus Nijhoff.
The Hague:
Franz Gschwind
1977 Bevolkerungsentwicklung und Wirtschaf tsstruktur der Landschaf t Basel im
18. Jarhrhundert. Liestal: Kantonal Drucksachen- und Materialzentrale.
Philippe Guignet
1978 Mines, m a n u f a c t u r e s et o u v r i e r s du Valenciennois au X V I I I & ~sickle.
~
New York: Arno Press.
1979 I1Adaptations, mutations et survivances proto-Cndustrielle,s dans le te5tile
d y Cambrgsis et du Valenciennois du XVIIIeme a u debut du XXeme
siecle," Revue du Nord 61: 27-59.
H.J. Habakkuk
197 1 Population Growth and E c o n o m i c Development since 1750.
Leicester University Press.
Leicester:
Michael Hanagan
1980 The Logic of Solidarity. Artisans and Industrial Workers in Three French
Towns, 187 1-1914. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 26
Cerhard Hanke
1969 llZur S o z i alst r uktur der l b d l i c h e n Siedlungen A1tbayerns im 17. und 18.
Jahrhundert," i n Cesellschaft und Herrschaft. Forschungen zu sozial- und
l a n d g e s c h i c h t l i c h e n P r o b l e m e n vornehmlich i n Bayern. Munich: C.H.
Beck.
Hartmut Harnisch
1978 " P r o d u k t i v k r a f t e und Produktionsverh&tnisse in der Landwirtschaft der
Magdeburger B o r d e von d e r M i t t e d e s 18. Jh. bis z u m Beginn d e s
Zuckeruberanbaus in der Mitte der dreissiger J a h r e des 19 Jh.," in HansJurgen Rach & Bernhard Weisel, eds., Landwirtschaft und Kapitalismus.
1. Halbband. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Herve Hasquin
1971 U n e m u t a t i o n . L e "Pays d e C h a r l e r o i u a u x XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles.
Brussels: E d i t i o n s d e l l I n s t i t u t d e Sociologie, U n i v e r s i t e L i b r e d e
Brwelles.
Friedrich-Wilhelm Henning
1978 llHumanisierung und Technisierung der Arbeitswelt. ~ b e rden Einfluss der
Industrialisierung au£ d i e Arbeitsbedingungen i m 19. J a h r h u n d e r t , " i n
J u r g e n R e u l e c k e & Wolfhard Weber, eds., Fabrik, Familie, Feierabend.
Wuppertal: P e t e r Hammer.
Richard Herr
1958 T h e E i g h t e e n t h C e n t u r y R e v o l u t i o n in Spain.
University Press.
Princeton: Princeton
Cerd Hohorst
1977 W i r t s c h a f t s w a c h s t u m und ~evolkerungsentwicklungin Preussen 1816 bis
1914. New York: Arno Press.
P a t Hudson
198 1 "Prot,o-industrialisation: the case of the West Riding textile industry in
t h e 18th and early 19th cent.uries," History Workshop 12: 34-61.
Volker Hunecke
1978 A r b e i t e r s c h a f t und i n d u s t r i e l l e R e v o l u t i o n i n Mailand 1859-1892.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
V.K. Iatsunsky
1965 " F o r m a t i o n e n R u s s i e d e l a grande industrie textile sur la base de la
production rurale," Second International Conference of Economic History.
Aix-en-Provence 1962. Paris: Mouton. Vol. 11: 365-376.
Karlbernhard Jasper
1977 D e r U r b a n i s i e r u n g s p r o z e s s d a r g e s t e l l t a m Beispiel d e r S t a d t Koln.
Cologne: Rheinisch-Westfalischen Wirtschaftsarchiv zu ~ o l n .Schriften zur
Rheinisch-Westf alischen Wirtschaf tsgeschichte, 30.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 27
Christopher Johnson
1981 "Proto-Industrialization and De-Industrialization in Languedoc: ~ o d d v eand
its Region, 1700-1870," unpublished paper presented t o the conference on
"Proto-industrialization: Theory and Reality," Bad Homburg.
E.L. Jones
1968
, ' ~ and Present 40: 58-71.
"The Agricultural Origins of ~ ' n d u s t r ~ Past
Etienne Juillard and Hemi Nonn
1976 eds., Espaces et regions en E u r o p e occidentale.
Centre National de l a Recherche Scientifique.
Paris: Editions du
Hermann Kellenbenz
1975 ed,, A g r a r i s c h e Nebengewerbe und F o r m e n der Reagrarisierung im
Spatmittelalter und 19/20. Jahrhwdert. 'Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.
1976
The Rise of the European Economy. An economic history of Continental
Europe from t h e fifteenth t o t h e eighteenth century. London: Weidenfeld
& Nicolson.
Gregory King
19361 'Natural1 and Politicall Observations and Conclusions upon the
1696 S t a t e and Condition of England," in G.E. B a r n e t t , ed., Two T r a c t s by
G r e g o r y King. Baltimore: J o h n s Hopkins University Press. F i r s t
published in 1696.
Bernhard Kirchgassner
1974 "Der Verlag im Spannungsfeld von Stadt und Umland," in Erich Maschke
and J u r g e n S y d o w , eds., S t a d t u n d U m l a n d .
P r o t o k o l l d e r X.
A r b e i t s t a g u n g d e s A r b e i t s k r e i s e s f u r sudwestdeutsche Stadtgeschichtsforschung. Stuttgart: Kb'hlhammer. Veroffentlichungen d e r Kommission
f u r Geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Wurttemberg, Reihe B, 82. Pp.
72-128.
Herbert Kisch
1959 "The T e x t i l e Industries in S i l e s i a and t h e Rhineland: A Comparative
Study in Industrialization," Journal of Economic History 19: 541-564.
1968
" P r u s s i a n Mercantilism and t h e R i s e of t h e K r e f e l d Silk Industry.
Variations Upon a n E i g h t e e n t h - C e n t u r y Theme,'' T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e
American Philosophical Society, n.s., 58, part 7.
1981
Die Hausindustriellen Textilgewerbe a m Niederrhein vor der industriellen
Revolution. von der ursprunglichen zur kapitalistischen Akkumulation.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 28
'
Arnost KGma
1965 "The Domes t i c Industry and t h e Putting-out system (~erlagssystem)in
t h e Period of Transition f r o m Feudalism t o C a p i t a l i s m , " S e c o n d
I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e of E c o n o m i c History, Aix-ewProvence 1962.
Paris: Mouton. Vol. 11: 477-482.
1968
"Die E n t s t e h u n g der A r b e i t e r k l a s s e und d i e ~ n f a n ~der
e Arbeiterbewegung in Bohmen," i n Wolf r a m Fischer, ed., W i r t s c h a f ts- u n d
sozialgeschichtliche P r o b l e m e d e r f r u h e n Industrialisierung. Berlin:
Colloquium Verlag.
1974
"The R o l e of Rural D o m e s t i c Industry i n Bohemia in the Eighteenth
Century,I1 ~ c o n o m i cHistory Review 27: 48-56.
Wolf gang ~ o l l m a n n
1974 Bevolkerung i n der industriellen Revolution. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht. Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaf t, 12.
Peter Kriedte
1981 " D i e S t a d t im P r o z e s s der europaischen Proto-industrialisierung,"
unpublished paper presented t o t h e conference on "Protc~industrialization:
Theory and Reality," Bad Homburg.
Peter Kriedte, Hans Medick, and Jurgen Schlumbohm
1977 Industrialisierung vor der Industrialisierung. Gewerbliche Warenproduktion
auf dem Land in der ~ormationsperiode des Kapitalismus. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. English translation: Industrialization before
Industrialization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. .
Witold Kula
1960 l l ~ e c t e u r set rggions arri6r6s dans 116conomie du capitalisme ~ i s s a n t , ~ ~
Studi Storici 1: 569-583.
Arno Kunze
1% 1 "Vom Bauerndorf zum Weberdorf. Zur sozialen und wirtschaftlichen
Struktur der Waldhufendorfer der sudlichen Oberlausitz im 16., 17.und 18.
J a h r h u n d e r t," in Martin R e u t h e r , ed., O b e r l a u s i t z e r Forschungen.
Beitrage zur Landesgeschichte.
Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang. Pp. 165192.
Ann Kussmaul
198 1 Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England.
University Press.
Cambridge: Cambridge
David S. Landes
1969 T h e U n b o u n d P r o m e t h e u s .
T e c h n o l o g i c a l Change and Industrial
Development in Western Europe from 1750 t o t h e Present. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
R. Lawton
1973
"Rural Depopulation in Nineteenth Century England," in Dennis R. Mills,
ed., English Rural Communities: The Impact-of a Specialized Economy.
London: Macmillan.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 29
Pierre Lebrun
1948 L'lndustrie de la laine
Verviers pendant le XVIIIe et l e d6but du XIXe
sihcle. Liege: ~ a c u l t e 'de Philosophie e t L e t t r e s . ~ i b l i o t h s q u ed e l a
~ a c u l t dde Philosophie et Lettres de ltuniversite' de ~ i G g e ,fasc 114.
1961
ttLa~rivoluzioneindustriale in Belgio: s t r u t t u r a z i o n e e d e s t r u t t u r a z i o n e
delle economie regionali,It Studi Storici, 2: 548-658.
1966
t t C r o i y c e et industrialisation. LtExpCrience d e Itindustrie d r a p i z r e
v e r v i e t o i s e , l l F i r s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e of Economic History,
Contributions. 'Paris: Mouton. Pp. 531-568.
Pierre L h n , Fransois Crouzet, and Raymond Gascon
1972 eds., L'Industrialisation e n Europe a u XIXe siGcle. C a r t o g r a p h i e et
Typologie.
P a r i s : E d i t i o n s du C e n t r e National d e l a R e c h e r c h e
Scientif ique.
Yves Lequin
1977 L e s o u v r i e r s d e l a rGgion l y o n n a i s e (1848-1914).
Universitaires d e Lyon. 2 vols.
Ron J. Lesthaege
1977 The Decline of Belgian F e r t i l i t y , 1800-'1970.
University Press.
Lyon: P r e s s e s
Princeton: Princeton
Giovanni Levi
1974 ttSviluppo urbano e flussi migratori nel Piemonte nel 1600,1t in M. Aymard
et al., eds., Les Migrations dans les pays me'diterrane'ens a u XVIIeme et
a u d6but du XIXeme.
Nice: C e n t r e de l a ~ g d i t e r r a n kModerne et
Contemporaine.
David Levine
1977 F a m i l y F o r m a t i o n in an A g e of N a s c e n t Capitalism.
Academic Press.
New York:
Maurice ~ 6 v ~ - ~ e b o ~ e r
1964 L e s Banques europe'ennes et I t i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n . internationale dans la
premi$re moiti6 du XIXe siede. Paris: Presses Universitaires d e France.
E.D. Lewis
1959 The Rhondda Valleys. A Study in Industrial Development, 1800 t o the
Present Day. London: Phoenix House.
Catherina Lis and Hugo Soly
1979 P o v e r t y and C a p i t a l i s m in Pre-Industrial Europe.
N.J.: Humanities Press.
Atlantic Highlands,
David L. Longfellow
1981 "Silk W e a v e r s and t h e Social S t r u g g l e in Lyon during t h e F r e n c h
Revolution, 1789-94," French Historical Studies, 12: 1-40.
Tiily, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 30
Wolfgang Mager
1981 ~ G e s e l l s c h a f t s f o r m a t i o nim ubergang: agrarisch-gewerbliche Verflechtung
und soziale Dynamik in Ravensburg wahrend der fruher Neuzeit (16. - 1.
H a l f t e 19. Jh.)," unpublished paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e conference on
I1Prot+industrialization: Theory and Reality," Bad Homburg.
Marian Malowist
1972 Croissance et regression en Europe.
34.
Paris: Colin.
Cahiers des Annales,
Peter Mathias
1957 "The Social Structure in the Eighteenth Century: A Calculation by Joseph
Massie," Economic History Review 10: 30-45.
Hans ~ e d i c k
1976 " T h e p r o t o - i n d u s t r i a l family economy: t h e s t r u c t u r a l function of
household and f a m i l y during t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m p e a s a n t society t o
industrial capitalism,I1 Social History 3: 291-315.
Franklin M endels
1972 llProto-industrializatiori: The First Phase of the Industrialization Process,"
Journal of Economic History 32: 241-261.
1975 "Agriculture and P e a s a n t Industry i n Eighteenthcentury Flanders," in
William N. Parker and Eric L. Jones, eds., European Peasants and their
Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bulletin du Centre dHistoire
1978 "Aux origines d e la proto-industrialisati~n,~~
Economique et Sociale de l a Region Lyonnaise no. 2: 1-25.
1980 "Seasons and regions in agriculture and industry during t h e process of
industr ialization,I1 in Sidney Pollard, ed., Region und Industrialisierung.
Studien zur Rollen der Region in der Wirtschaftsgeschichte der l e t z t e n
zwei Jahrhunderte. ~ o t t i n ~ e nVandenhoeck
:
& Ruprecht.
1981a "Les temps de llindustrie .et les temps de llagriculture. Logique dlune
analyse regionale de la proto-industrialisation," Revue du Nord 63: 21-33.
1981b Industrialization and Population Pressure in Eighteenth-Centur y Flanders.
New York: Arno Press.
1982a " P r o t o - I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n : T h e o r y a n d R e a l i t y . General Report,"
unpublished paper prepared for t h e Eighth International Economic History
Congress.
1982b "Faut- il modifier le mode'l'e- flamand?" Unpublished paper prepared for
t h e Eighth International Economic History Congress.
John Merrington
1975 llTown and C o u n t r y in the Transition to C a p i t a l i ~ m ,New
~ ~ Left Review
93: 71-92.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 31
I.V. Meshalin
1950 T e k s t i l t n a i a promlishlennostt k r e s t t i a n Moskovskoi gubernii.
Izdattelstvo Nauk.
Moscow:
D.R. Mills
1981 ttProto-industrialization and s o c i a l structure: the case of the hosiery
industry i n Leicestershire, England," unpublished paper presented t o t h e
c o n f e r e n c e on ttProto-industrialization: Theory and Reality," Bad
Hom burg.
Alan S. Milward and S.B. Saul
1973 T h e Economic Development of C o n t i n e n t a l Europe, 1780-1870.
Haven: Yale University Press.
Joel Mokyr
1976 Industrialization in t h e Low Countries, 1795-1850.
University Press.
New
New Haven: Yale
L.L. Murav'eva
197 1 D e r e v e n s c k a i a promtishlennostt tsentraltnoi Rossii vtoroi polovinti xvii v.
Moscow: Izdateltstvo Nauka.
M.R. Palairet
1981 llWoollen T e x t i l e Manufacturing in the Balkans 1850-1911. A Study of
Protoindustrial Failure," unpublished paper presented t o the conference on
"Proto-industrialization: Theory and Reality," Bad Homburg.
John Patten
1973 Rural-Urban Mjgration in Pre-Industrial England.
Geography. Research papers, No. 6.
Oxford: School of
Luciano Pellicani
1973 " L a rivoluzione industriale e il fenomeno della proletarizzazione,"
Rassegna italiana di sociolo@a 14: 63-84.
Hans Pohl
1963 D i e Beziehungen Hamburgs zu Spanien und dem spanischen Amerika in
der Zeit von 1740 bis 1806. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Vierteljahrschrift
. .
Beihef t 45.
fur Sozial- und Wirtschaf tsgeschichte,
Carlo Poni
1976 t t A l l t o r i g i n e d e l s i s t e m a di fabbrica: t e c n o l o g i a e organizzazione
produttiva dei mulini di seta in Italia settentrionale (sec. XVII-XVIII),"
Rivista Storica Italiana 88: 444-497.
N.J.G.
Pounds
1957 ttHistorical Geography of the Iron and Steel Industry of France," Annals
of t h e Association of American Geographers 47: 3-14.
1979
An H i s t o r i c a l Geography of Europe 1500-1840.
University Press.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 32
Cambridge: Cambridge
Jean-Pierre Poussou
1971 "Les mouvements migrat9ires en France et 5 partir de la France de la
fin d u XVe ,si$cle a u d e b u t du XIXe si'ecle. Approches p o u r u n e
synthbe," Annales de ~ & n o g r a ~ h Historique
ie
1970: 11-78.
1974 "Introduction 'a 116tude des mouvements migratoires en Espagne, Italie et
France m6diterranCenne au XVIIIe sikle," in M. Aymard et al., eds., Les
Migrations dans les pays m6diterrane'ens a u XV1112me et a u dgbut du
X I X ; ~ ~ . Nice: Centre de l a MGditerranie Moderne et Contemporaine.
Jaroslav ~ 8 r s
1965 Struktur und Dynamik der industriellen Entwicklung in Bohmen im letzten
Viertel des 18. Jahrhunderts," Jahrbuch fiir Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1: 160196; 2: 103-124.
Hans-Jurgen Rach & Bernhard Weissel
1978
eds., Landwirtschaf t und Kapitalismus. Zur Entwicklung der okono,
.
mischen und sozialen Verhd tnisse in der Magdeburger ~ o r d evom Ausgang
des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zum Ende des ersten Weltkrieges. 1. Halbband.
Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
E.A.G.
Robinson
1969 ed., Backward Areas in Advanced Countries.
'
London: Macmillan.
Stein Rokkan
1979 "Peripheries and Centres: The Territorial Structure of Western Europe,"
unpublished d r a f t of c h a p t e r 1, Economy, T e r r i t o r y , Identity. T h e
Politics of the European Peripheries.
Josiah Cox Russell
1972 Medieval Regions and their Cities.
Newton Abbot: David & Charles.
John Saville
1957 Rural Depopulation in England and Wales, 1851-1951.
& Kegan Paul.
London: Routledge
1969 " P r i m i t i v e Accumulation and Early Industrialization in Britain," Socialist
Register 1969: 247-27 1.
Hanna Schissler
1978 P r e u s s i s c h e A g r a r g e s e l l s c h a f t i m Wandel.
Wirtschaf tliche,
gesellschaftliche und politische Transformationsprozesse von 1763 bis
1847. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Lawrence Schof e r
1975 T h e F o r m a t i o n of a Modern Labor Force.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Upper Silesia, 1865-1914.
Helga Schultz
198 1 "Die Ausweit ung des Landhandwerks vor der industriellen Revolution.
Begunstigende Faktoren und . Bedeutung' fur die lProtoindustrialisierung',"
unpublished paper presented t o the conference on "Proto-industrialization:
Theory and Reality," Bad Homburg.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 33
Domenico Sella
1975 "Les d e u x f a c e s d e l l e c o n o m i e l o m b a r d e au XVIIe si&le," in Paul M.
Hohenberg and Frederick K r a n t z , eds., T r a n s i t i o n d u f g o d a l i s m e 'a l a
soci6t6 industrielle: ll&hec de llItalie de l a Renaissance et des Pays Bas
du XVIIe s i s c l e .
~ o n t r 6 a l :C e n t r e Interuniversitaire dtEtudes
E urop&nnes.
1979 C r i s i s a n d C o n t i n u i t y . T h e E c o n o m y of Spanish L o m b a r d y i n t h e
Seventeenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
B.H. Slicher van Bath
1965 "Les probl6mes f o n d a m e n t a u x d e l a soci&te/ pre/-industrielle en Europe
occidentale. Une orientation et un programme," A.A.G; Bijdragen, 12: 346.
1977 llAgriculture in t h e Vital Revolution," in E.E. Rich and C.H. Wilson, eds.,
The Cambridge Economic H i s t o r y of Europe. Vol. .V: T h e E c o n o m i c
Organization of Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ronald Smelser
1981 l l G e r m a n - C z e c h R e l a t i o n s i n B o h e m i a n F r o n t i e r T o w n s : T h e
Industrialization/Urbanization P r ~ c e s s ,in~ ~Keith Hitchens, ed., Studies in
East European Social History. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vol. 11, 62-87.
C.T. Smith
1967 An H i s t o r i c a l G e o g r a p h y of W e s t e r n E u r o p e b e f o r e 1800.
Longmans.
London:
Richard Smith
1981 " F e r t i l i t y , E c o n o m y a n d Household F o r m a t i o n in England over Three
Centuries," Population and Development Review 7: 595-622.
Werner Sombart and Rudolf Meerwarth
1923 "Hausindustrie," i n ~ a n d w ot re r buch d e r S t a a t s w i s s e n s c h a f ten. Jena:
Gustav Fischer. Volume V, 179-207.
Didier Terrier and Philippe Toutain
1979 I1Pression demographi,que et march6 du travail
si'ede," Revue du Nord 61: 19-25.
Comines au X V I I I & ~
Joan Thirsk
1961 " I n d u s t r i e s in t h e C o u n t r y ~ i d e , i~n~ F.J. F i s h e r , ed., E s s a y s in t h e
Economic and Social History of Tudor and Stuart England i n Honour of
R.H. Tawney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malcolm I. Thomis
1974 The Town Labourer and the Industrial Revolution.
London: Batsford.
E.P. Thompson
1967 "Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism," Past and Present 38:
56-97.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 34
Louise A. Tilly
1977 "Urban Growth, Industrialization and Women's Employment in Milan, Italy,
1898-19 11," Journal of Urban History 3: 467-484.
Louise A. Tilly and Joan W. Scott
1978 Women, Work and Family.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Richard Tilly
1980 " D i e I n d u s t r i a l i s i e r u n g d e s R u h r g e b i e t s und d a s P r o b l e m d e r
Kapitalrnobili~ierung,~~
i n R i c h a r d Tilly, K a p i t a l , Staat und s o z i a l e r
P r o t e s t in der deutschen Industrialisierung. G e s a m m e l t e Aufsatze.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Christiaan Vandenbroeke
1981 "Mutations economiques et sociales e n F l a n d r e au cours de la phase
proto-industrielle, 1650-1850," Revue du Nord 63: 73-94.
Herman Van der Wee
1975 "Structural Changes and Specialization in the Industry of the Southern
Netherlands, 1100-1600," The Economic History Review 28: 203-22 1.
Herman Van der -Wee and Eddy van Cauwenberghe
1978 eds., P r o d u c t i v i t y of Land and A g r i c u l t u r a l Innovation in t h e Low
Countries (1250-1800). Louvain: Louvain University Press.
Pierre Vilar
1962 L a Catalogne dans llEspagne moderne.
Paris: SEVPEN.
3 vols.
Ya. E. Vodarskii
1972 Promishlenntie seleniia tsentraltnoi Rossii v period genezisa i razvitiia
kapitalizma Moscow: Nauka.
Gunter Vogler
1965 Zur Geschichte der Weber und Spinner von Nowaes, 1751-1785. Potsdam:
Bezirkheimatsmuseum.
Jan d e Vries
1974 T h e D u t c h R u r a l Economy in the Golden Age, 1500-1700.
Yale University Press.
1976 T h e ' Economy of E u r o p e in an A g e of Crisis, 1600-1750.
Cambridge University Press.
New Haven:
Cambridge:
1978 "Barges and opitalism. Pasenger transportation in t h e Dutch economy,
1632-1839," A.A.G. Bijdragen, 21: 33-398.
Robert Wade
1980 "The I t a l i a n S t a t e and t h e Underdevelopment of South Italy," in R.D.
Grillo, ed, "Nation" and "Statett in Europe. London: A c a d e m i c Press.
Pp. 151-172.
Tilly, CAPITAL AND INDUSTRY: 35
Charles Wilson and Geoffrey Parker
1977 eds., An Introduction t o t h e S o u r c e s of European Economic History,
1500- 1800. London: Weidenf eld & Nicolson.
Christer Winberg
1975 Folkokning och proletarisering kring den sociala strukturomvandlingen p8
Sveriges landsbyg under den agrara revolution. Gothenburg: Historiska
Institutionen i Gotheborg.
Keith Wrightson and David Levine
.
1979 Poverty and Piety in an English Village.
Academic Press.
Terling, 1525-1700.
New York:
E.A. Wrigley and Roger Schofield
1981 T h e P o p u l a t i o n H i s t o r y of England, 1541-1871: A Reconstruction.
London: Edward Arnold.
Hartmut Zwahr
197 1 "Zur Konsti t u i e r u n g des P r o l e t a r i a t s als Klasse.. Strukturuntersuchung
iiber das leipziger Proletariat w&rend der industriellen Revolution," in
H o r s t B a r t e l and E r n s t Engelberg, eds., Die grospreussisch-militarische
Reichsgrundung 1871, Band I. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.