IEHC 2006 Helsinki Session 60
Agriculture and economic development in Europe 1870-1939
French studies, Nadine Vivier
French overall economic development was lying behind England’s, with its earlier and
faster industrialisation. In particular, French agricultural model was considered to be less
advanced than the British one. Actually, this impression of economists of the time is
confirmed by the comparative calculations.1 Its GDP was rising more slowly and its rural
population remained greater. Many economists considered the weight of the agricultural
sector to have impeded the evolution of economical structures. The ratio of agricultural and
non agricultural (industry + tertiary) growth rate was 0,67 for the period 1800-1860, 0,1 for
1865-1890, 0,5 for 1890-1938 (time of WWI non included) and 0,67 for 1950-1990.2
Historians have blamed this situation on the peasants’ routine, conservatism and
archaism for this. They were actually only echoing general preconceived ideas, relayed at
length since 1750 by urban elites and administrators. The written reports of prefects and of
Parisian administrators demonstrate how their judgement was always influenced by the idea
that progress could come from the top only, i.e. the large cities, and definitely not from the
farmers themselves. This theory was even reinforced at the end of the XIXth century when
conservative big landowners tried to obtain political mandates: they then emphasised their
role by putting forward all they were bringing to the poor backward peasants. All this
literature continues to influence historians, all the more that it corresponds to general public
“idées recues”.
Peasants’ alleged responsibility is all the more heavy that the French have long been
aware of the important role they played in the French nation. In 1872, their role was indeed
very important. The rural population (i.e. living in towns with a total population with fewer
than 2,000 inhabitants) represented 69% of the total population and was to become inferior to
the urban population only in 1930. The number of farmers in the active population decreased
progressively, from 51% in 1872 down to 45% in 1896, 32% in 1936 and 10% in 1975. Also,
from 1880, the share of the revenues from agriculture in the gross domestic product (GDP)
started its relative decline: from 35%-38% in the 1860s, down to 32% in 1880, 21% in 1930
and less than 10% in 1960. These figures notwithstanding, society still has an over-inflated
view of the importance of agriculture in the country. Despite the reality of the figures on
paper, the rural world is still important in our industrialised society. Customarily, the French
have always considered their country to be more rural than it really is. Historical research has
suffered from this vision of the status of agriculture, disconnected from reality. This vision
had also a long lasting impact on politicians, who made a point in addressing these issues.
As a consequence of this constant scrutiny on agriculture development since 1750, literacy
has been very abundant. 3
The national inquiries of 1852, 1862, 1882, 1892 and 1929, and the annual agricultural
statistics published since 1852 have been used as the basis for production and productivity
calculation. Partial estimates have been made by statisticians in the XIXth century (Levasseur,
Lavergne,…) and then by economists during the XXth century (Francois Simiand then Mayer,
Sauvy, Brousse and Pellier). After 1945, the Institut of Science économique appliquée (ISEA)
undertook an important team work around Marczewski, Markovitch et Toutain to put together
1
O’Brien & Prados, 1992:518.
Toutain, 1993:18
3
cf. Barral Pierre, in Braudel et Labrousse, 1982, t.IV, p. 31
2
coherent series of each sector’s GDP (agriculture, industry and services). The historian LévyLeboyer and the economist Bourguignon elaborated also their own set of numbers. These
results led to a controversy and Toutain managed year after year to revise his figures. We
can’t go into the details of the index construction, rarely disclosed by their authors. Recent
economists works either refer to Toutain4, or to the two series of index without chosing
between them (ex: Marchand and Thélot, 1991:154). They are both based on the same
chronology and the only real difference between the two series concerns the period of 1870s .
Annual growth rate – Figures derived from index of A Toutain (1987), B LévyLeboyer et Bourguignon (1985) and C Carré-Dubois-Malinvaud (1972)
Agriculture
Average annual growth rates
1851-1866
1866-1881
1881-1896
1896-1911
1921-1931
1931-1949
1949-1961
1961-1973
1973-1979
1979-1984
1984-1989
A
0,7
-0,6
1,1
0,6
B
1,5
0,5
0,7
0,6
C
1,2
0,8
3,6
2,0
0,6
2,5
1,1
Whole economy
Average annual growth rates
A
2,0
1,0
1,5
1,5
B
2,0
1,2
0,4
1,7
C
3,6
0,9
4,9
5,4
2,8
1,5
2,4
While figures vary, their interpretation is also a heavily debated subject. The 18701939 crisis period has been key, and understanding it is a prerequisite to interpreting the
agriculture evolution over the 1870-19740 period. In fact, after a high-growth and
modernisation period from the beginning of the XIXth century until about 1870, Great
Depression hit agriculture: international competition put it in a difficult situation and
protectionist measures were put in place. From then on, agriculture developed much slower
than the other sectors (industry and service). For some (Asselain, Lévy-Leboyer, Beltran and
Griset5) the agricultural sector, sheltered behind its trade barriers, is responsible for the global
economical backwardness. Retarded sector, the agriculture cumulated both too much labour
and too small farms. The French did not invest enough in agriculture for several reasons: they
rather invested their money either in the industry, or abroad; or they locked their money up
simply out of conservatism, or in the acquisition of new land. Conservative mentality of
farmers is always put forward: their individualist and anti-modernism attitude led to a general
opposition to change.
For others (Caron, Toutain, Barral, Postel-Vinay), the end of the century’s stagnation
is neither opposition to progress, nor drowsiness. The routine was never predominant. The
slow restructuring of agriculture carried on, in an increasingly difficult environment... “From
4
5
Ex. : O’Brien & Prados
In students textbooks, collection Cursus, A. Colin, Beltran et Griset, L'économie française, 2 volumes, 1994
driver of the growth in the first two thirds of the XIXth century, agriculture went then through
a period of slow adaptation to new conditions and new markets”.6
This article aims at understanding through a careful analysis of statistical data why
French agriculture experienced difficulties from 1870 to 1939, while the 1830-70 et 1945-75
periods have seen a strong increase in both production, productivity, as well as investments.
On the contrary, production stagnated at the end of the XIXe century and increased only very
slowly in the first half of the XXe century due to a lack of investments. Meanwhile however,
productivity steadily improved during the first half of XXe century thanks to the reduction in
manpower
I. 1870-1896: the great depression
a) The situation of agriculture in 1870 seems prosperous. From the 1840’s, agricultural
production has experienced a strong growth period. Only interrupted by small crises due
either to bad weather (1845-46, 1853-55) or inability to sell despite a good harvest (1848-52),
this growth has been most of the time greater than 1% per year. The development of
urbanisation and communication means, as well as the increase in living standard supported
demand, leading to agricultural production growth and high prices: increase in the price of
cereals (by the middle of the century), of wine (in the 1850s) and of animal products
thereafter.
The increase in production was enabled by the extension of cultivated land and the
increase in livestock. The fallow decreased in importance, replaced by the crops rotation
differing between the regions: artificial fodder and sugar beet in Northern france, potatoes in
Brittany, forage in Southern France. Improving soil with marl or lime spread and allowed an
increased productivity (for example in Champagne). Stock raising changed from being a
secondary activity intended to provide manure, to a production in its own right. Grass surface
increased (meadows and fodder). Polyculture including an important part of cereals remained
the most frequent one. However, this favourable economic environment encouraged
specialisation : rotation of wheat, sugarbeet and sheep raising in the Northern part of the Paris
Basin; vineyards in Languedoc and Burgundy; fruits in Rhone valley and Normandy;
livestock farming in regions less adapted to cereals growing (Normandy and Limousin).
Growth contributed to reduce regional discrepancies : the rich agriculture regions of the North
and North-East grew at a slower pace than Brittany, Massif Central, and Southern regions
specialised in fruits and vineyards, that benefited from a rapid development. However, the gap
remained important between regions of large scale farming (North of Loire), specialised
regions and those which tried to specialise but were encountering difficulties, particularly in
mountainous regions.
These agricultural progresses required investments. Funds have come both from the
farmers’ own savings, constituted thanks to good agricultural prices during the 1850-60
period, and from loans granted by notaries and small local banks (Postel-Vinay, 1997).
However, these funds were mainly invested into high potential farms. At the time, economists
estimated that the necessary working capital amount was between 150 and 300francs/ha.
Farms that had been rewarded in best performance competitions (Primes d’honneur) were run
with an average working capital of 800 F/ha.
Productivity of land increased more than work productivity, All testimonies of the
agricultural inquiries show the increasing need for workforce in order to face a more intensive
6
Caron, 1981 : 29
agriculture. The first machines appeared at this period, but consisted mainly of seed dills and
threshers. Calculation show a parallel increase in labour and productivity until 1879.
François Bourguignon stated that, during the 1825-59 period, it can be estimated that
agriculture contributed by 75% to the general growth of the economy, a figure much higher
than its share in the overall domestic product. During the 1887-1913 period on the other hand,
the contribution of agriculture to the growth of global development clearly diminished: it can
be estimated at about 11%, a figure this time inferior to its weight in the domestic product (i.e.
20%).7
b) La Grande Dépression : a structural crisis
According to the traditional thesis, this crisis was triggered by the massive import of
American wheat into Europe after the 1879 bad crop. It abruptly put an end to the former
growth. Trade tariffs voted in 1885 and 1892 were presented as having enabled agriculture to
continue growing; however, a careful analysis of production and productivity figures gives a
different view.
As early as at the end of the 1860s, one can actually detect successive phenomenons
leading to a structural crisis that started before this inflow of American and Russian wheat.
Three types of causes can be distinguished : plants diseases, opening to competition and
structural transformation of the industry.8
Accidental diseases affected silkworms in the 1850’s, and French silk thus lost market
share. When sericulture finally recovered, they had to compete with cheaper far-eastern silks.
The most serious disease has been phylloxera. First appeared around 1863 in Languedoc,
phylloxera progressively destroyed vineyards while slowly moving up north, reaching
Champagne in the 1890’s. Chemical treatments and drowning were tried against it, but the
only efficient solution was digging out and planting new American stocks, resistant to this
insect. Considering that wine represented in 1860 the second production in value, one can
appreciate the importance of the losses incurred. New plantation costs were high; in
Languedoc, it led to concentration : alongside surviving small family farms, large companies
established themselves. When the vineyard was reconstituted, production became much too
important as the planted species were high-yielding ones. Too abundant crops made price
drop, leading to Southern wine-growers’ unrest .
After 1860, the agricultural market was opened more widely and rapidly confronted
international competition : the first and very sensitive impact was the inflow of Argentinian
wool and US wheat after the transcontinental railway’s construction, it subsequently also
affected sugarbeet. Competition particularly affected the large farms of the Parisian basin
which had modernised in order to specialise into these sectors (wheat, sugarbeet and sheep
farming): sheep farming in Champagne, investments to create sugar refineries in Picardie.
Other productions faced competition from imported products specifically designed to
answer the transformation of industrial needs : increasing purchase of cotton, rapidly
developping as spinning and weaving get mechanised easily; flax and hemp collapsed
whereas their culture was important in the west and north-west regions; increasing weigth of
imported oleaginous plants competing against rape seed: groundnut, and palm oil used in the
industry and oil for lighting. This particularly impacted the Beauce region, which had chosen
a wheat/rape crops rotation model. Chemical dyes slowly replaced dye-producing plants,
hence the disappearance of Vaucluse’s garance from 1868 and Toulouse’s pastel from 1883.
7
8
Lévy-Leboyer et Bourguignon 1985 :219.
The first historians who emphasised this issue are Gilles Postel-Vinay, 1991, and Patrick Verley, 1989
This accumulation of structural crises started in the 1860’s, bothering the population in
the 1870’s, and finally exploded with the 1879 cereals bad harvest. It is during the 1875-1895
period that the vegetal production slightly decreased by 0.79% in volume, a drop mainly due
to vineyards problems (see table below).
A few productions :
Potatoes
Wheat
Vine
Sugar beet
(millions of (millions of (millions of
(millions of
quintal)
quintal)
hectolitres)
quintal)
1861-65
87,7
76,3
49,8
44,3
1874-78
93,6
78,7
58,7
77,4 (1873)
1889-93
116,5
78,3
32,0
64,8
1909-1913
133,1
88,4
46,4
70,7
Price deflation was general and important. A wheat quintal that often cost more than
30 francs under the Second Empire cost less than 25 francs in 1882 and dropped down to
18.2 francs in 1895. On the other hand, markets for meat and dairy products were good and
prices decreased only by 7%. This was due to the fact that demand in vegetal products, and in
particular in cereals, stopped growing (bread consumption per person per year : 285 kg in
1865, 296kg in 1885 and 266kg in 1905) while the diversification of diet called for the
intoduction of more animal products.
The above description shows that the agricultural crisis was not attributable to
international competition only. It was also, and maybe above all, a structural crisis. The 18751900 years was a time of major breaking off that totally changed agriculture’s place in French
economy and solidarity between agriculture and the rest of the economy ended. It was the
time of the completion of setting up an integrated national market, which led to the decline of
the craft industry and of the diffuse industry in the countryside as well as of farmers’ seasonal
migrations. From then on, plants required full-time workers, as opposed to rural workskhops
that closed in the summer.
According to the 1862 agricultural inquiry, 57% of agricultural day labourers also had
a job in the industry that could represent on average 155 days a year. On the other hand, the
1860-65 inquiry on the industry showed that 15.4% of the working population in the industry
were absent during the 2 to 3 summer months. Thirty years later, the 1892 Office du Travail’s
inquiry highlighted only minor variations of plants’ labour.9 This resulted in an important
drop in the number of agricultural employees between 1876 and 1896. Farmers multiactivity
markedly diminished, surviving only in a few regions (lace from Le Puy, knives from
Thiers,…) and one could speak of a ruralisation of the country : after the departure of
craftsmen, rural communes became mainly inhabited by farmers, who had now a single job :
agriculture.
After 1896, and particularly during the 1903-1909 period (with an annual growth rate
of 1.7%) agriculture recovered thanks to the general economic growth. Urban demand
stimulated regions able to answer this demand. Production and productivity increased and
prices trend was favourable apart for wine suffering from over-prouction
c) Interpretations and debates
As mentioned above, the interpretation of these figures is controversial. Let us study the
influence on the evolution of productivity of trade barriers, investments level and rural
depopulation .
9
Marchand et Thélot, 1991 : 136-139
Protectionnist policy had consequences that remain very controversial. Measures taken
by Meline were twofold: on the one hand the customs tariffs meant to soften competition and
isolate agriculture from international markets, and on the other hand, measures designed to
help in this structural crisis context. They aimed at relaunching credit through the allocation
of state subsidies to Credit Agricole in 1879 and the creation in 1894 of local credit funds
with limited responsibility. Méline also tried to develop professionnal education for farmers,
but attendees never represented more than 1% of each age class.
The tariffs voted in 1885 by the Parliament on Meline’s initiative (a 3francs fee per hl
of wheat, progressively increased up to 7f) and in 1892 (extended to other agricultural
products) were obtained through lobbyist groups.10 Republicans, first hostile to
protectionnism, came to it under pressure from the textile industrialists first and then from
large cereals-growing landowners and the majority of landowners who answered the inquiry
of 1879. The question remaining open is whether small farmers really wished to have
protectionnist tariffs set up? We hardly have any appropriate measurement tool other than the
results of the votes to legislative elections, however these never address this issue only and it
must be kept in mind that Meline’s measures involved elements of structural help.
Custom tariffs led to the temporary decrease in cereals’ imports. Net cereals import
rate reached 20% of agricultural product during the 1875-85 period, and dropped down to
15% around 1900, hence a real positive impact on large cereals’ growers.
For some (Levy-Leboyer), these tariffs have negatively impacted agricultural
productivity; for others, they helped overcoming the crisis, as they enabled to keep prices
superior to world market prices, so that farmers had no interest to either export or produce
more than the national demand. Yet, this food national market depended of 3 factors : total
population, which was stagnating; food consumption, almost not increasing anymore; and
income per non-agricultural people, which in turn depends on the sale of industrial products
and public expenses. In these conditions, food market was not expanding and was subject to
the global economical environment.
Was the Great Depression simply a period of stagnation of the production and of
cautious withdrawal of agriculture or rather a restructuring period ? Overall, the low
agricultural over non-agricultural growth ratio shows that the Great Depression is
predominantly a depression of agriculture, while industry kept on growing. However, more
than a stagnation period, the following table shows that it was a period of restructuring. (see
also table 4)
Differential growth rate per product per year11
1817-21 / 1862-66
1862-66 / 1892-96
1892-96 /1907-13
Food products
+ 1, 08
+ 0,16
+ 0,5
Milk and meat
+ 1,3
+ 1,2
+ 1,13
Raw materials
+ 1,05
- 1,7
- 1,2
Yields progressed slowly. For example, wheat yield increased from about 14 to 15
hl/ha in 1850 to 17.2 lh/ha in 1913. These improved national averages have mainly benefited
from the concentration of production in best-yielding regions and the giving up of the
exploitation of difficult lands (i.e. no more wheat production in the mountains). Total
10
Cf Pierre Barral, 1968, and the papers in Histoire et Sociétés rurales of Soo-Yun Chun (n°20, 2003, 147-172)
and Rita Aldenhoff ( n°21, 2004)
11
Caron, 1981 : 28
production increased only slowly, as it seamed unneccesary to produce more, given the fact
that imports were completing the fullfilment of needs (imports represented 20% of our needs
in cereals). France who was in 1860 the second wordwide cereals producer along Russia and
behind the US, had far superior production costs and didn’t introduce mechanisation quickly
enough.
Reconversion towards fruits and vegetables, meat and dairy products was noticeable,
but it happpened progressively. The surface dedicated to cattle went from 8 million ha in 1860
up to 14 million ha in 1910. Specialisation occurred on the basis of the soil and climate’s
characteristics, following the same trend initiated in the 1840-70 period. While around 1850
the production of wheat, wine, porks and sheeps was spread over the country, a regional
geography appeared by the end of the century. Cereals were concentrated in the Paris basin
(Beauce, Picardie and Champagne), vineyards, fruits and vegetables in the South (Languedoc,
Provence and Aquitaine) and the livestock farming first developed by the end of the XIXth
century in regions were it was already important ( Basse-Normandie, Bretagne and Limousin)
and then spread to Franche Comté, Lorraine and Auvergne at the beginning of the XXth
century, before reaching Pays de Loire after 1930.
The amplitude of variations between the regions, that had reduced during the prosperity
period of the 1860s, started to widen again. Modernised regions with large scale farming
suffered from the economic stagnation and the lack of capital (Ile de France, Picardie).
However, protectionnist measures helped them. On the other hand, backward regions, that
tried in the 1860s to progress, didn’t benefit from the same level of help, the Third Republic
policy having chosen to favour the large cereals producers.
According to the traditionnal view, farmers have had a tendency to thesaurise or invest
in the acquisition of land instead of modernising their farm. And actually, several studies
describe a fund-lacking agriculture, cut from credit facility.12 From 1879, Credit Foncier, a
semi-public organisation, got increased ressources and it was able to grant more credit.
However, funds were first allocated to face up the losses and the reimbursment of debt
incurred during the 1840-65 modernisation period. Indebted farms couldn’t satisfy the service
of the debt and numerous lands were sold. On the other hand, credits available in France
remained limited. After the 1870-71 war, France had to pay a heavy tribute to Germany, and
the national balance of payments encountered problems due to agricultural imports, while the
1882 crisis led to the bankruptcy of banking institutions. French investments into foreign
countries during this period also decreased.
Following the Great Depression, investments slowly picked up, while still remaining
limited.
Production means (in Billion French Francs) Source : Lévy-Leboyer, 1985, p. 289
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1913
Rural
5,5
6,0
6,2
6,8
7,6
7,7
houses
Buildings,
9,7
10,0
7,8
7,6
9,4
10,0
equipment
Livestock
4,5
5,6
5,2
5,3
6,0
7,0
Total
19,7
21,6
19,2
19,7
23,0
24,7
12
See Gueslin, 1978, Gilles Postel-Vinay, 1991
Farmers savings also decreased in the last third of the XIXth century as they utilised
their resources.13 The agrarian structure dominated by small owner-tenants was held
responsible for agricultural backwardness as it was always compared to England’s one,
whereas it would be more comparable to the German structure. See table 5: distribution of
farms
1892
% of farms
% of superficie
Owner-tenants
75
53
Tenant farmers
19
36
Share cropping
6
11
Put in perspective with the data on available funds, this structure shows that half of the
land was owned by small farmers with limited financial means, all the more that they did not
benefit anymore from the injection of supplementary income from rural industries. The other
half was owned by important landowners who considered the land to offer limited returns on
investment in comparison to other sectors. Between 1896 and 1901, the number of farmers
grew while the number of employees decreased: one could think that part of the employees
became independent farmers, they had however very limited capital, hence the number of
small farms practising polyculture, based on intensive family labour and limited production
tools. Surely, this structure wasn’t propitious to economies of scale. Studies have however
demonstrated that small farms managed to implement a specialised and high-yielding
intensive agriculture.14
This limited availability of funds explains why investments remained weak, with the
exception of the planting of the vineyards. Landowners saw their income drop dramatically,
and did not invest in agriculture, finding the industry more attractive; farmers could therefore
only count on their own resources.
Backwardness of the French agriculture in labour productivity has often been
attributed to a too weak and slow rural depopulation. Too numerous labour in the countryside,
and hence a too weak work productivity while migration was not important enough to avoid
the increase in industrial wages. (see table 6)
Figures of rural depopulation demonstrate its importance, rural zones having reached
the highest pitch of population in 1846. Then, the ratio of rural to urban population decreased
constantly despite a higher birth rate for rural population. In the 1850-1875 years, craftsmen
were the first to leave for the towns, followed by day workers and day-workers-owners having
lost their job in the rural industry. The pace of departures slowed down in 1870-75 because of
the war, and then in 1881-86 when the difficulties in the industry and the construction sectors
delayed departures. Hence the departure of not-yet active young people, mainly young girls,
to look for a job in the town. Regions depopulated at a different pace : Poor agricultural
regions, mountains, started to lose population as early as 1846, while rich lands continued to
attract labour. By the end of the century, all were sending people to the towns, some seeing
their overall population decrease as birth rate wasn’t sufficient to compensate for departure
(Normandy) while others benefited from the high birth rate to slightly see their overall
population grow (Brittany).15
13
14
Hubscher, 1979 : 878-79
Michel Hau, "La résistance des régions d'agriculture intensive aux crises de la fin du XIXe siècle, le cas de
l'Alsace, du Vaucluse et du Bas-Languedoc", Economie rurale, 1988, et Ronald Hubscher, "La petite
exploitation en France aux XIXe-XXe siècles" Annales ESC, janvier 1985.
15
Cf. Alain Faure et Jean Claude Farcy, La mobilité d’une génération de Français, INED, 2003
As a consequence, the part of agricultural workers in the whole active population went
from 47% in 1880 to 41% in 1910, a proportion still much more important than in England
(8.8% in 1910) but comparable to Germany, Denmark and below Italy and Spain.
The main issue to evaluate accurately the labor productivity is the exact measure of
active population. The census of population are reliable, except for the evaluation of active
population in agriculture; statisticians of the time thought that it was underestimated.
Sometimes, the census took into account the number of persons living from an activity, which
meant the whole family of an active man (1856 and 1891) and sometimes the number of
persons practising an activity (1851 and 1866 to 1886). In 1881, only the man, chief of the
household, was considered as working. Marchand and Thelot attempted to reconstitute the
active population profile before 1896. They made two assumptions : i) the number of
women/men ratio in the active population remained constant between 1806 and 1956,
estimated at 54.7%; and ii) the ratio of active population in the agriculture / rural population
remained constant between 1806 and 1911, around 34.9%. No particularly convincing
argument was able to either justify or destroy these assumptions. Their figures, presented in
the tables, show that the maximum of the agriculture active population was reached by the
middle of the XIXth century and decreased progressively thereafter, a result widely accepted
today.
Labor productivity grew only by 0.5% per annum between 1860 and 1890, against
1.2% before 1860. It was higher in the North and North-east part of the country (North of the
St Malo-Geneva line) while the South and South-west suffered from a recurrent
underemployment.16 Land productivity experienced an inflexion as well : 0.2% against 0.8%
before. Capital productivity was at this time linked to labor productivity by a 0.7%
correlation.
II.
The 1914-1939 period : unsettled economic environment and lack of structural changes
The analysis of this period is much less controversial : all agree on the weak growth of
agriculture, isolated from both world markets and development. New hurdles will abruptly put
an end to a short recovery period in the 1920’ies.
a) an overview:
three periods are clearly identified.
1914-1920. WWI requisitionned animals and mobilised working men. Agriculture
momentarily lost 2 millions workers (and up to 3 millions in 1918), which represented
between 38% and 58% of total working men. Women had thus to handle production when
animals, transportation means, fertilizers, machines, and spare parts were missing. And during
this time, production means deteriorated. Moreover, battles took place on productive fields of
the Northern and North-Eastern regions. The toll of the war was thus very heavy for French
agriculture. During the following years of rebuilding, 1919-21, prices increased and brought
cash to farmers. This was a good period which led population to believe that peasants became
richer through the war. They had however paid the heaviest toll to the war with about 50% of
16
Calculus by Toutain, 1993: 280-84
the total 1,35 million dead and 3,5 million injured, i.e. about 670,000 and 1,75 million
respectively.17
The 1920s, and in particular the 1921-26 period, were years of rebuilding and of
agricultural production growth: the 1910-13 production level was reached again in 1925-29.
As labour diminished, productivity increased. However exchange terms deteriorated with the
simultaneous increase in industrial prices and the reduction in agricultural prices worldwide.
The 1930s was a period of crisis. Production kept growing (by 1.2% per year) but
prices dropped dramatically: by 53% for vegetal products and 40% for animal products. A
wheat quintal went from 179F in 1931 down to 78F in 1935 (Paris stock exchange prices) and
wine hectolitre from 183F in 1930 down to 64F in 1935. Overall agricultural prices dropped
by 22% during 1933, 16% in 1934 and 42% in 1936. Protecting tariffs increased. According
to Alfred Sauvy, this led to a 31% decrease of farmers’ purchasing power, but figures show
that this happened progressively : from an index of 100 in 1929, purchasing power went down
to 86 in 1930-34 and 67 in 1935.18 And Gilles Postel-Vinay states that the consequences of
this drop were partly balanced by the increase of the production. Thus this crisis was not as
severe as the great depression of 1880-95.19
b) Productivity of land
Farms structure has evolved slowly since the end of the XIXth century and over time,
family-run farms (i.e. farms of 5-40 ha) became dominant : in 1929, they represented 67,1%
of the cultivated acreage. The number of both very small farms of less than 5 ha and farms of
more than 100 ha diminished. It has to be noted that most of those farms under 5 ha were only
gardens belonging to part time workers or to non agricultural workers. Peasants managed to
buy these land, first at the end of the XIXth century when funds were injected in the industry
rather than the agriculture; and then, more widely after WW1, at a time where land became
available following the death of numerous peasants, while the surviving ones benefited from
the favorable context of inflation and increase in agricultural prices. This ideal of acceding to
the ownership of a family farm was the mainstream ideology under the Third Republic,
accepted by all political parties, from the conservatives to the socialists. (see table 5)
In order to compensate for this division of the farms, associations were created in the
crisis periods (the 1880s and later in the 1930s) but developped only slowly. Dairy
cooperatives were the first created : the association centrale des laiteries coopératives de
Charente consisted of 80,000 members in 1913 and managed over 3,5 million hl of milk ;
wine cooperatives were created as an answer to overproduction and sales decline : their
number went from 92 in 1920 up to 834 in 1939. Finally, cooperatives created to centralise
the sale of the cereals developped rapidly, from 650 in 1935 to 1100 in 1939, by which time
they were collecting 85% of the traded wheat.
Production grew slowly, at a rate slightly higher than 1% during the 1920s. Cultivated
surface did not extend, but these progresses were enabled by the increased productivity
achieved thanks to the selection of high-yielding species and the use of fertilisers (average use
was 14 quintal per ha in 1925, i.e about 2% of the production value). For example, the wheat
average yield went from 17.2 quintal/hectare in 1909-13 to 19 quintal/hectare in 1932-36 ;
over the same period, potatoes went from 85.7 quintal to 110 quintal.
Livestock kept growing and its productivity increased between 1890 and 1930. The
weight of animals increased and prices were more favorable. The ratio of the value of animal
17
Becker Jean-Jacques, La France en guerre, 1914-1918, Complexe, 1996.
Barral, 1968:220
19
Gilles Postel-Vinay ,1991:80.
18
product over the value of the livestock jumped to 0,9 whereas it stayed at 0,7 before 1913.20
Stock raising still was concentrated in a few regions.
The trend of regional specialisation and concentration of production in regions
offering the best yields continued. The dispersion rate of regional growth increased between
the two wars. The North and North-east rich regions suffered from the damages of the war
and growth remained weak. Meanwhile, poor regions (particularly mountains) become
depopulated and the family farms with very limited means favoured the poultry, hives and
gardens. Only a few regions, specialised in fruits or livestock farming, continued to grow
(Brittany, Aquitaine, Languedoc).
While production grew, demand remained stable. Exports did not recover post 1920 in
a context of low prices on world markets. National market was narrow and lacked dynamism :
population stagnated, its consumption reached a pick in 1934 but growth could only be
limited. As soon as crop was plentiful, prices dropped and farmers called in the government.
Custom duties were raised and imports subjected to quotas. A new policy was defined in
order to organise the market, which included measures to reduce production and support of
prices for cereals, sugar (1931) and wine (1931). The ONIB (Office National
Interprofessionnel du Blé 1936) was responsible for the marketing of the cereals, a decision
taken with mixed feelings by the producers: increased security but fear of losing autonomy.
From 1914 onwards, inflation mechanically reduced indebtedness. But the
deterioration of exchange rate between industrial and agricultural prices left the farmers with
limited resources. Then in the 1930-38 period, indebtedness grew, reaching 10 billion French
francs against 5 billion in 1900 ; however, these funds were used to face the crisis rather than
to modernise. The use of credit remained limited: farmers relied principally on Credit
Agricole who rapidly became the main financing provider; unofficial and notarial credits
decreased dramatically and other banks disregarded agriculture. This lack of capital explains
the low investment, hence the slow development. Farmers were therefore not able to
constitute savings that could have been invested in the industry. Their investments in farm
buildings were almost non-existent, while those dedicated to machineries only represented 2%
of the annual production value. In the 1930s, the State provided subsidies for the
electrification and by 1937, 96% of the communes were actually wired.
.
c) Work Productivity
By and large, work productivity increased by 1.4% per year and 1929, and by 2.5% per year
over the 1929-1938 period, the introduction of machines making off for the lack of labour.
Active male population reduced (1% per year in the 1920s, only 0,9% in the 1930s) and
changed. On one hand, the average age of farmers grew as a consequence of the inexistence
of pensions, and of the increasing share of tenant owners. In 1931-36, 21% of men were over
60, with a higher representation in small farms, while the weigth of the over-60 years old in
the total active population in France was only of 8% . On the other hand, the number of
domestics decreased quickly, all the more that now only few young started under the age of
16 (among domestics only 7% are under 16).
Moreover, wages of day-workers and domestics were low, inferior by one third to
industrial ones on average. Louis Goreux states: "Because of higher mobility, regional
differences in wages and average output per worker diminished. However, the dispersion of
20
Toutain, 1993: 24.
average output per worker did not decrease as much as the dispersion of wages; the effect of a
better distribution of workers per unit of land was partially offset by an increase in the
dispersion of yield per unit of land. It seems that technical improvements in agriculture since
1882 affected mainly high productivity areas, while low productivity areas suffered from
capital rationing".21 According to this theory, wages were higher near industrial towns. This
explanation seems however to lack accuracy as it does not reflect the diversity of the
departments respective evolutions. The countryside near Rouen had a level of agricultural
wages inferior to the national average despite the demand in labour from textile
manufactures ; on the other hand, the Hautes-Alpes, isolated from large urban centers had to
pay high salaries to attract the necessary number of agricultural workers. Postel-Vinay
quantified the correlation factor between the variation in the wage bill in France and the
variation of agricultural production between 1862 and 1892 around 0,05.22
Depsite the lack of manpower after 1919, mechanisation (mainly animal-tracted) only
progressed very slowly, all the more that it was ill-adapted to the small farms. The State itself
did not foster mechanisation; on the contrary, men and women were recruited abroad by the
government. Agriculture employed 62 117 immigrants by 1919, mainly Spanish. This number
increased to 70 911 in 1920, 92 800 in 1930, immigrants coming then mainly from Belgium,
Italy, Poland and Czechoslovakia, on the basis of annual contracts. 23 Also, the State didn’t
invest in the farmers training.
The importance of wages in the total cost of production diminished because of the
decreasing proportion of workers employed. The regional dispersion of output per worker
decreased constantly over time.
Conclusion
Agriculture kept playing an important role in the global economic trend until 1940. Although
the link was less close than in 1850, harvest remained a major factor in the economic
environment, despite progresses of the industry. Marczewski demonstrated that 81% of
growth years had been characterized by a growing agricultural product, and 80.5% of
recession years were also years of reduced harvests24.
All statistics give evidence that between 1870 and 1940, agriculture underwent heavy
difficulties it could not overcome. The Great Depression interrupted a high growth phase : it
was as much a structural crisis as one triggered by the import of foreign wheat. From then on,
farmers, deprived from access to industrial activities, had to adapt; on the one hand by giving
up the production of raw materials (textiles and oil-yielding plants) and reducing the weight
of cereals, and on the other hand, favouring stock raising and fruit production, and in parallel
replanting vineyards after the phylloxera crisis. The State, under the pressure from
conservative big landowners, introduced tariff barriers in order to isolate the French market
from foreign markets where prices were much lower. Facing a stagnating domestic market,
lacking capital inflow, agriculture only recovered from 1900 to 1913.
WW1 destroyed part of the soils and manpower, and made obsolete the production means.
Despite a few good years from 1921 to 1928, dynamism did not come back as agricultural
prices decreased while industrial prices increased (scissors effect). The 1930s crisis, although
21
Goreux, 1977 : 60. The conclusions of Toutain are similar, 1993, p. 288
Postel-Vinay, 1991, p. 65 ; Vivier, Le Briançonnais rural, Paris, 1992
23
Hubscher, 2005:36 and for female workforce ; Hubscher " Les femmes de l’ombre : migrantes italiennes et
polonaises dans l’entre-deux-guerres » in Vivier (dir), Ruralité française et britannique, Rennes, 2005
24
in Toutain, PIB, 1987, p. 37
22
less severe than the Great Depression, finished off the decline of agriculture, a now secluded
world protected by State subsidies, isolated from general movements of both foreign markets
and domestic labour market because of low wages.
What are the reasons behind this lack of dynamism and the slow growth of production and
productivity? Reasons most often put forward are: the small family farms, insufficient
investment, and slow depopulation. However, one should distinguish the answers between the
different periods.
At the end of the XIXth century, the rural society managed to react. Rural depopulation was
in fact quite significant and regular, only weakened in years of industrial stagnation. Small
intensive holdings could prove very profitable (in soil productivity) when they opt for
specialised productions, especially at a time when capital needs are still modest. Farmers
didn’t misuse their savings in buying land; they had surely bought land but it seems that
farmers were already heavily indebted and lacked capital to finance the modernisation of their
production means. Investors favoured industry and demand from foreign countries rather than
agriculture for their investments. Agricultural professional training also suffered from
insufficient funds; it concerned only a small proportion of farmers.
The situation between the two world wars appears very different. Rural depopulation slowed
down, small family farms were largely dominant and investments were almost non-existent.
How can one explain these trends? Beyond the economic reasons of market conditions, the
trade barriers acting as morphine (Barral, 1968), the main factor is, in our view, the state of
the French society. Two main reasons can explain the situation in the 1930s. First, the
farmers, bled white by WW1, aged and traumatised, preferred to adopt a subsistence
production mode. Second, the dominant ideology, advocated by both the Third Republic and
the large landowners, relied on the small farm ideal, as he basis of social stability ; this
ideology condemned both indebtedness and rural depopulation. One must not forget that,
since the middle of the 19th century, departure to the city has been considered as a plague and
people were encouraged to stay in the countryside. Republican politicians saw in the
agricultural world a conservative world, very useful as an agent of preservation of social
values and they managed to conquer its votes thanks to the introduction of protectionist
measures against foreign competition. This agrarian ideology prevailed until 1940 and the
idea of the "return to the land" advocated by Marshal Petain in 1940 followed the same
tradition. One can wonder about the respective responsibility of the farmers themselves and
the decision-makers (big landowners and politicians) in the lack of vitality of agriculture.
Nevertheless, French agriculture during the first half of XXth century had also a second aspect
which has to be enlightened. It had, since the end of XIXth c., passed a turning point towards
modernisation. It was efficient again, on new basis: the workforce was now entirely devoted
to agricultural tasks.
It lacked only incentive energy. In the 1930s, young farmers created the Jeunesse Agricole
Catholique (Catholic Agricultural Youth) movement and led the agricultural revolution after
1945, backed up by a renewed political class.
Bibliography :
Asselain Jean-Claude, Histoire économique de la France du XVIIIe siècle à
nos jours, Paris, 1984
Bairoch Paul , L'agriculture des pays développés: 1800 à nos jours :
production, productivité, rendements, Paris : Economica, 1999
Barral Pierre, Les agrariens français de Méline à Pisani, Colin, 1968
Boussard Jean-Marc, « Productivité et inflation : le cas de l’agriculture
française, 1960-1982 », Revue d’économie politique, n°1, 1986, p. 13-24
Braudel F. et Labrousse E., (dir), Histoire économique et sociale de la
France", tome IV, 1880 à nos jours, PUF, 1982
Brousse et Pellier, Production agricole et consommation alimentaire de la
France de 1892 à 1939, Service national des statistiques, institut de conjoncture,
étude spéciale n°2, Paris, 1944
Caron François, Histoire économique de la France, XIXe- XXe siècles, Colin,
1981
Carré Jean-Jacques, Dubois Paul, Malinvaud Edmond, La croissance
française. Un essai d'analyse économique causale de l'après-guerre, Paris, Seuil,
1972
Duby G. et Wallon A., Histoire de la France rurale, tomes 3 et 4, Seuil,
1976. Tome 3 chapitres de Pierre Barral, tome 4 chapitres de Michel Gervais, Marcel
Jollivet et Yves Tavernier
Goreux Louis-Marie, Agricultural productivity and economic development in
France, 1852-1950, Arno Press, New York, 1977
Gueslin André, Les origines du Crédit agricole (1840-1914), Nancy, 1978
Hubscher Ronald, "La petite exploitation en France", Annales ESC, janvier
1985
Hubscher Ronald, L'agriculture et la société rurale dans le Pas-de-Calais, du
milieu du XIXe siècle à 1914, Arras, 1979
Hubscher Ronald, L’immigration dans les campagnes françaises aux XIXe et
e
XX siècles, Odile Jacob, 2005
Lévy-Leboyer Maurice et Bourguignon François, L'économie française au
XIXe siècle, analyse macro-économique, Economica, 1985
Marchand Olivier et Thélot Claude, Deux siècles de travail en France,
INSEE, 1991
Mélinisme ou protectionnisme, Economie rurale, mars-août 1988
O’Brien Patrick & Prados Leandro, « Agricultural Productivity and European
industrialization, 1890-1980 », Economic History Review, XLV, 3(1992), p. 514536.
Pinchemel Philippe, Structures sociales de dépopulation rurale dans les
campagnes de Picardie de 1836 à 1936, Colin, 1957
Postel-Vinay Gilles, "L'agriculture dans l'économie française. Crises et
réinsertion", in Lévy-Leboyer M. et Casanova J-C (dir), Entre l'Etat et le marché,
l'économie française des années 1880 à nos jours, Gallimard, 1991
Postel-Vinay Gilles, La terre et l'argent : l'agriculture et le crédit en France du
XVIIIe au début du XXe siècle, Paris : A. Michel, 1997
Toutain Jean-Claude, La Production agricole de la France de 1810 à 1990 :
croissance, productivité, structures, Cahiers de l’ISMEA, Grenoble, 1993
Toutain Jean-Claude, "Le produit intérieur brut de la France de 1789 à 1982",
Economie et sociétés, Cahiers de l'ISEA, XXI, n°5, Grenoble, 1987.
Verley Patrick, Nouvelle histoire de la France contemporaine, 2.
L'industrialisation, La Découverte, 1989
Viallon Jean Claude, La croissance agricole en France et en Bourgogne,
1850-1970, Arno Press, New York, 1977
Table 2 : agricultural output
Final agricultural output
prices of
indice 100= 1905-1913
agricultural
products
period
1815-1824
1825-1834
1835-1844
1845-1854
1855-1864
1865-1874
1875-1884
1885-1894
1895-1904
1905-1913
1920-1924
1925-1934
1935-1938
volume
48.8
54.3
62.0
69.4
78.1
82.3
81.6
84.5
93.7
100.0
101.4
113.3
116.8
indice 100= 1905-1913
value
32.5
37.0
39.4
46.3
68.6
81.5
78.4
71.3
76.9
100.0
361.9
606.3
613.8
66.8
68.0
63.6
67.0
88.0
99.1
96.3
84.4
82.1
100.0
357.0
538.9
524.0
Growth rate
gross agricultural
output
volume
final
agricultural
gross
agricultural
prices
53.7
59.9
67.6
74.9
81.7
83.2
79.7
81.6
92.1
100.0
99.7
109.4
108.8
0.77
1.08
1.33
1.14
1.19
0.53
-0.09
0.35
1.04
0.69
0.10
1.48
0.43
0.75
1.10
1.22
1.03
0.87
0.19
-0.43
0.23
1.29
0.92
-0.02
1.25
-0.08
0.08
0.18
-0.67
0.52
2.77
1.19
-0.22
-1.31
-0.27
2.09
10.28
5.65
-0.40
1950-1954
137.8
1955-1959
148.8
1960-1964
180.0
1965-1969
197.3
1970-1974
213.7
1975-1979
208.5
1980-1984
244.8
1985-1989
268.0
Gross agricultural product is the summ of all the animal and vegetable output,
production of food for animals is included
Final output is the gross output less the consumption for agriculture (seeds, food for animals :fodder, cereals,
potatoes)
Source : Jean-Claude Toutain, La Production agricole de la France de 1810 à 1990 :
croissance, productivité, structures, Cahiers de l’ISMEA, Grenoble, 1993
France gross agricultural output
300
index 100 = 1905-1913
250
200
150
volume
100
50
0
1835- 18651844 1874
1895- 19251904 1934
1950- 1965- 19801954 1969 1984
France- Growth rate
2
1.5
1
final agricultural output
gross agricultural output
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
18251834
18451854
18651874
18851894
19051913
19251934
Table 3 Distribution of land use (cultivated acreage , thousands of ha)
1862
1892
1913
1929
1986
Cereals
g
land
(gardens
15621
14827
13519
11096
9499
21421
23339
18465
19883
18009
fallows
5148
3368
2593
1352
218
woods
9317
9522
9887
10670
14635
meadows
cultivated
grassland
5021
6213
10048
10712
12093
3159
4101
4118
4566
5086
Table 4 composition of agrarian output
cereals
fruits and vegetables
vine
cultures industr
including thimber
total vegetal products
meat
dairy products
industrial products
including leather
total animal products
1850
39
6
10
1900
24
13
10
1930
15
21
9
1990
17
12
12
10
65
14
13
7
55
24
13
7
52
25
15
6
51
27
15
8
35
8
45
7
47
7
49
Annual growth rate of
vegetal product and animal output
vegetal
output
1815-1824
1825-1834
1835-1844
1845-1854
1855-1864
1865-1874
1875-1884
1885-1894
1895-1904
1905-1913
1920-1924
1925-1934
1935-1938
0.80
1.08
1.00
1.04
1.09
0.58
-0.79
-0.57
0.88
0.22
-0.18
1.19
0.11
animal output
0.76
1.07
1.94
1.29
1.38
0.43
0.92
1.44
1.21
1.15
0.32
1.74
0.77
d'après Toutain, Le produit agricole, 1993, p. 17
agricultural
output
0.77
1.08
1.33
1.14
1.19
0.53
-0.09
0.35
1.04
0.69
0.10
1.48
0.43
Tab 5 distribution of the number of farms (in %)
size (ha)
1 to 5 ha
5 to 10 ha
10 to 40
> 40 ha
1862
1892
56.3
52.7
19.2
22.7
11.3
12.4
1929
1986
38.8
24.0
24.3
10.9
20.1
17.8
total number
(thousands)
4.8
4.0
3226
3471
3.9
16.8
2952
1020
> 50 ha
distribution of the cultivated acreage according to the size of farms (%)
size (ha)
1 to 5 ha
5 to 10 ha
10 to 40
> 40 ha
total of ha
(thousands)
1892
13.8
14.2
33.7
38.3
34720
1929
9.5
14.0
53.1
23.4
33080
1986
1.7
2.8
43.4
52.1
28270
Table 6 A Active population by sector
source : Marchand et Thélot, 1991, p.175
Labour force
industry and
agriculture
services
building
1866
50.5
28.6
20.9
1876
48.7
29.2
22.1
1881
46.3
29.7
24.0
1886
45.2
29.4
25.4
1891
44.1
29.7
26.2
1896
42.5
31.4
26.1
1901
41.0
31.8
27.2
1906
39.9
32.3
27.8
1911
38.5
33.1
28.4
1921
36.2
33.6
30.2
1926
34.1
36.2
29.7
1931
31.5
36.6
31.9
1936
31.6
33.6
34.8
total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 6 B Social structure of workforce: farming population
source :Olivier Marchand et Claude Thélot, Deux siècles de travail en France, Paris,
INSEE, 1991, p. 182-186
1866
1876
1881
1886
1891
1896
1901
1906
1911
1921
1926
1931
1936
1954
1962
1968
1975
1982
farmers
men
women
3425
2430
3310
2346
3340
2369
3425
2431
3393
2407
3444
2443
3475
2464
3428
2431
3367
2390
3127
2218
2973
2109
2784
1976
2640
1874
2322
1636
1834
1181
1515
932
1085
565
904
545
farm workers
men
women
2550
840
2318
732
2203
664
2094
590
2030
560
1869
463
1708
376
1688
367
1634
347
1527
365
1451
340
1361
302
1292
267
988
173
728
98
523
61
328
43
255
48
farmers
5855
5656
5709
5856
5800
5887
5939
5859
5757
5345
5082
4760
4514
3958
3015
2447
1650
1449
total men+women
workers
3390
3050
2867
2684
2590
2332
2084
2055
1981
1892
1791
1663
1559
1161
826
584
371
303
total
9245
8706
8576
8540
8390
8219
8023
7914
7738
7237
6873
6423
6073
5119
3841
3031
2021
1752
Table 7 Growth of work productivity
source: Marchand et Thélot (1991 : 143).
Calculus made from the indices of GDP given by a=Toutain (1987), b=LévyLeboyer et Bourguignon (1985), c= Carré, Dubois et Malinvaud (1972)
all the economy
agriculture
périod
1851-1866
1866-1881
1881-1896
1896-1911
1921-1931
1931-1949
1949-1961
1961-1973
1973-1979
1979-1984
1984-1989
added value
by man
a
b
1.6
1.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
0.2
c
1.2
3.4
1.1
4.7
4.7
2.5
1.8
2.6
added value
by hour worked
a
b
1.6
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
0.4
c
1.7
4.0
1.4
4.9
5.4
3.4
3.0
2.8
added value
by man
a
b
1.8
2.5
-0.1
0.7
1.1
1.0
c
1.2
2.4
1.4
6.5
6.4
4.0
5.6
4.3
added value
by hour worked
a
b
1.8
2.5
-0.1
0.7
1.1
1.0
c
1.4
2.9
1.9
6.8
6.4
3.5
6.1
5.6