The rate at which industrialization took place in France and Germany were at a

very similar level for much of the nineteenth century. With a few differences in the
speed towards the beginning of the 20th century. The French revolution had a
profound effect on the slowness of the French industrialization while in Germany,
the mediaeval standards had remained and the peasantry were inferior in wage and
living standards and that coupled with other organizational skills of the empire
meant the German process of industrialization was quicker than that of the French,
as this essay shall discuss.
Before 1870 Germany was not united properly and this disunity did not provide for
a stable or flourishing economy and so Germany was not industrialised at all. The
unification by Bismarck in 1871 provided a base platform for industry to grow and
bismarck cared for this well.He implemented several policies to protect the
businesses among them were laws which forced up the prices of the foreign goods
and gave Germany goods better value.This according to Hammerow (1989)
strengthened the economy and industry responded hence Germany went through rapid
industrial growth ,culminating in the outbreak of the first world war.In France there was war
,instability and chaos because of the 1789 revolution and the Napoleonic wars.France was
conservative and this led to a delay in the industrial process.France was not politically stable as it
went through four major regime changes and there was great division among those who wanted a
monarchy and those that wanted a republic.However in France industrial development was
delayed by political turmoil and a lack of coal but the central government played a more active
role in development according to Maxine (1986).

The French citizens, instead of taking advantage of the removal of trade barriers
the French peasants was left owning and working its own land, which in the end
meant that they were not desperate to earn a wage in the cities as in Britain
whereas in Germany the standards for the peasantry had remained with inferior
wages similar to the ones in Britain therefore meant people were desperate to
move to the factories to look for employment hence quicker industrial process.
Phyllis (1988) says that their ability to adopt to the new workings only showed
fruition when the roads and railways were improved while france lingered in
slumps for far too long.
Both France and Germany introduced technical schools which aided their
industrial processes.German implemented a technical education curriculum which
emphasized the technical areas of the industry such as electronics chemistry and
physics .Hence this program produced more scientists and better ones and more so
better advances were made in these dimensions.This was why Germany was to
become strong in the technical field Tonybee (1956).

It seems the German people were far quicker to take industrial education they
received and this can be seen in the rate by which their steam and steel production
improved above Frances. Germany were better equipped socially and politically to
take advantage of the industrial revelations made by British and therefore they
were able despite a slow start similar to France, to forge ahead in the second half of
the 19th century.
In Germany, the central government role was great. This was partly because the
Germany government wanted to hastle the process catch up with British
industrialsation. Germany used its rich iron and coal resources to develop heavy
industries such as iron and steel manufacturers. It also proved to be an environment
that encouraged big business and co-operation among large firms. Capable
entrepreneurs also aided in the development of industrialization one such was Fritz
Harkort a Prussian army officer during the Napoleonic who served in England and
was impressed with British Technological advances. He set up shop in the Ruhr
valley and began building steam engines relentlessly , so much that he became
known as the” Watt of Germany”Phyllis (1988).

Government support was also a substantial factor after Napoleonic wars , the
French market was flooded with cheap British manufactured goods ,The French
government imposed high tariffs of imported goods to protect the French economy
, and also bore the major cost of building roads and canals to improve
transportation .Government also assisted in the in the costs of railroad construction
, a tremendously expensive undertaking .Since investors had little to lose , money
flowed freely into the German railroads. The French government also assumed the
cost of laying roadbeds, as well as that of constructing bridges and tunnels. After
the Napoleonic wars France adopted heavy tariff protection in the face of cheap
British imports consequently , machine spinning became established with the aid
of British skilled workers but with higher costs than in England . In the late 1830’s
about 2/3 of the cotton yarn used in the German States was imported Jan
(1979:181).
The spread of coal based iron production was more complicated because success
depended on coal and ore and because the older charcoal based technology
produced superior iron that commanded a higher price .Again tariff policy was
important .France adopted complete protection while the German Zollverene
enacted lower tariffs with a structure that encouraged the import of pig iron for
domestic refining in the textiles and iron Germany merged as the principal
successes while France disappointed according to Myron (1969). After the 1848
revolutions Germany was the great success in building railroads, political change
began the transformation and the iron, and steel industry took pride of place.

In the final quarter of the century, German iron and steel firms increased the size,
capital intensity and modernity of their plants and firms like Krupp became
technological leaders. Germans produced a quantity of steel second only to the
USA and exported steel particularly to markets in Continental Europe Ashton
(1997) Along with iron and steel , engineering flourished in the aftermath of the
railways.The French steel industry suffered stagnation to iron from 1855 until 1860
where production stayed with little change for almost five years .In Germany it
was a similar story except that the excellent ones that were to be found in the coal
fields of the Rhine had kept the small factories ticking.
French economy grew quite slowly in aggregate when compared to Britain and
Germany but during the same period British population increased by 2/3 and
Germany population rarely doubled while Frances increased by only 14% . Frances
grew with a very different economic structure than Germanys .Population growth
meant more people working in factories.. In 1870, France and Germany both had
half their working population in Agriculture by 1913, the share in Germany had
fallen to 35% but in France, it remained at 41%, French slower population growth
put less pressure on rural population according to Dunham (1955).

The large asset in the way of natural resources is an industrious, healthy and
intelligent population, in this respect Germany was overall better off when the new
era set in than any of the neighboring countries except France, together with the
smaller nations of the class of Belgium Phyllis (1988).
In France and the western Germany, late mediaeval change abolished un-free
feudal labour, but failed to provide elites with clear property rights. Instead direct
agricultural producers gained control of the land on customary tenures from which
they could be removed only with difficulty. Incentives to increased productivity
were much weaker than in England and owners had little opportunity to select
successful tenants to increase rental incomes.

In textiles, Germany emerged a success while France disappointed. In the mid-19th

century factory textiles firms took over from traditional textile producers but not
without creating hardship for traditional hand – loom weavers. Although Belgian
iron industry continued to grow with the successful switch to steel production and
the development of larger firms and plants; it however lost its initial continental
leadership to German rivals Stearns (1998).
The German metal industry in 1913 was about 10 times as large as it had been in
1870.Silk production was successful in France and thrived in the export market.
France to a somewhat lesser extent in western Germany, peasant proprietors with
secure title to land farmed with family labour .In France peasant security of the
title was enhanced by the revolution and as Patrick O’Brian notes, by abolishing
seigniorial dues and suppressing titles, the Revolutionaries transferred agricultural
income back to those who farmed the land.
Although both Germany and France had available resources at their disposal it must be noted
that France had large tracts of woodlands which were not useful in the process of
industrialisation yet Germany was rich in coal and iron ore deposits in the Rhur an,the Saar and
the south East corner of upper silsea and rich soil from Alsace and Lorraine.Available also in
Germany was sodium and pottasium which enabled the chemical industry.
Germany had the advantage of availability of loans in the banks.Germany was ahead of France in
the confidence of banks to lend money .In France many banks did not lend money to the
businesses because they feared that the business would not be able to pay it back .In Germany
banks gave money to bussiness willingly Phyllis (1988) .
In conclusion France and Germany both industrialised later than Britain but France was unable
to follow the liberal British route to industrialisation so evolved a longer term institutional model
of industrial development.Contrary to France ,Germany was able to get ahead of most of Europe
in technological advances therefore leading to the arms race and eventually world war one in
1914.