Domestic markets and international integration: paths to industrialisation in the Nordic countries

Abstract

This article scrutinises the role of structural change and foreign trade in the Nordic countries, except Iceland, in industrialization prior to 1914. Sector contribution to GDP as well as the role of the foreign trade is compared across the countries. The comparison uncovers different paths to industrialization that cannot be explained by reference to received views, such as the shock of free trade or open economy forces. Denmark was not only richer than the rest of the 'Nordic Periphery' but also earlier in industrialization. Furthermore, agriculture had a much neglected role in Swedish catch-up, and despite its relatively large export sector, Norway lagged behind, as did Finland. Economic growth was characterised not only by rising exports but also by capital imports and increasing consumption, indicating wider economic and social change. Different sector structures in the Nordic countries largely explain why there was no clear pattern of catch-up or convergence, neither in the region nor in relation to the Western European leaders. We conclude that the social capability of the Nordic countries to integrate and respond to external influences 1850Á1914 must be seen in the perspective of the evolving domestic markets and the prior establishment of market institutions.

Microclass immobility during industrialisation in the USA and Norway

“…During our own analysis we found empirical differences (and similarities) in results for the two countries, but it is difficult to draw authoritative comparative conclusions because there are several concurrent differences between the two societies in the era of our analysis (cf. Kim, 2005; Ljungberg and Schön, 2013). Industrialisation proceeded in similar ways in both countries around this era, but also took different forms and is associated with slightly different time periods.…”

Social Mobility in Sweden Before the Welfare State

“…InEnflo & Rosés (2015), the responsiveness of internal migration is one of the factors that explain the fast rate of regional GDP convergence over the period 1880-1910, in turn resulting in the lowest dispersion of all countries with comparable data.37Long & Ferrie (2013a) show that 64% of sons were observed in different US counties in 1850 and 1880, while 27% of sons in Britain changed counties between 1851 and 1881. However, the size of the average American or British county is not comparable to a Swedish county, but instead falls somewhere between that of a Swedish county and parish.38 The designation of towns followed an administrative procedure where a municipality had to receive a town charter in order to be counted as an urban area in the census(Berger & Enflo, 2017;Ljungberg & Schön, 2013).39 In addition, notwithstanding comparability issues, the numbers for Victorian Britain produced byLong (2005) suggests that rural-to-urban migration rates where lower there while they were greater in the United States(Ward, 2021), lining up with the difference in intergenerational mobility between the two countries.…”