Everything is known in comparison - probably, this idea was adopted by the compilers of the first ratings. And they began to compose them in the United States as early as the middle of the 19th century. As historians assure, businessman Lewis Tappan, who went bankrupt after economic crisis, decided to create an agency to identify the reliability of companies and banks. Based on financial documents, interviews with employees, government officials and even local residents, experts made a conclusion about the solvency of a particular company. The rating was sold to interested parties. The idea was picked up by other agencies. A century later, world rankings appeared. At first they were only economic, later sociological. Now countries are evaluated on a variety of indicators. For example, according to the index of happiness or human development.

What is the role of country ratings in modern times and what do they reflect

“They say that numbers rule the world. No, they only show how the world is ruled,” the statement of Johann Wolfgang Goethe may well become the motto of a reputable rating agency. Its specialists compare digital series reflecting different indicators in order to ultimately find out which country is the leader and which is the outsider of the world economy and politics.

Global rankings help compare life in different countries

Rating is an estimate (from English word rate - evaluate), which shows the place of the country (or other object) according to some criterion. When it comes to territory, population, most economic indicators, the basis of the assessment is the exact numbers. If the rating affects sociological aspects, for example, happiness or well-being of people, special formulas are used for calculation, including several criteria.

Economic ratings of countries help to assess how profitable cooperation with foreign partners will be, whether it is worth making investments, which business will develop better. Social ratings most often answer one question, formulated in different ways: in which country is life better.

Rankings that are based on several indicators, such as the happiness index, are often biased

However, not all methods of compiling world rankings provide reliable information. It turned out that data can be manipulated in the interests of some companies and even countries, and estimates do not keep up with changes in the economy. According to experts, mistakes have especially become more frequent in connection with the latest crisis in the economy. For example, rating agencies failed to predict the collapse of the US real estate market and the bankruptcy of some international corporations.

Depending on where the information was received from, the ratings can be conditionally divided into three groups:

• based on data from official bodies (in Russia - Rosstat, Rospotrebnadzor, labor inspectorate, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Internal Affairs and others);
• information from unofficial sources;
• targeted surveys of citizens.

Ratings commissioned by the UN, WHO and other international organizations show what problems exist in a particular country

The most respected international rating agencies are Moody's, Standard & Poor's (S&P) and Fitch. In Russia, among the first to master this type of activity, the weekly "Expert" created a special service there. Later it was joined by the National Rating Agency, Rosbusinessconsulting, AK&M, Rus-Rating. However, so far Russian ratings have not gained confidence at the international level.

The world-famous American writer Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Rating is also a product of statistics. Therefore, when looking at country estimates, it is important to know what information they were based on and what factors were taken into account. However, agencies do not always disclose their sources and honestly talk about calculation methods. And this raises doubts about the reliability of the rating. In addition, recently the position of the country in the list is influenced by politics. Sometimes surprising results are obtained, which, even if desired, are difficult to believe. In some cases, it is impossible to make an objective assessment, because there is no complete information picture. So ratings, especially complex, multi-component ones, should be treated with some skepticism.

Video: Israelis disagree with their country's place in the US magazine rankings

Current country rankings

Global rankings are often compiled at the initiative of international organizations. From the company or agency that fulfill the order, it depends on what place this or that country will be. In one-component ratings, discrepancies are rare. Although there are. For example, in the international ranking of states by the size of the territory, the accession of Crimea to Russia is not taken into account. There are especially many discrepancies in ratings based on several criteria. There is no single assessment methodology. The most striking examples are the determination of the standard of living or the index of happiness.

Recently, ratings that evaluate not economic, but social and even emotional indicators have become popular.

By standard of living

This ranking is based on a number of economic and social indicators. The main ones are the development of the economy, education, health care, citizens' incomes and prices for goods and services, security, and ensuring freedoms. Often, compilers consider such concepts as standard of living, well-being and prosperity to be synonymous. A high position in the ranking does not mean at all that everyone in the country lives equally well without exception. And low - does not always show that the country is unsuitable for life.

New Zealand ranked as the most prosperous country in 2017 by the Legatum Prosperity Index

The Legatum Prosperity Index agency compiled a ranking of the well-being of countries in 2016-2017. The prosperity index is calculated according to 9 criteria:

• the state of the economy;
• business conditions;
• public administration;
• quality and accessibility of education;
• development of medicine;
• criminal situation;
• individual freedom;
• social potential;
• ecological situation.

There are 149 countries in the Agency's Legatum Prosperity Index rating. The twenty leaders in terms of living standards have not changed significantly for several years. They just move from position to position. In the latest ranking, New Zealand has the highest prosperity index. Great Britain improved its score by 5 points. The US and Denmark lost 6 lines each. And Finland has also strengthened its position.

The prosperity index is not only the economy and public administration, but also the freedom of the individual

The top 20 prosperous countries include New Zealand, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland, Iceland, Austria, Belgium, USA, France, Singapore, Slovenia. Spain and Japan were a little short of the top twenty.

Most of the countries of the former socialist bloc are in the middle of the list and towards the end. Russia and Ukraine, compared to the previous year, fell by 37 points, they occupy 95 and 107 positions in the rating.

Russia in the Legatum Prosperity Index was lower than Cambodia and Honduras

Outsiders of the prosperity scale are Asian and African countries with an unstable political and economic situation: Pakistan, Burundi, Angola, Mauritania, Iraq, Chad, Congo, Sudan, Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Yemen.

Realization of a person or his potential is one of the criteria in assessing the level of prosperity of a country

Henley & Partners proposes to evaluate countries according to the Quality of Nationality Index (QNI). It is derived from internal (stability and development of the economy, social security, education, business conditions, the presence of military conflicts) and external indicators (attitude towards migrants, visa-free entry for citizens to other countries). In the latest ranking, 159 countries received an assessment. The best country in 2017, according to Henley & Partners, is Germany. France, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Spain also received the highest scores. The United States is not even in the top twenty of the most advanced citizenships, but occupies the 28th line. Russia is located on the 63rd position, having gone down by 3 points, compared with the previous ranking.

Rounding out the list are the same countries that have become outsiders in the prosperity ranking from the Legatum Prosperity Index, plus the Syrian Republic and Ethiopia.

By GDP

The level of gross domestic product (GDP) or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a more “solid” indicator when compared with the prosperity index.

GDP is the most important economic criterion, it is equal to the final value of everything that is produced in the country during the year. The authoritative source of data on the level of GDP is the World Bank World Development Indicators, which receives data from national statistical authorities. It is customary to calculate the GDP indicator in US dollars at official exchange rates.

The level of GDP is one of the main indicators in the global economy

In 2017, the United States became the leader in terms of GDP, their figure was $19,284.99 billion. In second place is China (12,263.43 billion), in third place is Japan (4,513.75 billion). The top ten included Germany, Great Britain, France, India, Italy, Brazil, Canada. Russia with a significant increase of 134 billion rose to 12th place, overtaking Australia.

GDP per capita

The level of GDP is compared without taking into account the number of population. But there is a rating of countries in which both indicators are taken into account. By dividing the resulting GDP by all the inhabitants of the country, the welfare of citizens is calculated. This means that the state can invest more in social programs, improvement, and the environment. However, one should not think that the standard of living of a particular person depends on the size of the gross domestic product.

Luxembourg is the richest country in the world

In 2017, Luxembourg holds the palm in terms of GDP per capita. This tiny country earned $108,000 for every inhabitant. Not far behind the leader are Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Macau. The top ten richest countries include Qatar, USA, Ireland, Denmark, Australia.

Russia occupies only 67th place in this indicator, leaving behind Grenada, Romania, Turkey and Lebanon.

The laggards are predominantly African states.

Outsiders in the ranking of GDP per capita - African countries

Inflation

The inflation rate rating is compiled annually according to the International Monetary Fund and national statistical services. The top lines in it are occupied by countries where prices have risen the most. In 2017, the leader of the inflationary race is Venezuela. There is an unbridled and fantastic increase in prices, they have added more than 2,000 percent in a year.

In Venezuela, inflation has devalued money so much that they began to weigh it

The top five also includes Yemen, Argentina, Angola, and Nigeria. But in these countries, inflation is kept at the level of 12-20%. The Republic of Belarus is slightly behind them, its indicator is 11%.

In 2017, Russia managed to moderate its pricing policy. According to official figures, inflation was only 6%. And in the world ranking, the country is in 39th place.

The list is closed by prosperous and economically stable states - Spain and Switzerland. Zero inflation was shown by Brunei and Ecuador, and life in Senegal, according to these data, even fell in price.

Unemployment rate

The International Labor Organization defines the concept of "unemployed". He is considered a person who is not working at the moment, but can and would like to work. The level for this indicator is calculated as a percentage based on the ratio of the number of able-bodied population and those who are looking for work. The countries with the highest number of unemployed top the list. For example, in South Africa, the leader of the 2017 ranking, 28 people out of 100 cannot find a job. In Venezuela, 26 people out of every hundred want, but cannot find a job.

Unemployment is high even in relatively prosperous countries

Russia, with a score of 5.5, occupies a position in the middle of the ranking. The same unemployment rate in Panama, the Dominican Republic and Fiji. And in prosperous Spain, every tenth able-bodied person cannot find a job.

Minimum unemployment rate in Thailand and Belarus

By area

The ranking, which reflects the area of ​​countries, has hardly changed in recent years. There were many changes at the end of the last century. After the parade of sovereignties, the collapse of the socialist republics, the political map of the world became different. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union did not affect the primacy of the Russian Federation in the ranking of the size of the territory. Previously, it was 1/6th of the land, now it is a quarter. But Russia remains the largest country on Earth, significantly surpassing its closest neighbors in the rating - China, the USA, Canada and Brazil. At the opposite end of the list is Monaco.

By population

Another rating, which is distinguished by consistency, compares countries by population. According to this indicator, no one manages to overtake China and India. Despite the restraining population policy, in these countries, several million people are added to more than a billion every year. By the way, the third populous power is the United States. But only 325 million live there. Russia is only ninth in this ranking, and Mexico is in 10th place.

The most populous country is China

Rounding out the list are tiny, small, but well-known countries - Monaco, Liechtenstein and San Marino - with their 30-40 thousand people. And at the very end, exotic and little-known Palau, Nauru, Tuvalu, where 10-20 thousand people live.

By population density

Population density is derived from two indicators. This is the number of inhabitants of the country, divided by the area of ​​the state. By performing a simple arithmetic operation, you can find out how many people live in one square kilometer. Of course, this figure will be conditional. In different regions of the same country, the population density differs several times. For example, compare the European part of Russia and the Far East.

The smaller the country, the more people per square kilometer

The most densely populated countries in the world are Macau and Monaco, with 20,000 people per square kilometer. And in Mongolia, which is on the bottom line of the ranking, only 2 people share a kilometer. Russia can be classified as a sparsely populated country, its indicator is 9 people per 100 hectares.

Countries where they like to drink

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a report on alcohol consumption in 2017. Particular emphasis was placed on a dozen countries whose population drinks the maximum amount of alcohol per year. The leader of this group has changed. A year earlier, Belarus started the list, and now Lithuania, whose inhabitants drink 16 liters of alcohol a year. Moreover, the entire population over 15 years old is taken into account. Belarus, where they consume 15 liters of alcohol, moved to second place. The third was Latvia, whose residents have enough for 13 liters of alcohol per year.

In 2016, Russia ranked 4th in the ranking of the most drinking countries in the world

Russian Federation, contrary to our prevailing opinion, is far from being the most "using" country. She and Poland were only in fourth place. The Russians slightly lowered the “drinking” rating, while the Poles raised it. Both those and others drink an average of 12 liters of alcohol during the year.

Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Australia entered the top ten alcohol lovers. In this club and South Korea, she became the most drinking Asian country.

South Koreans do not indulge in alcohol

And the least popular alcoholic beverages in countries where the population professes Islam. The biggest teetotalers are residents of Pakistan and Kuwait. They drink about 100 ml of alcohol per year, which is about a bottle of weak wine.

By level of corruption

Assessing the level of corruption in different countries is not easy. There are no official data on this indicator. Therefore, analysts build a rating based on the opinions of businessmen, independent experts and ordinary people.

Statistical services do not measure the level of corruption

There is no 100% absence of corruption anywhere. At the beginning of the list are countries where there are few corrupt officials, at the end are the most "bribery-intensive" states. New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland are recognized as the cleanest from this scourge. The Russian Federation is in 132nd place out of 175, the closest neighbors are Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Most of all corrupt officials are in North Korea, South Sudan and Somalia. There, judging by the rating, you can't take a step without a bribe.

Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine are recognized as one of the most corrupt countries

Happiness Rating

Since 2012, at the initiative of the United Nations, a study has been carried out on achievements aimed at creating conditions for universal happiness. The country's position in the international ranking of happiness is determined by a number of statistical criteria: the size of the gross product per capita, life expectancy, respect for rights and freedoms, stability and confidence in the future, unemployment and corruption. In addition, data from surveys to identify the degree of trust and generosity of citizens are taken into account. Respondents are also asked to evaluate their feeling of happiness according to a certain gradation.

Sociologists and statisticians have learned to measure the level of happiness

The 2017 Happiness Index includes 155 countries. Norwegians are recognized as the happiest people on the planet. Denmark, last year's leader, took 2nd place. Following are Iceland, Switzerland, Finland. Residents of the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden also entered the TOP-10 lucky ones. But the citizens of many large and economically wealthy states enjoy life not so actively.

The happiness of each person does not depend on ratings

The USA took only 14th place, Germany - 16th. The British were on the index of happiness 19th, the Brazilians - 22nd, the cheerful French only on the 31st line. Emotional Italians became 48th. Behind them are the Russians, then Belize and Japan. China is in the middle of the ranking - at 79th position.

Video: The happiest country - Norway

Lifespan

The Life Expectancy Index is one of the main criteria for world statistics. It shows the socio-demographic situation in the states and the world. This is not an easy age at which, on average, people die. Scientists consider the index as the number of years that a person of a certain generation will conditionally live if the death rate remains unchanged.

Average life expectancy in Russia approached world indicators

This indicator characterizes not only demography, but also many other aspects that affect life expectancy: the development of the economy, the level of health care, the degree of education and sanitary culture of the population. The prospects for the development of society depend on the growth or decrease in the life expectancy index.

The Life Expectancy Index, calculated according to the UN methodology, is derived from the data of national statistical agencies. The rating is published annually, but the report uses information from previous years. The current rating is based on data for 2016. The leaders in this indicator are Hong Kong (life expectancy index - 84), Japan (83.5), Italy (83.1), Singapore (83.0), Switzerland (83.0). In the top ten countries of centenarians are Iceland and Spain, where the index is 82.6, Australia and Israel (82.4), France - 82.2.

The Japanese are recognized centenarians, they are friends with physical education even in retirement

African countries are at the bottom of the list. There, life expectancy ranges from 55 to 49 years.

Russia has been consistently improving its position in the ranking lately. Now it is in 116th place with an index of 70.1.

World average life expectancy - 71 years

But in the ranking of average life expectancy, which was presented by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Russians rose even higher, to 110th position, approaching the global indicator. And the group of ten leading countries, according to WHO, looks a little different. Japan is in first place. And instead of Hong Kong and Singapore - Germany and Sweden. But the company of outsiders looks almost the same.

The quality of the roads

The report, prepared for the World Economic Forum, provides a ranking of countries that assesses the quality of roads in 2017. The list includes 138 states. The roads of the United Arab Emirates open it, the second place went to the highways of Singapore, the third - to Hong Kong. In the top ten autobahns of the Netherlands, Japan, France, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal, Denmark. The US and Germany are a little short of the leading positions, they are in 13th and 16th positions, respectively.

Japan's highways are some of the best in the world

The former Soviet republics - Lithuania, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Armenia, Latvia - are in the middle of the rating, they entered the first hundred. Kazakhstan is already outside of it. Yes, and Russian off-road, according to experts, is not the worst, but close to it. Russian broken roads, according to experts, deserve 123 places out of 138.

Even more pits and potholes are driven around by motorists in Moldova and Ukraine, they took 132 and 133 places. And the roads in Madagascar are very bad, only a little better in the Congo. These countries are located on the final lines of the road rating.

Madagascar has the worst roads in the world

By gold and foreign exchange reserves

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) released fresh data on international reserves. This rating reflects the value of state assets in securities, currency and gold (bars and coins). The size of the gold and foreign exchange reserve is usually determined in US dollars.

The largest gold reserves are concentrated in China

As of May 2017, the People's Republic of China has the largest reserve in the world, its capital was estimated at $3,344.7 billion. Japan has 1318.3 billion. Switzerland has accumulated 765.0 billion, Saudi Arabia - 514. Taiwan closes the top five richest countries, its reserve is 433.0 billion. Russia with a capital of 405.1 occupies the 7th position in the ranking, between Hong Kong and South Korea. India closes the top ten richest countries.

The United States only 21 positions. The gold and foreign exchange reserves of the EU countries are often assessed in aggregate. In the piggy bank of a united Europe, 745.9 billion dollars. And the most prosperous country is Germany.

Human Development Index

The Human Development Index is a multi-component indicator developed by the United Nations in 1990. According to researchers, it most fully shows the quality of life in different countries and the dynamics of development of their citizens. The index takes into account the well-being of society, respect for human rights and social justice. The calculation is carried out in three directions:

• health and longevity;
• accessibility of education;
• gross national income and purchasing power.

Based on official data provided by government departments. New criteria are being introduced to refine the human potential index. For example, indices of gender inequality and multidimensional poverty.

Countries are ranked according to the Human Development Index, and then divided into 4 groups according to the value of the indicator. The latest rating was compiled in 2016, it includes 190 states and territories.

There are 49 countries in the group with the highest human development index. Norway opens the rating, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands are also in the top five. USA is in 8th place. In the same group, almost all members of the European Union, including the Baltic trio of immigrants from the USSR.

Norway is not only the happiest country, it also received the highest score in human development

The second group - countries with high level human potential. The first position is occupied by Russia and Belarus. Here are some former Soviet republics, China, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey.

In the third group of states with an average index. At the top of the list are Botswana, Moldova, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. In the same company India, Honduras, Vietnam, Cambodia and Syria.

Pakistan has received the lowest score in the Human Development Index as its government is doing next to nothing to make the life of children in the country successful.

In the group with a low human potential index, mainly African countries, as well as Pakistan, Nepal and Afghanistan.

Share with friends!

Recently, the US administration has become fascinated with the classification and distribution of foreign countries into various lists and groups. One may recall the sudden appearance on political map the world of some "rogue states", the stringing of the three most malicious "rogue states" on the "axis of evil" (which subsequently passed through several more countries) and a mysterious formation called the "anti-Iraq coalition", on behalf of which the United States and Great Britain one of the countries of this very "axes" captured.

Last week, Carlos Pascual, coordinator for the US Department of State's Reconstruction and Stabilization Division, announced another such list, a list of "most unstable and at risk" countries.

Pascual explained that from now on, the US intelligence services will update the list of 25 states every six months, the situation in which, according to Washington, may require US intervention.

How exactly such intervention will be carried out, the head of the Reconstruction and Stabilization Division did not specify, noting only that the prevention of conflicts and the restoration of state structures destroyed during the hostilities is "one of the main foreign policy challenges" for the United States. This makes one think about the fate of the states included in Pascual's list.

Portable Administration

The Reconstruction and Stabilization Division of the US State Department was established in August 2004. Its functions include monitoring conflict and post-conflict situations in foreign countries in order to use peaceful means to intervene in the internal affairs of these countries, to keep them from clashes and civil unrest, while pushing towards peace, democracy and a market economy. In addition, the department plays the role of an intermediary between the United States, its allies, other countries in the region in which American operations take place, as well as the EU, the UN and other international organizations.

In fact, the task of the Department of Reconstruction and Stabilization is to deploy in the shortest possible time in any "hot spot" where the United States will conduct future military operations, the competent structures of the occupation administration.

It must be admitted that the United States has long been in need of such an organization. One need only recall the chaotic actions of the hastily created civil administration in Iraq, which failed to provide reliable support for the coalition troops and, in the end, with relief surrendered to the no less hastily created local government. or organized by hastily the democratic government of Afghanistan, which still prefers not to appear outside of Kabul.

Apparently, ideally, the Reconstruction and Stabilization Department should become the force that could take control of the country left without "native" leadership, provide the American troops with everything they need, saving them from the need to be distracted from their immediate duties, and engage in the preparation of local personnel to create such a state structure that would suit Washington.

From such an idea of ​​the role of the Department of Reconstruction and Stabilization of the US State Department, the need for a "Pascual's list" also logically follows. In order to be able to quickly establish effective management of a ruined country, it would be nice to know in advance when and which country will need to be managed.

That is why, in addition to restoring the states that have already perished, the department should be engaged in forecasting which states in the near future have a chance to learn all the delights of US humanitarian military operations, as well as planning the most reasonable and quick to pacify them.

The right person in the right place

In light of the foregoing, the track record of Carlos Pascual himself is very curious, if not to say alarming. If we assume that he was appointed coordinator of the Department of Reconstruction and Stabilization of the State Department not by chance, then it becomes quite obvious which part of the world the United States is going to reconstruct and stabilize in the first place.

From 1992 until his appointment as head of the department in 2004, Pascual's career was inextricably linked with the countries of Eastern Europe, and more specifically with the countries of the former USSR.

Over the past 12 years, Pascual managed to participate in the Newly Independent States Group, in the Agency for International Development, in the Agency national security, to visit the positions of special adviser to the president, the US ambassador to Ukraine and the coordinator of American assistance programs to countries in Europe and Eurasia. Everywhere, the countries of the former USSR remained the main zone of his interests, primarily Russia and Ukraine. It can be assumed that he will not change his habits and heading the Department of Reconstruction and Stabilization.

Pipeline democratization

All who live under the yoke of tyranny and hopelessness, know that the United States remembers your oppression and will not forgive your oppressors. When you rise to fight for your freedom, we will rise with you.

George Bush inauguration speech in January 2005

In fact, the Reconstruction and Stabilization Division has become another useful tool in the foreign policy "democratization set" of the United States. He will make a perfect tandem with the Office of Democratic Movements and the Transition to Democracy, which will be created if US congressmen approve the "Democracy Advancement Act" introduced in early March.

As history shows, US efforts to promote democracy usually result in acts of civil disobedience, uprisings, civil wars and other phenomena that, in fact, make the situation in the country "unstable and risky."

This, in turn, automatically puts such a country on the list of states that need US assistance - and then the Reconstruction and Stabilization Department comes into play.

In the countries of Europe that were not among the leaders of industrialization, especially in Bohemia, the number of modern industrial enterprises was growing even in the period before 1850, but one can hardly say that there was already a process of industrialization. This process began in the second half of the century, which was especially noticeable in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It manifested itself much weaker in Italy, the Iberian countries and the Russian Empire, and its signs in the new states of the Balkan Peninsula and in the decline of the Ottoman Empire were barely noticeable. Its course in these countries took place under circumstances completely different from those that existed in the countries of early industrialization, which led to the formation of other models of it.

The dependence of early industrialization on coal - as was clearly seen in Britain, Belgium and Germany - can be seen in per capita consumption (see Figure 9.3). In turn, the countries of late industrialization had little or no coal reserves. Coal production in Spain, Austria and Hungary was barely enough to meet limited domestic demand (if any). Russia had huge reserves of coal (in the middle of the 20th century the Soviet Union was the largest producer in the world), but until 1914 they had barely begun to be developed. Other countries had insignificant deposits of coal, and its consumption was almost entirely dependent on imports.

On fig. Figure 10.1 shows per capita coal consumption in some late industrializing countries. It is necessary to highlight two characteristic points. First, at the beginning of the 20th century per capita consumption of coal, even in the most prosperous countries of late industrialization, was less than one-fifth of that in Great Britain, and less than one-third of that in Belgium and Germany. Secondly, with limited consumption in all countries of late industrialization, consumption in the most prosperous of them grew much faster than in the rest. Since in coal-poor countries coal is

changed mainly as a fuel for locomotives, steamships and in stationary steam engines, and virtually all coal consumed in the most developed countries of late industrialization was imported, it can be concluded that the dominant force determining the scale of coal consumption was demand. In other words, the increased consumption of coal in these countries was the result, not the cause, of successful industrialization.

In order to appreciate the significance of this statement, it is necessary to consider the individual cases of the countries of interest to us.

Rice. 10.1. Per capita coal consumption, 1820-1913

Source:

Switzerland

As Germany was the last of the leaders of industrialization, so Switzerland was the first of the countries of late industrialization. Some scholars dispute this thesis, stating that Switzerland was more industrialized than Germany, and that industrialization here began at an earlier period - for example, that the "industrial revolution" or "industrial takeoff" in Switzerland occurred in the first half of the 19th century. This contradiction is mostly semantic and has no big

305 consequences; once the facts are clearly established and the patterns defined, the question of chronological priority becomes only a matter of sharper definitions. Although in Switzerland already in the first half of the century, or even earlier, some important prerequisites were laid that played a large role in the rapid industrialization of this country after 1850 - especially the high level of adult literacy - its economic structure remained predominantly pre-industrial. In 1850 over 57% of the labor force was employed primarily in agriculture and less than 4% worked in factories. The overwhelming majority of industrial workers worked at home or in small workshops that did not use machines. Switzerland has barely entered the era of railways, with less than 30 kilometers of recently laid tracks. More importantly, the country did not have an appropriate structure of institutions to promote economic development. In 1850, Switzerland did not yet have a customs union (unlike Germany, which had a customs union but no central government), an effective monetary union, a centralized postal system, and a unified system of weights and measures.

A small country both in terms of territory and population, Switzerland was also poor in traditional natural resources (apart from rivers and forests) and had virtually no coal deposits. Due to the mountainous landscape, 25% of its territory was unsuitable for agricultural use and remained practically uninhabited. Despite these problems, by the beginning of the 20th century. the Swiss had one of the highest living standards in Europe, and by the last quarter of the 20th century. - the highest in the world. How did they achieve this?

The country's population grew from less than 2 million at the beginning of the 19th century. to almost 4 million in 1914. Thus, the average population growth rate was only slightly less than in Great Britain, Belgium and Germany, and significantly higher than in France. The population density was lower than in the four listed countries, but this is largely due to the nature of the landscape. Due to the lack of arable land, the Swiss for a long time combined domestic industry with agriculture and dairy cattle breeding. At the same time, they imported industrial raw materials and, by the end of the 19th century, foodstuffs. As a result, Switzerland, like Belgium, and to an even greater extent than Great Britain, depended on foreign markets.

Switzerland's success in international markets has been the result of an unusual, if not unique, combination of advanced technology with the development of labour-intensive industries. As a result, Switzerland began to specialize in the production of high-quality and expensive goods with a high level of added value, such as traditional garments.

royal watches, fashionable clothes, sophisticated special equipment, as well as cheese and chocolate. It should be emphasized that in labor-intensive industries, it was used primarily qualified work. The reason for this phenomenon (which may seem paradoxical) is that most of the cantons had (for non-economic reasons) a high level of literacy of the population. In addition, a complex system of artisan apprenticeships prevailed in Switzerland. All this has led to the emergence of a skilled, easily adaptable workforce, willing to work for relatively low wages. Finally, mention should be made of the well-deserved Swiss Institute of Technology, founded in 1851, which supplied the economy with qualified specialists and provided solutions to complex technical problems that arose at the end of the 19th century.

Back in the 18th century Switzerland had a large textile industry second only to that of England, but it was based on handicraft processes and part-time employment. In the last decade of the XVIII century. textile production, especially the production of cotton yarn, was completely destroyed by competition from the more developed British industry. After the ups and downs during the period of the Napoleonic Wars and the first years after them, the Swiss textile industry revived and even flourished. It had an unorthodox mix of technology: mechanized spinning (which used mostly water power rather than steam), which used the cheap labor of women and children, and weaving on handlooms, which persisted long after they were used in Britain. already left the stage. This became possible due to the specialization of production in high-quality textile products, including embroidered ones, as well as due to the improvement of the handloom, which integrated elements of the jacquard loom, invented at the beginning of the century for the silk weaving industry. Subsequently, mechanization joined these improvements, but again with the use of special devices designed to produce high-quality products. By 1900 manual machines have become a rarity.

Although the silk industry was more traditional in the country than the cotton industry, it made a larger contribution to the economic growth of nineteenth-century Switzerland, both in terms of employment and in terms of export value, than did cotton production. It has also undergone a technological upgrade. In addition, Switzerland had small industries in the wool and linen industries, again focused on the production of high-quality goods, and produced a certain amount of clothing, shoes and other products.

leather lei. Overall, throughout the century, Swiss exports were dominated by textiles and other light industrial products. At current prices, their exports have increased from about 150 million francs in the 1830s. to more than 600 million in 1912 - 1913, however, their share in the structure of total exports decreased over the same period from three-quarters to a little less than half.

The sectors of the economy that have benefited from the increase in export production in the textile industry have included both traditional industries and some industries created by industrialization. On the eve of the First World War, the most important of these were, in order of importance, mechanical engineering and the production of specialized metalworking products, the production of food and beverages, the watch industry, chemical industry and the production of medicines. Due to the lack of coal and iron ore in Switzerland, understandably, no attempt was made to develop metallurgy (small charcoal-burning ironworks in the Jura region disappeared in the first half of the century). However, mechanical engineering and metalworking, which worked on imported raw materials, were developed. They originated in the 1820s, specializing in the manufacture of cotton spinning equipment. Given the importance of water energy to the country's economy, it is not surprising that subsequently these industries began to focus on the production of water wheels, turbines, transmission mechanisms, pumps, valves and a host of other specialized and expensive products. After the advent of the era of electricity, the Swiss industry quickly moved to the production of electrical equipment, and Swiss engineers were the authors of many important innovations in this new industry, especially in the field of hydropower. The decline in per capita coal consumption after 1900, primarily as a result of railroad electrification (see Figure 10.1), is clear evidence of this.

The dairy industry, famous for its cheeses, moved from handicraft to factory production, which made it possible to enormously increase production and exports. The food industry also began producing condensed milk (according to an American patent) and mastered two related industries - the production of chocolate and ready-made baby food. Another traditional industry, watchmaking, continued to be characterized by the use of highly skilled (though often part-time) artisans and a high degree of division of labor. For this industry, some types of special machines were created, especially for the production of standard, interchangeable parts, but the final assembly remained manual.

Finally, the chemical industry received its impetus for development through the very process of industrialization. After-

beyond lack natural resources Switzerland did not receive any noticeable development of the branch of basic, or inorganic chemistry. In 1859 and 1860, after the invention of synthetic dyes, they began to be produced by two small firms in Basel, which supplied local enterprises with their products. Later, two more firms joined them. Although all four companies started out as suppliers to the local industry, they soon realized that they could not compete with German companies in the production of conventional dyes. As a result, they began to specialize in the production of exotic, expensive types of dyes, and soon became a virtual global monopoly in their production and marketing. At the end of the century, they sold more than 90% of their products outside the country. Chemical enterprises also engaged in their own research in the field of drug development. At the beginning of the XX century. the chemical industry, which employed less than 10,000 workers, provided 5% of total Swiss exports. Its exports per worker in manufacturing reached more than 7,500 francs - twice as much as in the watch industry, and four times more than in the textile industry. The Swiss chemical industry was the second largest in the world: although its output was only 1/5 of that of Germany, it produced as much as all the rest of the world combined.

Perhaps no other country in Europe has undergone such a radical transformation with the advent of railways as Switzerland, but, paradoxically, it is the Swiss railways were the least profitable. It is likely that Swiss investors at least foresaw this possibility, since they were extremely reluctant to invest in this industry, preferring to invest in United States railroads and leaving the task of financing national railroad construction to foreign investors, mainly French ones. Railway construction began in earnest in the 1850s; in 1882 the first tunnel was built through the Alps under the Gotthard Pass. By the 1890s as a result of high construction and operating costs and underutilization, most railroads went bankrupt or were on the verge of bankruptcy. In 1898, the Swiss government bought the railways from their (mostly foreign) owners at a price well below the actual cost of building them. Shortly thereafter, their electrification began.

The trends that took shape in the second half of the 19th century developed in the next century: a decline in the relative share of agriculture, an increase in the role of industry and (even to a greater extent) the service sector, and continued dependence on the demand of the international market, especially in the field of tourism.

rism (since the 1870s) and financial services (since World War I). In the 1960s engineering and metallurgy products accounted for about 40% of export earnings, chemicals and drugs - 20%, watches - 15%, textiles - 12%, food and drinks - 5%.

Netherlands and Scandinavia

The association of the Netherlands with the Scandinavian countries may seem out of place when discussing the issue of industrialization patterns, but in fact it is absolutely logical. Common features of the Scandinavian countries, which are often the reason they are usually considered together, are cultural rather than economic in nature. In terms of economic structure, the Netherlands has more in common with Denmark than the Netherlands or Denmark with Norway and Sweden. The usual parallel consideration of the Netherlands and Belgium shows that Belgium was a country of early industrialization, while the Netherlands was not, that Belgium had coal and a developed heavy industry, but the Netherlands did not. This is all that can be expected from such a comparison. On the other hand, comparing the Netherlands with other late industrializing countries, despite differences in resource endowment, may reveal more about the process of industrialization, especially late industrialization.

All four countries, after lagging far behind the leading industrial countries in the first half of the 19th century, made a powerful breakthrough in the second half of the century, especially in its last two or three decades. In the period from 1870 to 1913, Sweden had the highest per capita output growth rate in Europe - 2.3% per year. In second place was Denmark - 2.1% per year. Norway had about the same growth rate as France (1.4% per year). There are no comparable figures for the Netherlands, but other data show that they also showed high growth rates. By 1914, these four countries, as well as Switzerland, had achieved a standard of living comparable to that achieved by the continental countries of early industrialization. In view of their late start and lack of coal deposits, it is very important to understand the sources of such success.

All these countries, like Belgium and Switzerland, had a small population. At the beginning of the XIX century. Denmark and Norway had less than 1 million inhabitants, and Sweden and the Netherlands had less than 2.5 million. Population growth rates have been modest throughout the century (Denmark the highest, Sweden the lowest), but overall the population more than doubled by 1900. Population density was very uneven

Noah. In the Netherlands it was one of the highest in Europe, while in Norway and Sweden it was the lowest, even lower than in Russia. Denmark occupied an intermediate position, but was still closer to the Netherlands.

Considering human capital as a characteristic of the population, we can say that all four countries were well endowed with it. In both 1850 and 1914, the Scandinavian countries had the highest literacy rate in Europe (and perhaps the world), and in the Netherlands it was much higher than the European average. This fact was invaluable for these countries to find their niches in the developing and constantly changing world economy.

In terms of resources, the most significant fact for all four countries, similar to the case of Switzerland, but in contrast to Belgium, was the lack of coal. This, no doubt, was the main reason why the countries in question were not among the leaders of industrialization, and also because they did not develop a significant heavy industry. As with other natural resources, of the four countries considered, Sweden had the best supply of iron ore, both phosphorus-containing and free of phosphorus (as well as non-ferrous metal ores, but they were of less importance), huge tracts of virgin forests and sources of water energy. Norway also had significant forest resources, some metal ores, and a huge potential for using water energy. Water power in Sweden and Norway was a significant factor in their development at the beginning of the 19th century. (in 1820 there were 20 - 30 thousand water mills in Norway), but its role increased even more after 1890, when the use of water power to generate electricity began. Denmark and the Netherlands were as poor in water energy sources as they were in coal. They used to some extent the power of the wind, which played a rather prominent role, but could hardly serve as a basis for large-scale industrial development.

Geographic location was also an important factor for all four states. Unlike Switzerland, they all had direct access to the sea. This made it possible to use fish resources, as well as the development of cheap transport, merchant shipping and shipbuilding. Each country took advantage of these opportunities in its own way. The Dutch, having a long tradition of fishing and merchant shipping, which, however, began to die out with time, met with difficulties in establishing good harbors for steam ships; they subsequently established them in Rotterdam and Amsterdam, which led to a marked increase in transit trade with Germany and Central Europe and to the emergence of enterprises for the processing of imported foodstuffs and raw materials (sugar, tobacco, chocolate, grain, and later oil). Denmark also had a long

trade history, especially if we take into account trade flows through the Sound Strait (modern Øresund Strait). In 1857, in exchange for the payment of 63 million crowns by other trading countries, Denmark abolished the "Sund Duty" that it had collected since 1497, which happened simultaneously with other measures in line with the free trade policy. This led to a significant increase in traffic flows through the Sound and the port of Copenhagen. Norway became the main supplier of fish and timber to the European market in the first half of the century, and in the second half it created the second largest (after Great Britain) merchant fleet. Sweden, although developing its merchant fleet more slowly, has benefited from the elimination of restrictions on international trade and from the reduction in freight charges on bulk export commodities - timber, iron and oats.

The political institutions of these countries were not significant barriers to industrialization and economic growth. After the Napoleonic Wars, Norway was removed from the control of the Danish crown and became part of Sweden, from which it peacefully separated in 1905. In turn, Sweden lost Finland in 1809 after the war with Russia. The Congress of Vienna created the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, which included the provinces of the Dutch Republic and the southern Netherlands. The latter, however, seceded in 1830 (not entirely peacefully) and formed modern Belgium. Prussia and Austria in 1864 took the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark. The rest of the century passed relatively peacefully, with progressive processes of democratization observed in all countries. Their management was reasonable enough, not distinguished by noticeable corruption; grandiose state projects were not undertaken, although in all countries the government assisted in the construction of railways, and in Sweden, as in Belgium, the state built the main railway lines. As small countries dependent on foreign markets, they generally followed a liberal trade policy, although protectionist tendencies developed to some extent in Sweden. In Denmark and Sweden, the two countries where the agrarian structure most resembled that of the Old Regime, agrarian reforms were introduced gradually from the end of the 18th century. and throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. As a result of the reforms, the last traces of personal dependence were completely abolished and a new class of independent peasant proprietors with a clearly defined market orientation was created.

A key factor in the success of these countries (together with high literacy rates that also played a role), as in Switzerland but unlike other late industrializing countries, was their ability to adapt to the structure of the international division of labor shaped by early industrializing countries and to defend those areas of specialization

in the international market, where they had the greatest advantage. Of course, this meant a greater dependence on international trade with its notorious fluctuations, but it also meant a high return on those factors of production that were successfully used during periods of prosperity. In Sweden, the level of imports reached 18% of the national income in 1870, and in 1913 - 22% (despite the fact that the national income itself increased significantly). At the beginning of the XX century. Denmark exported 63% of its agricultural products - butter, pork and eggs. It exported 80% of its oil, which was sent almost exclusively to the UK (with Danish oil accounting for 40% of all oil imports to the UK). Norwegian timber and fish exports and shipping services accounted for 90% of total exports of goods and services - or about 25% of national income - as early as the 1870s, by the early 20th century. these exports accounted for more than 30% of national income, with shipping services alone bringing in 40% of foreign income. The Netherlands' overseas income was also heavily dependent on the export of services. In 1909, 11% of the labor force was employed in trade and 7% in transport. Overall, the service sector provided employment for 38% of the workforce and produced 57% of national income. Although these countries entered the world market in the middle of the 19th century, exporting raw materials and consumer goods of a low degree of industrial processing, by the beginning of the 20th century. they developed high-tech industries. This phenomenon is called "vertical industrialization", in which a country that previously exported raw materials begins to independently process it and export semi-finished and finished products. An example is the Swedish and Norwegian timber trade. At first, the timber was exported in the form of logs, which were sawn into boards in the importing country (Great Britain); in the 1840s Swedish entrepreneurs built water-powered (and later steam-powered) sawmills to turn forest into lumber in Sweden itself. In the 1860s -1870s. the processes of making paper from wood pulp were mastered, first mechanically and then chemically (the latter was a Swedish invention), and the production of wood pulp increased rapidly until the end of the century. More than half of the wood pulp produced was exported, mainly to the UK and Germany, but the Swedes increasingly used it to produce paper (a higher value-added product), which was also exported. Metallurgy developed along a similar pattern. Although Swedish charcoal-fired iron could not compete on price with coke-oven iron or Bessemer steel, its higher quality made it particularly valuable to such

types of products, such as ball bearings, in the production of which it specialized (and continues to specialize)

Scholars in all four countries are debating the timing of the industrial revolution or "industrial takeoff" in their countries. 1850s, 1860s, 1870s - and even earlier and later periods - have their supporters, but above all, these disputes point to the artificiality and inadequacy of both concepts. The facts show that all four countries had quite satisfactory growth rates (despite cyclical fluctuations) from at least the middle of the century until the 1890s. Then, during the two decades leading up to the First World War, these rates accelerated even more, especially in the Scandinavian states, and in terms of per capita income, the countries in question quickly rose to the ranks of European leaders. No doubt the reasons for this acceleration were varied and complex, but three of them are immediately apparent. First of all, this period was a time of general prosperity, rising prices and a booming demand. Secondly, in Scandinavia it was marked by large-scale imports of capital (on the other hand, the Netherlands was a net exporter of capital during this period); more on this in chapter 11. Finally, this period coincided with the rapid expansion of the electrical industry.

The industrial use of electricity was a huge boon to the economies of all four countries. Norway and Sweden, with their vast hydropower potential, were the biggest beneficiaries, but even Denmark and the Netherlands, which could import coal relatively cheaply from the northeast of the UK (and the Netherlands also from the Ruhr along the Rhine), also benefited enormously from the use of steam power generators. Among the coal-poor countries, Holland had the highest per capita consumption for a century, while Denmark, with the second-highest per capita coal consumption, made a notable leap after 1890. All four countries experienced rapid growth in manufacturing industries. electrical equipment and electrical goods (for example, the production of electric lamps in the Netherlands). Swedish and, to a lesser extent, Norwegian and Danish engineers pioneered the electrical industry. (For example, Sweden was the first country to smelt metal on a large scale using electricity without the use of coal; by 1918, it produced 100,000 tons of pig iron, or about 1/8 of its total national output, by this method.) At least it is important that electricity allowed these countries to develop the metalworking industry and the production of machines

and tools (including shipbuilding), having no coal industry or primary metallurgy.

To summarize the above, the experience of the Scandinavian countries, as well as the experience of Switzerland, shows that it was possible to develop complex industries and ensure a high standard of living for the population even in those countries that had neither natural coal reserves nor heavy industry. As a consequence, we can talk about the existence of alternative models of successful industrialization.

Austro-Hungarian Empire

Austria-Hungary, or, in other words, the territory that was under the rule of the Habsburgs until 1918, earned a somewhat unfair reputation as a state for which in the 19th century. was characterized by economic lag. In part, this reputation was the result of the fact that some regions of the empire were definitely were backward, and partly a consequence of the (erroneous) notion that the political collapse - the collapse of the empire after the First World War - was somehow related to the inefficiency of the economy. But the main reason for the incorrect assessment of the true economic situation of the country was the lack of full-fledged studies until recently. Recent studies by authorities in various countries provide an opportunity to get a more credible, more balanced and detailed picture of the progress of industrialization in the Habsburg dominions.

From the outset, there are two important points to note. First, even more than France and Germany, the Habsburg Empire was characterized by regional differentiation and uneven development, with the western provinces (especially Bohemia, Moravia, and Austria proper) being much more economically developed than the eastern provinces. Secondly, in the western provinces, some features of modern economic growth could be observed as early as the second half of the 18th century. Two other factors to be considered later deserve brief mention here: the country's topography, which made domestic and international transportation and communications difficult and expensive, and the scarcity and inconvenience of natural resources, especially coal.

The fact of the beginning of industrialization in the XVIII century. currently established. Both in Austria itself and in the Czech lands, the production of textiles, iron, glass and paper developed. In general, textile production was the largest industry; linen and woolen production prevailed in its structure, but, at least from 1763, cotton began to take shape.

naya industry. At the beginning, the technology was traditional, and although there were a number of "proto-factories" in the wool industry - large workshops that did not use mechanical energy - most of the production was carried out within the distribution system. Mechanization began at the end of the century in the cotton industry and spread to wool production in the first decades of the next century (its spread was slower in the linen industry). By the 1840s the empire occupied the second place in continental Europe in the production of cotton fabrics, second only to France.

It used to be assumed that the revolution of 1848 marked a decisive watershed in the economic and political history of the empire, but this view is no longer dominant. As already noted, before the revolution, modern industries had already developed significantly in the western provinces; then they continued to grow at a small but quite steady pace. In Austria, as elsewhere, business cycles generated short-term fluctuations in growth rates. The experts have applied great effort in order to determine which of the cyclical rises in the XIX century. marked the beginning of the industrial revolution (or "industrial takeoff"), but these attempts seem to have been fruitless.

In view of the gradual but steady nature of Austrian industrialization from the 18th century. before World War I, one researcher characterized it as a case of "lazy" (leisured) economic growth, but, apparently, the word "difficult" (labored) would be more accurate. While the former term evokes the image of a person slowly floating in a boat down the calm course of a river, the latter is suggestive of a person climbing steep mountain along a poorly visible road, replete with obstacles and obstacles - which, of course, is a more descriptive metaphor. Some of the obstacles - inconvenient terrain and lack of natural resources - were created by nature; others, notably growth-impeding social institutions, were the work of man.

Among the latter, the greatest anachronism was the preservation until 1848 of the institution of the peasants' personal dependence. In reality, however, this institution was less of an impediment to economic growth than one might think. Reforms of Joseph II in the 1780s gave the peasants the right to leave the estates of their masters without redemption and sell their crops on the market at their discretion. As long as they remained on their plots, they paid tribute and taxes to their masters, but otherwise the remnants of the feudal system had little effect on the economy. The main consequence of the abolition of personal dependence in 1848 was the granting to peasants of the right to free lease of land and the replacement by state taxes of payments that

which were previously received from the peasants by their masters. Although the agricultural sector may have seen some increase in productivity as a result of this, the improvements undertaken by the landed gentry were already moving in that direction.

The abolition of customs barriers between the Austrian and Hungarian parts of the empire in 1850 (or, in other words, the creation of an all-imperial customs union in that year) was perceived by some as a progressive achievement, and by others as a step towards maintaining the "colonial" status of the eastern part of the empire. Although the customs union may have contributed to the territorial division of labor, the system itself, in which Austria exported manufactured goods to Hungary, and Hungary exported agricultural products to Austria, was already established by 1850. The point of view of the detrimental effect of the customs union on the economy of the eastern part of the empire is currently outdated.

Another institutional obstacle to faster economic growth was the foreign trade policy of the monarchy. Throughout the century it remained consistently protectionist, which made it easier for Prussia to keep the empire out of the German Customs Union. High duties limited not only imports, but also exports, since the high production costs of goods at enterprises that were in hothouse conditions of state protectionism did not allow them to compete in the world market. At the beginning of the XX century. Belgium's foreign trade was superior in absolute terms to that of Austria-Hungary; in terms of foreign trade turnover per capita, it surpassed the empire many times over. It is safe to say that geographic location and terrain were important determinants of the country's limited participation in international trade, and the internal customs union, covering both the industrial and agricultural parts of the empire, partly compensated for the limited access to foreign markets and sources of raw materials. However, trade policy should also be considered as one of the determinants (although not the main one) of the relatively weak involvement of the empire in foreign trade relations.

A key reason for both the slow growth and uneven distribution of modern industry has been linked to levels of education and literacy, the main components of human capital. Although in the middle of the XIX century. the literacy rate in the Austrian part of the monarchy was about the same as in France and Belgium, there were significant regional differences. In 1900, the adult literacy rate ranged from 99% in Vorarlberg to 27% in Dalmatia; literacy rates in the Hungarian part were even lower and also characterized by a significant difference between the western and eastern regions. If we take the empire as a whole, then

there was a high correlation between levels of literacy, industrialization and per capita income.

Despite obstacles, both natural and institutional, for a century Austria experienced industrialization and economic growth, and at the end of the century, similar phenomena were noted in Hungary. Indicators of average annual growth rates of industrial output per capita in Austria in the first half of the 19th century. ranged from 1.7% to 3.6%, and in the second half of the century, these rates slightly increased. In Hungary, after this part of the monarchy received autonomy and its own government in 1867, there was an even higher rate of growth in industrial production. (However, it must be remembered that the initial level of industrial production was quite low, so that high growth rates should not be exaggerated.)

Transport communications played a decisive role in the economic development of the empire. Since most of the country was mountainous (or surrounded by mountains), land transport was expensive, and water transport was non-existent in the mountainous regions. Unlike the countries of early industrialization, Austria-Hungary had few canals. The Danube and other major rivers flowed south and east, away from the main markets and industrial centers. Only in the 1830s, with the beginning of the river shipping era, did it become possible to transport goods upstream.

As noted earlier, the first railways were laid in Austria itself and in the Czech Republic. In the second half of the century, especially after the Constitutional Compromise of 1867, more and more lines were built in Hungary. As a result, the already established division of labor within the empire was strengthened. In the 1860s more than half of the goods transported on the Hungarian railways were grain and flour. However, the supply of bread allowed Hungary to begin industrialization. At the end of the century, Budapest became the largest flour milling center in Europe and the second largest in the world (after Minneapolis). It also produced and even exported flour-grinding equipment, and at the end of the century began to manufacture electrical equipment as well. However, for the most part, the output of Hungarian industry consisted of consumer goods, especially foodstuffs. They included, in addition to bread, refined beet sugar, canned fruit, beer and spirits. It is these goods (unlike the textiles of Austria and the Czech Republic) that have become objects of Hungarian specialization.

Heavy industry also received some development in the empire. Metallurgical enterprises operating on charcoal have existed for centuries in the regions of the Alps. Bohemia also had a long tradition of processing as black

nyh, and non-ferrous metals. With the advent of the age of metallurgy, the charcoal industry gradually declined, but in Bohemia and Austrian Silesia, which were somewhat better supplied with coal than the rest of the empire, the modern metallurgical industry developed already from the 1830s. These industries carried out not only the smelting of primary iron, but also the smelting of steel and the production of metal products, including machines and tools. Some branches of the chemical industry also appeared. On the eve of the First World War, the Czech Republic produced more than half of the industrial output of the empire, including about 85% of hard and brown coal, three-quarters of chemical products and more than half of the output of ferrous metallurgy. Some high-tech industries appeared in Lower Austria, especially in Vienna and its suburbs. In Vienna's Neustadt back in the 1840s. a factory for the production of locomotives was established. ,

Rice. 10.2. Mining and consumption of coal per capita, 1820 - 1913

Source: Mitchell B.R. European Historical Statistics, 1750-1970. New York, 1975.

Some of the problems inherent in Austrian heavy industry are illustrated in fig. 10.2, which shows the dynamics of coal production and consumption per capita in Germany, France, Austria and Russia. From about 1880, production in Austria and France was approximately equal - both

countries were far behind Germany, but far ahead of Russia, however, coal consumption in France was somewhat higher due to its imports. (In fact, Austria was a net exporter of coal during the last decades of the 19th century by exporting it to neighboring Germany.) This figure, however, does not reflect the fact that about two-thirds of Austrian production came from lignite, unusable for use in metallurgy. This figure also does not reveal the location of the deposits; most of them were located in the northern regions of the country (in the Czech Republic), mainly along the northern border with Germany, which led to the fact that coal-rich Germany could import coal from coal-poor Austria along the Elbe. Hungary's coal production (not included in the graph) was less than one-fourth that of Austria, with lignite accounting for an even larger share. However, since the late 1860s a small metallurgical production was created in the country - with the help of state subsidies.

In general, the Habsburg monarchy, which in the first half of the XIX century. in industrial terms, it was on a par with the disunited German states or even ahead of them, began to lag behind Germany in industrial development after its unification in 1871. However, the picture is not as gloomy as it is used to paint. The industry of the western (Austrian) part of the monarchy continued to grow at a steady, if not rapid, pace, while the eastern (Hungarian) part made a rapid breakthrough after about 1867. At the beginning of the 20th century. the western part was approximately at the same level of development as the average for all of Western Europe; the eastern part, although lagging behind the western, was nevertheless far ahead of the rest of Eastern Europe.

Southern and Eastern Europe

The industrialization patterns of the rest of Europe - the Mediterranean states, the countries of Southeast Europe and imperial Russia - can be presented in a more schematic form. A common feature of these countries was the absence of any significant industrialization before 1914, which led to low per capita incomes and widespread poverty. If you look not at national figures, but at individual regions (which we will do a little later), you can find noticeable regional differences, as in the case of France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and even Great Britain. Nevertheless, the "islands of modern economics" remained surrounded by a sea of ​​backwardness.

One of the reasons for this was the second characteristic feature of the economies under consideration: the extremely low level of human capital development. The data in tables 8.3 and 8.4 illustrate this thesis. Among the largest countries by area, Italy, Spain, and Russia had the lowest rates in both adult literacy and primary school education, and the smaller countries of Southeast Europe fared no better. By relative number of students primary schools Romania and Serbia ranked higher than Russia, but lower than Spain and Italy.

The countries under consideration also had a third common feature that is important for understanding the possibilities economic development: the absence of any significant agrarian reforms, resulting in a low level of agricultural productivity. In considering the industrialization patterns of other countries, this and previous chapters have said little about their agricultural sector, since all these countries have already achieved relatively high levels of agricultural productivity. As discussed in Chapter 7, in the case of Great Britain, high agricultural productivity is a necessary precondition for the process of industrialization, providing both food and raw materials for the cities where the industrial part of the population was concentrated and, most importantly, freeing up labor for industrialization. (and other non-agricultural) occupations. In the middle of the XIX century. the share of the labor force employed in agriculture was 20% in Great Britain, 50 - 60% in other countries of early industrialization, 60% in Italy, more than 70% in Spain and more than 80% in Russia and the countries of South-Eastern Europe. By the beginning of the XX century. this share has fallen to 10% in the UK, around 20% in Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands, 30-40% in France and Germany, but still around 50% in Italy, around 60% in the Iberian Peninsula and over 70% in Russia and the Balkans.

Finally, a fourth common characteristic of outsider countries can be mentioned: they all suffered to varying degrees from autocratic, authoritarian, corrupt, and inefficient government. Although industrialized countries have also experienced periods of authoritarian rule from time to time, the relationship of this phenomenon to other common characteristics, especially low levels of human capital, needs further investigation.

These are the general characteristics of the countries under consideration. However, there were also significant differences between them. We will now turn to distinctive features their reaction (positive or no) to the opportunities associated with industrialization and economic development.

The presence of a significant dependence of the socio-economic development of Russian cities on the number of people living in them led to the consideration of the rating results for groups of cities with different populations. For a more balanced interpretation of the results, the SD rating was calculated for four groups of cities identified by population (I - millionaire cities, II - from 500 thousand to 1 million people, III - from 250 thousand to 500 thousand people, IV - from 100 thousand to 250 thousand people), tab. 2. According to the integral index of sustainable development, the leaders of the rating with a significant advantage are cities with a million-plus population, and the smallest value of indicators is occupied by small cities with a population of up to 250 thousand people. The greatest differences between them by groups of indicators are observed in terms of the level of development of the economy (by 27%) and social infrastructure (33%), a significant gap in the level of development of urban infrastructure (23%). Differences between groups of cities in the block of environmental and demographic indicators are not so significant (13% and 14%, respectively).

City groups

Demographics and population

Social infrastructure structure

City infrastructure structure

Eco- mika

Eco- gia

Millionaire cities

500–1000 thousand people

250-500 thousand people

100-250 thousand people

Differences in the results obtained in terms of the level of economic development between groups of cities in the Russian Federation are a direct consequence of the effects of agglomeration and concentration, the pulling of all resources to large cities. The largest cities attract the bulk of investments, effective demand is concentrated in them, industrial production is developed, and the level of wages, there is a good provision of budgets, etc. Medium and small cities, which are less attractive for business and the population, slow down their development relative to large ones. This explains the presence of a pronounced gradient in the level of economic development from the fourth group of cities to the first.

The relatively high level of economic development, the status of a regional center, the concentration of educational and healthcare institutions of regional importance, as well as high budgetary security determine the leadership of million-plus cities in terms of the development of social infrastructure. The lagging position of small towns is due to their lower financial capacity to reform the social infrastructure, as well as, in part, the optimization of networks of medical institutions and the declining level of development of vocational and general education.

The best positions of million-plus cities in the group of indicators characterizing the state of urban infrastructure are due, firstly, to higher rates of construction and renovation of the housing stock, and a greater degree of housing amenities. Secondly, in large cities there are large centralized heating systems, public transport is developed (especially in millionaire cities due to electric transport and the subway), etc.

The migration attractiveness of large cities, the young age structure of their population and, as a result, higher rates of natural growth determine the leading positions of millionaire cities. In a similar situation are large cities - regional centers from the II group. Medium and small towns are less attractive to the population, have a slight migration gain or even outflow of the population, and have a high demographic burden with a population structure shifted towards older ages.

The results of the block of environmental indicators naturally turn out to be better for small cities, devoid of large enterprises with a high level of impact on environment, as well as for the largest cities in the country, which, as a rule, have significantly diversified their industrial structure and abandoned environmentally unsafe and inefficient industries. The relatively low positions of the cities of II and, to a lesser extent, III groups are due to the presence in them of large enterprises of heavy industry and energy, which have low environmental efficiency of production.

The leaders among millionaire cities are the largest Russian megacities (Moscow and St. Petersburg), as well as the cities of the Volga region and the Urals (Table 3). The cities of Siberia and the south of the European part of Russia turned out to be outsiders. The low positions of Voronezh, Volgograd and Krasnoyarsk are mainly due to the low environmental efficiency of production and the relatively poor quality of the urban environment, which is partly explained by the recent expansion of the boundaries of these cities at the expense of adjacent rural areas with a low level of improvement.

Table 3. Cities-leaders and cities-outsiders by population groups

Leaders				Outsiders
City		Place		City		Place
Group I: more than 1 million people
St. Petersburg				Novosibirsk
Yekaterinburg				Krasnoyarsk
				Volgograd
Group II: 500 thousand - 1 million people
Krasnodar				Astrakhan
Orenburg				Novokuznetsk
Naberezhnye Chelny				Makhachkala
Group III: 250-500 thousand people
Nizhnevartovsk				Vladikavkaz
Murmansk				Novorossiysk
Belgorod
Group IV: less than 250 thousand people
				Kiselevsk
New Urengoy
				Chrysostom
Krasnogorsk				Ussuriysk
Podolsk				Prokopyevsk

*Average ISD score for a group of cities, calculated taking into account the size of their population.

In the second group of cities, the leaders are Krasnodar and Tyumen, which are actively growing and attracting a significant flow of interregional migration, as well as regional centers of the European part of Russia, which pay considerable attention to the development of social infrastructure. The outsiders, in turn, are the largest cities in the south of Siberia with significant environmental issues and poor quality of communal infrastructure and Makhachkala, characterized by a low level of economic development, the state of infrastructure and the efficiency of water consumption.

AT III group the leaders are predominantly regional centers located in Central Russia, as well as one of the main centers of the oil industry in Western Siberia, Nizhnevartovsk, and Murmansk, which is distinguished by a generally high quality of housing stock and urban infrastructure. Most of the cities in this group are characterized by the absence of heavy industry and relatively favorable environmental conditions. The lowest IUR value is observed in the cities of Eastern Siberia, where the lack of gasification has a detrimental effect on the environmental situation, as well as in the cities of the south of the European part of the country with a low indicator of water consumption efficiency and backward communal infrastructure.

In group IV, the leadership of the cities of the near Moscow region is noticeable, actively attracting investments and the population due to their successful geographical location, as well as successful oil and gas cities in Western Siberia. Outsiders in this category and rating are the old industrial cities of the Urals and Kuzbass with severe demographic situation, serious economic problems. The worst situation is in single-industry towns, where the main industrial enterprises have experienced problems in recent years.

Figure 1. Top ten cities by FDI with a population of over 100,000 people

Figure 2. The ten worst cities in terms of FDI with a population of over 100,000 people

Identification of the leaders of the rating in the context of federal districts (Table 4) may be of interest to residents of cities planning to change their place of residence. Based on the results of the rating, it is possible to single out the most developed and balanced cities different size(large or medium), suitable for specific life strategies of potential migrants.

federal district	Groups of cities by population
	more 500 thousand people		250–500 thousand people		less 250 thousand people
	City	Rank	City	Rank	City	Rank
Central			Belgorod
	Yaroslavl		Kostroma		Krasnogorsk
Northwestern	St. Petersburg		Murmansk		Velikiy Novgorod
			Kaliningrad		Severodvinsk
Volga			Yoshkar-Ola
					Neftekamsk
	Orenburg				Almetyevsk
Ural	Yekaterinburg		Nizhnevartovsk		New Urengoy
					Nefteyugansk
	Chelyabinsk		Magnitogorsk		Noyabrsk
Siberian and Far East			Komsomolsk-on-Amur		Norilsk
	Kemerovo				Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
	Novosibirsk
Southern and North Caucasian	Krasnodar				Pyatigorsk
	Rostov-on-Don		Stavropol		Cherkessk
	Volgograd		Taganrog		Volgodonsk

On fig. 3 on the map shows all the results of the ranking of cities. In addition to the values ​​for the cities themselves, we can see the balance of the regions in terms of the cities' FDI - more on this will be discussed below.