BRITISH ECONOMIC GROWTH, 1270-1870

Stephen Broadberry, University of Warwick, S.N.Broadberry@warwick.ac.uk
Bruce Campbell, Queen‟s University Belfast, b.m.campbell@qub.ac.uk
Alexander Klein, University of Warwick, A.Klein.1@warwick.ac.uk
Mark Overton, University of Exeter, M.Overton@Exeter.ac.uk
Bas van Leeuwen, University of Warwick, bas.vanleeuwen1@googlemail.com

14 July 2010
File: BritishGDPLongRun8.doc

Abstract: We provide annual estimates of GDP for England between 1270 and 1700 and
for Great Britain between 1700 and 1870, constructed from the output side. The GDP
data are combined with population estimates to calculate GDP per capita. We findEnglish per capita income growth of 0.20 per cent per annum between 1270 and 1700,
although growth was episodic, with the strongest growth during the Black Death crisis of
the fourteenth century and in the second half of the seventeenth century. For the period
1700-1870, we find British per capita income growth of 0.48 per cent, broadly in linewith the widely accepted Crafts/Harley estimates. This modest trend growth in per capita
income since 1270 suggests that, working back from the present, living standards in thelate medieval period were well above “bare bones subsistence”. This can be reconciledwith modest levels of kilocalorie consumption per head because of the very large share of
pastoral production in agriculture.
Acknowledgements: This paper forms part of the project “Reconstructing the National
Income of Britain and Holland, c.1270/1500 to 1850”, funded by the Leverhulme Trust,
Reference Number F/00215AR. It is also part of the Collaborative Project HI-POD
supported by the European Commission's 7th Framework Programme for Research,
Contract Number SSH7-CT-2008-225342. We are grateful to Richard Britnell, Ben
Dodds, John Hatcher, Leigh Shaw-Taylor, Philip Slavin, Richard Smith andseminar/conference participants at Durham, Utrecht, Venice, Warwick and Yale for
helpful comments and suggestions.

I. INTRODUCTION
Two very contrasting view of the development of the British economy between the latemedieval period and the Industrial Revolution co-exist. One view, which has been basedlargely on real wage evidence, paints a bleak picture of long run stagnation from the latethirteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century, albeit with quite large
fluctuations over sustained periods (Phelps Brown and Hopkins, 1981). This view has
recently been supported by Clark (2005), who provides a real wage series which shows
less extreme fluctuations than that of Phelps Brown and Hopkins, but leaves the trend
unchanged. Furthermore, Clark (2007a) adds new time series for land rents and capitalincome to arrive at a picture of long run stagnation in GDP per head. This view sits
uneasily with a second view, based largely on estimates of wealth and the appearance of
new products, which appears to show modest but sustained growth of living standards
between the middle ages and the Industrial Revolution (Overton, Whittle, Dean andHaan, 2004; de Vries, 1994).

These two very different views of the long run development of the British
economy have been able to co-exist because of the absence of reliable and empiricallywell grounded estimates of the output and labour productivity of the British economy
over much of this period. This paper forms part of a project to reconstruct the national
income of Britain and Holland between the late thirteenth century and the late nineteenth
century. Here, we present preliminary annual estimates of British GDP constructed fromthe output side. For the period before 1700, we work only with estimates for England, but

2for the period 1700-1870 our estimates are for the territory of Great Britain, including
Wales and Scotland as well as England.

For agriculture, we build on the path breaking study of Overton and Campbell(1996), which tracked long run trends in agricultural output and labour productivity, but
was restricted to estimates for a small number of benchmark years. To provide annual
estimates, we rely heavily on three data sets assembled for the medieval, early modern
and modern periods. For the medieval period, we analyse the Medieval Accounts
Database assembled by Campbell (2000; 2007), drawing upon the archival labours of anumber of other historians, including David Farmer, John Langdon and Jan Titow. The
information on arable yields and animal stocking densities is taken largely from manorial
accounts, but is supplemented by information on the non-manorial sector from tithes. For
the early modern period, we use the probate inventory database assembled by Overton,
Whittle, Dean and Hann (2004), which provides indirect estimates of arable yields andanimal stocking densities from the valuation of the assets left by farmers. From the earlyeighteenth century on, we make use of the database on farm accounts assembled byTurner, Beckett and Afton (2001).

For industry and services, for the period after 1700 we build on the pioneering
approach of Deane and Cole (1967), as modified by Crafts and Harley (1992). Gross
output indicators for the major sectors have been assembled and weighted using value
added shares. For the period before 1700, a similar procedure has been used, drawing on
as many sources as possible for the output indicators and assembling new sectoral3

weights at the key benchmark years of 1377 and 1522, as well as the more familiar 1688
benchmark based ultimately on the work of Gregory King [1696].

For the period between 1270 and 1700, we find English per capita income growthof 0.20 per cent per annum on average. This cumulates to more than a doubling of percapita incomes, although growth was episodic rather than continuous, with the strongest
growth occurring during the Black Death crisis of the fourteenth century and in thesecond half of the seventeenth century. For the period 1700-1870, we find British per
capita income growth of 0.48 per cent per annum, broadly in line with the widely
accepted Crafts/Harley estimates. This cumulates to a further doubling of per capita
incomes, and again growth was episodic, with periods of faster growth occurring 17801801 and 1830-1870. This modest trend growth in per capita income since 1270 suggests
that, working back from the present, living standards in the late medieval period were
well above what Allen (2009: 36-41) calls “bare bones subsistence”. This can bereconciled with modest levels of kilocalorie consumption per head because of the verylarge share of pastoral production in agriculture. This meant that a large share of the
English population were already in a position during the late Middle Ages to afford what
Allen calls the “respectable lifestyle”, with a more varied diet including meat, dairy
produce and ale, as well as the less highly processed grain products that comprised thebulk of the bare bones subsistence diet.

Our estimates of GDP are built up primarily from the output side. However, thenational accounting perspective suggests a number of tests which can be conducted to4

demonstrate consistency, drawing on estimates from the income and expenditure sides. In
particular, we check consistency with the real wage estimates which have been usedfrequently by economic historians to draw conclusions about long run living standards(Clark, 2005; Allen, 2001). Second, we also consider per capita consumption of
kilocalories, to check the sustainability of the population (Overton and Campbell, 1996).

The paper proceeds as follows. Sections II to IV describe the procedures for
estimating output in agriculture, industry and services, respectively. Section V thenaggregates the sectoral outputs into real GDP for England during the period 1270-1700
and Great Britain during 1700-1870, and combines these series with data on population toderive estimates of GDP per capita. In section VI, we compare the long run evolution of
per capita GDP derived from the output side with real wages and examine the per capita
consumption of kilocalories in the light of Allen‟s (2009) distinction between bare bones
subsistence and respectable lifestyle baskets. Section VII places British economic growth
in a wider international perspective, while section VIII concludes.

II. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
1. Arable farming in England, 1270-1870
The starting point for any estimate of the output of the arable sector is the total area undercrop, which is set out in Table 1. For most benchmark years, the data differ slightly from
Overton and Campbell (1996), as a result of the incorporation of subsequent scholarship.
Firm estimates of land use only became available in the agricultural returns of 1871,
which therefore provides the starting point for the series. For 1830, the figures come from5the tithe files and for 1800, 1750 and 1700 from estimates by contemporaries(Holderness, 1989). Here, we have accepted the higher figures suggested by Prince‟s(1989: 41) interpretation of the 1801 Crop Returns, while the estimates for 1600 havebeen inferred by extrapolating backwards from these later figures. For the medieval
period, the starting point is the estimate for 1300. Around this time, the population
attained its medieval peak, so that the arable acreage would also have been at its peak.
Contrary to the claims of Clark (2007b: 124), it is unlikely that the arable acreage in 1300
could have been much above the level of 1800. Estimates for other years between 1270
and 1500 are obtained by extrapolation from 1300 on the basis of trends in the cropped
acreage on demesnes and tithe data in the non-demesne sector (Campbell et al., 1996;
Dodds, 2004; Medieval Accounts Database).

Having obtained estimates of the overall arable acreage in use, the next step is toallocate it between fallow and the major crops sown. This information is taken from theMedieval Accounts Database for the period before 1500, the Early Modern Probate
Inventories Database for the period 1500-1750 and from Holderness (1989) and Overton(1996) for the period 1750-1850. For the medieval period, it should be noted that weassume the distribution of crops in the demesne sector to be representative of the country
as a whole. This is broadly consistent with the much smaller amount of evidence on the
non-demesne sector (Sapoznik, 2008; Dodds, 2007). For the period between 1492 and1553, there is a gap in information as the manorial records come to an end before theprobate inventories become available.

6

The amount of fallow declined from between a third and a half in the medieval
period to less than a quarter in the early modern period and to just 3.5 per cent by 1871.
Information on the crop distribution is taken from data that are intrinsically local and of
uneven geographical coverage, so that a system of regional weightings is essential toensure a reliable national total. Each region‟s share of the national sown acreage is takenfrom the 1801 crop returns, but within each region, the breakdown of crops varies overtime in line with the information in the databases. Amongst the principal winter-sown
crops, wheat remained important throughout the period, but rye and maslin (a mixture ofwheat and rye) declined sharply during the modern period. Amongst the spring-sown
crops, barley and dredge (a mixture of barley and oats) remained important throughout
the period, but oats declined in relative importance. The biggest increase in the use ofarable land was in potatoes and other crops, particularly clover and root crops after 1700
(Overton, 1996: 99-101, 110).

To calculate output from the estimated areas sown with each crop requires
information on grain yields per acre, net of seed sown. Weighted national average yields
per acre, gross of tithe and seed can be obtained from the manorial accounts for the
medieval period, the probate inventories for the early modern period and the farmaccounts for the modern period. Each dataset has been divided into seven regionalgroupings and separate chronologies have been constructed for each region before beingcombined into a single weighted master chronology for the country as a whole. Due tothe discontinuous nature of much of the data, the chronologies are derived using
regression analysis with dummy variables for each farm and for each year, as suggested

7

by Clark (2004). Since our evidence is drawn from the seigniorial sector, we need toconsider what was happening in the non-demesne sector. Although Postan (1966) clearly
believed that yields were higher on the demesnes as a result of access to better land andmore capital, Stone (2006: 21) has recently argued that yields were around 11 per centhigher in the non-demesne sector, where incentives were stronger for peasants. Since thedirection of the adjustment is unclear, and would anyway be quite small, we haveassumed that yields on the demesne sector were representative of English agriculture as awhole.

Wheat yields gross of seed as well as tithe are shown in Figure 1 for wheat, forillustrative purposes. From these gross yields it is necessary to subtract grain used as seed
to derive the net yields shown in Table 2 for all the major crops. There are somedifferences between crops, but the different datasets appear to tell a consistent story, withyields declining during the late medieval period from around 1300, picking up again
during the early modern period from the mid-sixteenth century, and growing more
rapidly during the modern period from the early eighteenth century. The data exhibit ahigh degree of short run volatility, which has been smoothed out in Figure 1 with a 10year moving average.

In addition to making allowance for grain used as seed, calculation of the net
output of the arable sector must take account of consumption of oats and pulses byanimals working on the farm. For the medieval and early modern periods, estimates of
the numbers of working animals per 100 sown acres can be obtained from the medieval

8accounts and probate inventory databases. For the early modern period, these stocking
densities are assumed to apply to the whole agricultural sector and hence are simply
multiplied with the sown acreage to produce estimates of the numbers of working
animals. However, for the medieval period, the demesne stocking densities have been
converted into the numbers of horses and oxen on all lands using Wrigley‟s (2006: 449)
assumption that the stocking density of animals on non-seigniorial holdings was threequarters that on the demesnes. In making these estimates, allowance has been made forboth the declining share of demesne acreage and the lesser quantities of fodder consumed
by immature animals. As with the crop yields, a regional weighting scheme is needed toderive the stocking densities for the country as a whole from the observations on
individual demesnes and farms. For the modern period, direct estimates of animal
numbers are taken from Mitchell (1988), Turner (1998) and Allen (2005), since data on
stocking densities are unavailable.

Figure 2 sets out the numbers of mature working animals in England. There was a
gradual process of substitution of horses for oxen as working animals, beginning in the
medieval period. By the nineteenth century, the use of oxen had more or less died out.
Using assumptions about consumption of oats and pulses by mature and immature
animals, it is possible to derive estimates of farm animal consumption, which are thensubtracted from gross output to derive arable output net of seed and animal consumption
in Table 3.

9During the medieval period, output of wheat and rye, the principal bread grains,declined substantially from the late thirteenth century peak, with a sharp fall in line withpopulation following the Black Death of the mid-fourteenth century. The output decline
was even sharper for oats, which fell out of favour as a crop for human consumption. In
place of malted oats, malted dredge (a barley/oats mixture) and malted barley became thepreferred brewing grains, and demand for barley remained relatively buoyant. Output ofpulses also declined relatively slowly during the medieval period.

By the end of the sixteenth century, output of the major grains was back to thepeak pre-Black Death level. Output of wheat continued to increase after 1600, while rye
declined. This reflected the growing preference for the more expensive bread grain. The
output of barley increased markedly in line with the demand for better quality ale brewed
from the best barley malt. Output of pulses also grew rapidly during the early modern
period, while potatoes became an important crop during the eighteenth century. Output ofoats, net of consumption by farm horses, fluctuated more erratically.

2. Pastoral farming in England, 1270-1870
The starting point for deriving the numbers of non-working animals is again the stocking
densities. As with the working animals, particular care must be taken for the medieval
period in moving from the stocking densities on the demesnes to the numbers of animals
in the country as a whole. Conversion of the seigniorial stocking densities into
corresponding national densities and numbers of animals is based on four key
assumptions. First, following Allen (2005), it has been assumed that due to their high unit

10

capital value, the density of cattle was one-third lower on the non-demesne lands.
However, we have also made an allowance for the negative relationship between farm
size and stocking density, drawn from the post-1550 data. Second, again following Allen(2005), mature cattle have been divided into milk and beef animals in the ratio 53 to 47
percent. Third, swine, a popular animal with peasants, are assumed to have been stocked
by non-seigniorial producers at the same density as on the demesnes.1 Fourth, aggregate
sheep numbers are assumed to have been stationary in the long term, in contrast to theirdynamic growth in the seigniorial sector. This is consistent with trends in exports,
inferred levels of domestic demand, and the decline in average fleece weights noted by
Stephenson (1988: 380).

Stocking densities can also be obtained for the early modern period from probate
inventories, but are unavailable for the modern period. For 1750 onwards, animal
numbers are taken directly from contemporary estimates from John (1989), Mitchell(1988) and Turner (1998), and interpolated using data on annual sales at Smithfield andthe Metropolitan Cattle Market from Mitchell (1988: 708) and Perren (1975: 388). Nonworking animal numbers for the whole period 1270-1870 are shown in Figure 3, taking
10-year moving averages to smooth out short run volatility.

1

Note that if we were to adopt Wrigley‟s (2006) assumption that swine were stocked at twice the manorial

density by peasants, this would produce an implausibly large jump in swine numbers between the latemedieval and early modern periods.

11Calculating the output of the pastoral sector is more speculative than theequivalent calculation for the arable sector, since the percentages of animals producing
specific products and the yields per animal have attracted less attention from historians
than crop yields. Until more systematic work is done on the sources, the estimatesadvanced here are necessarily provisional.

Table 4 sets out the numbers of non-working animals, with cattle divided between
milk and beef herds and calves. The proportions of animals assumed to have been
producing milk, meat and wool are set out in Table 5. A high proportion of cows are
assumed to have produced milk and a high proportion of sheep to have yielded wool.
Meat, however, was produced only by those animals that were slaughtered. Following
Holderness (1989: 147), it is assumed that approximately a quarter of the stock of cattle
and sheep and around half of all pigs were slaughtered in the early modern period. These
ratios are also applied to the late medieval period for sheep and pigs, in line withslaughter rates documented by Campbell (1995: 164-167). For cattle, however, slaughter
rates were lower in the medieval period because there were few herds kept specificallyfor beef. By 1850, however, cattle herds were increasingly being kept for the productionof beef, so that slaughter rates increased. Similarly, for sheep there was a shift from wool
to mutton production in the modern period, simultaneously raising the percentage ofanimals producing mutton and reducing the percentage producing wool. For pigs, highslaughter rates of 100 per cent were possible because of the large number of piglets
produced during the year. These basic assumptions have been qualified with additional
information from Clark (1991) and Ecclestone (1996).

12

The next step in the calculations involves the estimation of yields of milk, meat
and wool per animal. Table 6 sets out our preferred estimates, drawn from a number ofsources, including Clark (1991), Allen (2005), Stephenson (1988) and Britnell (2004).
Data between benchmark years were interpolated using information on the relative pricesof pastoral products and the animals from which they were derived. Finally, Table 7
combines the information on numbers of animals, percentages of each animal producing
and yields per animal to provide estimates of output in the pastoral farming sector.

Further assumptions are needed to derive output estimates for hay, hides andskins, and dairy products. Hay output is derived from the numbers of non-farm horses, on
the assumption that each horse consumed 2.4 tons of hay per year (Allen, 2005). Output
of hides and skins is derived from the numbers of working and non-working animals
using assumptions on the percentages of each animal producing and yields per animal
from Clark (1991), Clarkson (1989) and Ecclestone (1996). In the dairy sector, output issplit between cheese, butter and fresh milk using data from Biddick (1989) and
Holderness (1989).

3. Total agricultural output in England, 1270-1870
Multiplying the output volumes by their prices yields the total value of net output. The
price data are taken largely from Clark (2004), who synthesises the published data of
Beveridge (1939), Thorold Rogers (1866-1902: volumes 1-30) and the multi-volume
Agrarian History of England and Wales, as well as integrating new archival material,

13

principally from the unpublished papers of William Beveridge and David Farmer. To
this, have been added the prices of hides from Thorold Rogers (1866-1902) and of rye
from Farmer (1988; 1991), as well as direct estimates from the Early Modern Probate
Inventories Database. Output can be valued in both current prices and in constant 1700
prices.

Figure 4 plots arable, pastoral and total agricultural output in constant prices on alogarithmic scale, while Table 8 summarises the same information in growth rate form,
using 10-year averages to capture long run trends. It should be noted that the gap between
1492 and 1553 in the series for arable and pastoral production has been filled at the levelof total agricultural output using the demand function approach of Crafts (1985) andAllen (2000). Agricultural consumption per head is assumed to be a function of its own
price (PA), the general price level (PY) and income (Y). Income and price elasticities are
estimated from the data for output (adjusted for net imports), prices and real wages overthe period 1301-1492 and 1553-1700, and used to predict the missing values of output
between 1492 and 1553, based upon the known values of prices and real wages for thisperiod. The results are discussed in detail in Broadberry and van Leeuwen (2010a).

During the medieval period, arable output exhibited a clear downward trend,
while pastoral output showed greater stability. Agriculture as a whole thus showed amodest decline in output. From the mid-sixteenth century, arable and pastoral output bothgrew, with the pastoral sector at first lagging behind the arable sector, but outpacing itfrom the mid-seventeenth century.

14

The pastoral sector was thus increasing its share of real agricultural output during
the medieval period and from the mid-seventeenth century. However, in current priceterms the picture is complicated by changes in relative prices. In particular, although theprice of pastoral products relative to arable products was fairly stable during the medieval
period, it then trended downwards, particularly during the “Great Inflation” of thesixteenth century. This amplified the effects of the slower real growth of the pastoral
sector between the 1450s and the 1650s, and then dampened the effects of the fasterpastoral growth after 1650. Thus the current price data in Table 9 show the pastoral sector
increasing its share of output during the medieval period and again from the midseventeenth century. Between the mid-fifteenth century and the mid-seventeenth century,by contrast, the share of the pastoral sector in current price agricultural output declined.

However, what is perhaps most striking about Table 9 is the already very highshare of the pastoral sector in medieval England. This meant that although the English
people did not have a particularly generous diet if viewed in terms of kilocalories, it wasa varied diet, with meat, dairy produce and ale to supplement the less highly processedgrain products that made up the bulk of the diet.

III. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
1. Industrial output in England, 1270-1700
For the period 1270-1700, it is possible to obtain volume measures of some of the key
industries, which can be broken down into three major sectors: metals and mining;15

textiles and leather; and other industries. The metals and mining sector is based on
physical output volumes for a number of important industries. Tin output is available on
an annual basis for the whole period from 1301 with relatively few gaps, from Hatcher(1973: 156-159) and Mitchell (1988: 303-304). King (2005) provides data on bar ironproduction for the period 1490-1700. The output of coal in the 1560s and circa 1700 is
taken from Hatcher (1993: 68), interpolated using shipments of coal from north-eastern
ports, also taken from Hatcher (1993: 487-495), updating the earlier work of Nef (1932:
380-381).

The textiles and leather sector is based on volume indicators of the key raw
material inputs of wool and animal hides. Exports of wool and woollen cloth are given by
Carus-Wilson and Coleman (1963) for the period 1280-1554. However, the export ofwool is negatively related to the export of cloth, so we use the production of wool fromagriculture minus wool exports as an indicator of the woollen textile industry. The output
of hides from pastoral agriculture is used to track the output of the leather industry.

Food processing, building and book production are grouped together as therelatively heterogeneous group of other industries. Food processing is assumed to grow inline with agricultural output. Building is assumed to grow in line with population, butwith an allowance for urbanisation. For the medieval period, however, allowance has
been made for church building, using data on the number of cathedral and abbey building
projects derived from Morris (1979: 179). Book production is measured by the index of16

new English language book titles obtained from the English Short Title Catalogue(http://estc.bl.uk/F/?func=file&file_name=login-bl-list).

We provide an index of industrial production using the weighting scheme shownin Table 10. The weights for circa 1700 are derived from Hoffmann (1955), but with anumber of modifications, including an allowance for the production of books as well as
the reworking of the weighting scheme by Crafts et al. (1989). Figure 5 plots the index ofindustrial production on a logarithmic scale, using a 10-year moving average to remove
excessive short run volatility. Table 11 summarises the same information in growth rate
form over fifty year periods, using 10-year averages to capture long run trends. Following
a period of stagnation in industrial output as population declined after the Black Death,
there was a return to industrial growth after 1500, which can be discerned clearly in
Figure 5.

2. Industrial output in Great Britain, 1700-1870
Industry is the one sector for which data have previously been analysed at annual
frequency during the period 1700-1870, building on the pioneering work of Hoffmann(1955). However, as Crafts (1985) and Harley (1982) pointed out independently,
Hoffmann (1955) inadvertently overstated the growth rate of industrial output during theIndustrial Revolution as a result of his weighting procedures. The problem is that a few
industrial branches, most notably cotton and iron, grew much more rapidly than the restof industry, and these branches are included in Hoffmann‟s data set. However, theavailable time series cover only 56 per cent of industrial output, and the weights of these17industries are increased proportionally to achieve 100 per cent coverage of industrial
output. But this means that the unrepresentative, rapidly growing branches of cotton andiron effectively have their weights doubled. Harley (1982) and Crafts et al. (1989)
propose that only the weights of industries other than cotton and iron should be increased
to arrive at 100 per cent coverage.

In addition to changing the weighting scheme, Harley (1982) and Crafts et al.
(1989) also replaced some of the older series used by Hoffmann (1955), drawing on thelatest scholarship. We use these series, together with some later additions, the mostimportant of which are the new series of bar iron output from King (2005), Feinstein‟s(1988: 446) series of investment in total buildings and works for output of the building
industry, and an index of new English language book titles derived from the English
Short Title Catalogue and the British Library for the output of the printing industry.

Figure 6 presents our series for industrial output, together with the “revised best
guess” series of Crafts and Harley (1992) and Hoffmann‟s (1955) original index forcontrast. The biggest difference is between the Hoffmann index and the other two
indices, as a result of the excessive weight given to cotton textiles and iron in the former.
Our series shows slightly slower growth than the Crafts-Harley index during the earlyeighteenth century, largely as a result of the inclusion of new series, particularly King‟s(2005) data for the iron industry. From the mid-eighteenth century onwards, differences
between the two series are relatively minor, and essentially confirm the picture originallypresented in Crafts et al. (1989). Output growth accelerated from around 1740 to 184018

before tapering off. Again, there is quite a substantial cyclical dimension to industrial
output. Table 12 presents the annual growth rates of industrial output over theconventional sub-periods calculated using both the raw annual data and 10-year averages,
together with the Crafts-Harley estimates for comparison.

IV. SERVICES
1. Services in England, 1270-1700
The service sector has received much less attention from economic historians thanagriculture and industry. Here, we build on the approach used by Deane and Cole (1967)
to estimate service sector output in eighteenth century Britain. For England 1270-1700,
we break down services into government, commerce, and housing and domestic service.
For government, we use a 10-year moving average of real government revenue fromO‟Brien and Hunt (1999), which is available for the whole period from the EuropeanState Finance Database at http://www.le.ac.uk/hi/bon/ESFDB/frameset.html. Forcommerce, we combine indicators of international trade and transport, domestic trade andtransport and finance, while housing and domestic service are assumed to grow in linewith population. International trade and transport is measured by data on wool exports,
the distances shipped and the growth of the English shipping tonnage, from Carus-Wilson
and Coleman (1963), Fisher (1940; 1950) and Davis (1954; 1962), with log-linear
interpolation for missing years. Domestic trade and transport is measured by an index ofmarketed agricultural and industrial output. Changes in the share of output marketed are
captured by the cumulative number of new markets established in the period 1300-1490
and the urban share of the population from 1490 to 1700. The data on the growth of the19market are taken from Letters (2005). Financial intermediation is measured by the inverseof the velocity of circulation, derived from Mayhew (2009), building on Cameron‟s(1967) finding of a declining velocity over the long run. The inverse of velocity isinteracted with population as a scaling factor to derive an index of financial sector
activity.

The weights for the main service sectors are shown in Table 13, and are derived
from the circa 1700 shares in Crafts (1985: 16). The resulting series for total service
sector output is plotted in Figure 7, and the growth rates for the whole period and subperiods are presented in Table 14. Total service sector output trended downwards during
the medieval period, before picking up strongly after 1500.

2. Services in Great Britain, 1700-1870
For Great Britain, 1700-1870, we again follow the approach of Deane and Cole (1967),
who provided estimates for benchmark years. Here, however, we provide data at anannual frequency. Also, we take account of the downwards revision by Crafts (1985) of
Deane and Cole‟s estimates of service sector growth, particularly for the early nineteenth
century. For the eighteenth century Deane and Cole (1967: 76-78) assumed that“commerce” grew at the same rate as industry, that “rent and miscellaneous services”
increased in line with population, and that “government and defence” could be measured
by real public expenditure. Crafts (1985: 35-37) made only minor changes here. For thenineteenth century, however, Deane and Cole (1967: 166) derived estimates of income in“trade and transport”, “domestic and personal”, “housing”, “government, professional

20

and other services” and deflated them by the Rousseaux price index. Crafts (1985: 31)
showed that this produces an implausibly high rate of growth for commerce, and assumed
instead that commerce grew in line with national income, thus introducing an element of
iteration into the estimates. Crafts (1985: 35-37) used employment growth for domestic
and personal services and new estimates of the housing stock for housing. He also revised
the growth rate of government using new data on employment growth.

Our estimates are broadly consistent with those of Crafts (1985), but make a few
changes to reflect the need for annual data. The most important difference is incommerce, where we measure the growth of output using volume series coveringtransport, finance and other commerce. This produces results which are not far out of linewith the Deane and Cole (1967) assumption for the eighteenth century, that commerce
grew in line with industry. This also avoids the iterative element in the Crafts (1985)
assumption that commerce grew in line with national income during 1801-30, andensures consistency of treatment throughout the whole period.

For government, we use civil government and defence expenditure throughout thewhole period, deflated using the Schumpeter-Gilboy and Rousseaux price indices from
Mitchell (1988: 719-723). For housing, we use the stock estimates of Feinstein (1988:389), using a regression relationship between housing stock and population to fill in gaps.
Output of domestic and personal services is assumed to rise in line with the urban
population, as during the pre-1700 period. This inevitably produces a relatively stable

21

path for output in domestic and personal services, which is consistent with mostassessments of this sector.

Our annual index of service sector output is plotted in Figure 8. The trend patternis of an increase in the growth rate from around 1780. Table 15 presents the annual
growth rates of services output over the conventional sub-periods calculated using both
the raw annual data and 10-year averages, together with the Crafts-Harley estimates forcomparison. Our estimates are clearly very similar to those of Crafts and Harley (1992).

V. REAL GDP, POPULATION AND GDP PER CAPITA
1. Real GDP and GDP per capita in England, 1270-1700
The next step is to construct an index of real GDP for England over the period 1270-1700
from the above output series for agriculture, industry and services, using an appropriate
set of weights. Table 16 sets out the weighting scheme, derived from reconstruction of
nominal GDP by sector. Real output trends from the sectoral series described earlier inthe paper are transformed into current price trends using sectoral price deflators, withabsolute levels of GDP in current prices established using an input-output table for 1841.
For the period 1270-1450, we use 1381 weights, a year for which it is also possible toestablish sectoral labour force shares from the Poll Tax Returns. For the period 14501550, we use 1522 weights, matching labour force shares derived from the Muster Rolls.
For 1550-1650, we use 1600 weights. Finally, for 1650-1700, we use circa 1700 weights,
matching the labour force estimates derived from the original study by Gregory King
[1696]. The resulting series, plotted in Figure 9, can be used to calculate growth rates

22

over 50-year periods, presented in Table 17. English GDP trended down after the Black
Death, before returning to positive growth from the late fifteenth century. Over the whole
period 1270-1700, the English economy averaged a growth rate of 0.24 per cent per
annum.

Ultimately, we are interested in what happened to GDP per capita, the mostwidely accepted indicator of material living standards over the long run. Although the
population of England has been firmly reconstructed by Wrigley and Schofield (1989)
and Wrigley et al. (1997) for the period since the compulsory registration of births,
marriages and deaths, estimates before 1541 are more speculative. For the period after
1541, the data in Table 18 are based on the estimates of Wrigley et al. (1997),
interpolated using Wrigley and Schofield (1989). For earlier years, our estimates are
based on data for individual parishes, extending forwards in time the approach of Hallam(1988). It should be noted that our peak medieval population estimate of 4.81 million in
1348 is a little higher than the range of 4.0 to 4.5 million suggested by Overton andCampbell (1996), but still well below the figure of at least 6 million suggested by Postan(1966) and Smith (1991). As Overton and Campbell (1996) point out, such a highpopulation estimate has implications for other variables such as land use, crop
combinations, yields and kilocalorie extraction rates and the share of the population
living in towns, which would be hard to square with other evidence. We shall return tothis issue in the section on consumption. Note the impact of the Black Death, which
struck in 1348-49, leading to an immediate sharp collapse in the population, followed bya further decline which continued until the mid-fifteenth century.

23

Combining the population data with the real GDP series produces our estimates of
GDP per capita growth in Table 19. The trend is of modest positive per capita income
growth between 1270 and1700, at an average annual rate of 0.20 per cent. However, thepath of growth was episodic. We find that GDP per capita grew substantially during theBlack Death crisis of the fourteenth century, and then remained on a plateau between
circa 1450 and 1650 before resuming growth during the second half of the seventeenth
century. These trends can also be seen in Figure 10, which plots GDP per capita on alogarithmic scale. Note that although there were some isolated bad years between 1550
and 1650, the trend level of per capita income remained above the level of the pre-Black
Death period.

Per capita income growth before the Industrial Revolution thus appears to be
confined largely to periods of falling population. This may at first sight appear to confirm
the Malthusian interpretation of writers such as Postan (1972) and Clark (2007a). The
Malthusian model depends on two key assumptions. First, population responds positively
to real incomes, so that if real income falls, fertility declines (the preventive check) andmortality increases (the positive check). Second, there is a negative relationship between
the population level and real income, because of diminishing returns to labour, holding
land fixed. However, it is helpful to follow Mokyr and Voth (2010) in distinguishing
between the strong and weak versions of the Malthusian model. In the strong version, theiron law of wages holds, so that if there is a positive shock to real incomes, they arequickly forced back down to “bare bones” subsistence. In the weaker version, the positive24

and preventive checks operate, but not sufficiently strongly to bring the economy back tobare bones subsistence. In the weaker version of the Malthusian model, a society may
have a per capita income level sufficient for the majority of the population to afford therespectability basket, as a result, for example, of restrictions on fertility through latemarriage.

The evidence for pre-industrial England presented above is clearly not consistent
with the strong version of the Malthusian model offered by Postan (1972). First, although
population was above the medieval peak by 1700, per capita incomes were around twice
as high. The economy was able to support a larger population with a smaller proportion
working in agriculture, freeing up others to produce the industrial goods and services
demanded in a more urbanised society. Second, although it is not known when it firstbecame the norm, late marriage is known to have been prevalent in early modern England(Wrigley and Schofield, 1989; Wrigley et al., 1997). Third, fertility limitation and thehigh share of the pastoral sector meant that living standards for the majority were“respectable” in 1300, and remained so throughout the period. Nevertheless, it must beemphasised that there was a sizeable minority of people at the bottom of the income
distribution who were living at bare bones subsistence. Allen (2009: 50) suggests that thisgroup represented 18.3 per cent of the population in 1688, while the social tables
constructed by Campbell (2008: 940) for 1290 suggest that this proportion may havebeen as high as 26 per cent in the medieval period.

25

The above interpretation is consistent with the weak Malthusian model. However,there is an important way in which pre-industrial England does not fit the Malthusianinterpretation, either strong or weak. This is the important role of the growth of London.
Whereas Malthus clearly thought in terms of a negative relationship between population
density and real income levels through diminishing returns, there is much evidence tosuggest that the growth of London acted as a stimulus to productivity and real income
levels (Wrigley, 1985; Allen, 2009). This is more in line with the positive relationshipbetween population density and real income levels hypothesised by Boserup (1965;1981), through effects on intensity of land use in surrounding rural areas and investment
in density-dependent infrastructure in the metropolitan centre, thus creating increasing
rather than diminishing returns. Furthermore, Campbell et al. (1993) demonstrate thepositive influence of the large London market on the organisation of agricultural
production in the surrounding counties already during the medieval period, thus casting
doubt on a fundamental assumption of the Malthusian model long before the Industrial
Revolution.

2. Real GDP and GDP per capita in Great Britain, 1700-1870
For the period 1700-1870, our estimates of real GDP are for the territory of Great Britain.
We have assumed that British agriculture can be represented by developments in
England, so that the addition of Wales and Scotland merely raises the level of production,leaving the trend and annual fluctuations unchanged. The time series for industry andservices refer to the territory of Great Britain. As for the pre-1700 period, sectoral value
added weights in Table 20 are derived from the current price GDP estimates obtained by26

reflating the real output series, with the absolute levels established using an input-output
table for 1841, derived from Horrell et al. (1994), but adjusted from a United Kingdom toa Great Britain basis. 1700 weights are used for the period 1700-1740, 1759 weights for
1740-1780, 1801 weights for 1780-1820 and 1841 weights for 1820-1870. Details of thederivation of sectoral weights are provided in Broadberry and van Leeuwen (2010b).

Putting the three main sectors together using the weights from Table 20, we arriveat the annual index of British real GDP shown in Figure 11. Our series shows much thesame pattern of trend growth acceleration as the Crafts-Harley data. This can be seenclearly in Table 21, which presents the annual growth rates of aggregate output over theconventional sub-periods calculated using both the raw annual data and 10-year averages,
together with the Crafts-Harley estimates for comparison. Figure 11 shows clearly thatthe fastest growth was in industry and the slowest growth in agriculture, with services
exhibiting an intermediate growth rate.

To see what happened to per capita incomes, it is necessary to provide estimatesof the total population of Great Britain. From 1801 onwards, annual data on the
population of England, Wales and Scotland are available from Mitchell (1988: 9). For theperiod before 1801, the population of England has been reconstructed firmly by Wrigley
and Schofield (1989) and Wrigley et al. (1997). Since less information is available forWales and Scotland, we assume that the ratio of the population of Wales to Englandremained the same for the period 1700-1801. For Scotland, we have population estimates

27

for 1700 and 1750 (Schofield, 1994: 93). Other years are interpolated using the
population of England.

Combining the GDP series with the population data produces our estimates of percapita income in Figure 12. Table 22 presents the same material in growth rate form. The
main findings are that per capita income growth accelerated considerably between 1780
and 1801, and then slowed down between 1801 and 1830, before accelerating again after
1830. For the period 1700-1870 as a whole, per capita income grew at an annual rate of
0.48 per cent using the 10-year average data.

VI. CROSS-CHECKING THE OUTPUT ESTIMATES
1. Consumption and output
One way of assessing the credibility of the output estimates is to see what they imply
about the level and sufficiency of consumption per head. Table 23 assesses the supply of
kilocalories available per head of the population. Livi-Bacci (1991) believes that for a
population to have been adequately fed required an average food intake of 2,000
kilocalories per capita per day, although for a largely agrarian economy such as medieval
England, it is reasonable to assume that some of the kilocalories requirements could havebeen met from home-raised vegetables and poultry, together with wild nuts, berries, fishand game. We should thus be looking for the main arable crops and pastoral products of
the agricultural sector to produce around 1,500 kilocalories per person per day to meetthe subsistence needs of the population.

28

The estimates suggest that agricultural output was more than sufficient to meetsociety‟s needs after the Black Death, but was significantly less so in 1310/19, the decadeof the Great Famine. The picture of English society in the half century before the Black
Death that emerges from this table is thus one of an economy under pressure. Note alsothat it is hard to see how a population much above the 4.72 million average over the
decade 1300/09 could have been sustained, given the grain yields and the levels of land
use underpinning the output estimates. Even allowing for a 10 per cent higher arable
production in the non-demesne-sector, as suggested by Stone (2006), would not change
the picture dramatically, as can be seen in the final column.

One issue which is apparent from Table 23 and from the very high share of thepastoral sector highlighted in Table 9 is that a lot of land was devoted to producing
relatively expensive kilocalories. Thus the medieval English population does not seemparticularly well off if living standards are assessed in terms of kilocalories. However, thediet was highly varied, with a large proportion of the population able to consume meat,
dairy produce and ale. This is in striking contrast to a strongly Malthusian economy, withreal wages driven down to bare bones subsistence, where the bulk of the population
would be deriving the majority of their kilocalories from inferior grains with little
processing, such as oatmeal (Allen, 2009: 35-37).

2. Income and output based measures
An alternative way to assess the credibility of our output estimates is to compare themwith the long-established estimates of real wages. Phelps Brown and Hopkins (1981)29

produced long time series of daily real wages for skilled and unskilled building workers,
which apparently painted a picture of Malthusian fluctuations but long run stationarity ofmaterial living standards over the period 1270-1870. Subsequent refinements by Allen(2001) present a more subtle picture, with the real wage gains following the Black Deathbeing maintained in Britain and Holland, but eaten away by subsequent population
growth in the rest of Europe. Clark (2005) continues to show a substantial decline in
British real wages from their medieval peak before recovery from the mid-seventeenth
century. Figure 13 charts our per capita GDP estimates together with the Allen and Clark
real wage series for unskilled building workers. Real GDP per capita moves more closely
in line with the Allen real wage series until the mid-eighteenth century, but after 1750
trends in GDP per capita have more in common with the Clark real wage series.

How should we interpret the approximate doubling of per capita income between
1270 and 1700? We have seen in Table 23 that gains in food consumption per capita overthis period were relatively modest, at least measured in terms of kilocalories. The gains inmaterial living standards should thus be seen as arriving more through the consumptionof industrial goods and services. This shows up in the path of average wealth at death andthe growing urbanisation of the British economy. Overton (2006) uses data on probate
inventory totals for Cornwall, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lincolnshire and Worcestershire toshow that between 1550 and 1750, median wealth increased from £11.31 to £22.35 inconstant prices. Furthermore, looking at sub-periods, Overton finds a decrease in percapita wealth between 1550 and 1620, when GDP per capita also had a slightly negative
trend. Malanima (2009a) suggests an urbanisation ratio for England rising from 4.0 per

30

cent in 1300 to 13.2 per cent by 1700 and 43.0 per cent by 1870, using settlements of atleast 10,000 as the cut-off.

VII. BRITAIN IN AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
This paper on British GDP over the long run is part of a project to reconstruct thehistorical national accounts of Britain and Holland. In addition, estimates of GDP per
capita are now available for a number of other countries before 1850. Table 24 thus puts
the British experience into a wider international perspective, projecting backwards from
Maddison‟s (2003) widely accepted estimates of GDP per capita in 1850, expressed in1990 international dollars. However, it is necessary to take care to deal with changes inthe territory under consideration.

Whereas Maddison works with constant boundaries for the United Kingdom forthe whole period, our estimates refer to Great Britain for the period 1700-1870 andEngland for the period before 1700. Similarly, while Maddison works with constantboundaries for the Netherlands, the estimates of van Leeuwen and van Zanden (2009)refer to the Netherlands for the period 1800-1870 and Holland for the period before 1800.
The changing fortunes of Great Britain/England and the Netherlands/Holland are tracked
in part A of Table 24, with other countries being brought into the comparison in panel B.
In the cases of both England and Holland, per capita incomes in the late Middle Ages
were of the order of $1,000, well above Maddison‟s figure of $400 in 1000. Even on theeve of the Black Death, we find per capita incomes in England and Holland of more than$800. The figure of $400, or a little more than a dollar a day, is usually taken as the31measure of bare bones subsistence, and is observed for many poor countries in thetwentieth century. Estimates for other European countries in part B of Table 24 alsosuggest late medieval living standards well above $400. In some cases, such as Italy, thismay be explained by high levels of urbanisation. For Western Europe as a whole,
however, it is explained by mixed agriculture with a large pastoral sector.

The large share of pastoral agriculture had a number of important implications for
future growth. First, this was a high value added agriculture, even if it did not produce
many more kilocalories per head than arable agriculture. Second, this was a highly capitalintensive agriculture, with animals making up a large share of the capital stock. Third,
this was an agriculture which was highly intensive in the use of non-human energy. In
these respects, Western Europe already looked very different from Asia long before what
Pomeranz (2000) calls the Great Divergence of the industrial revolution period.
Broadberry and Gupta (2006) point out that during the early modern period European
wages were significantly above Asian wages, if compared at the exchange rate (the silverwage) rather than the amount of grain they could purchase (the grain wage). This was
taken to suggest a higher European productivity in traded goods and services, so that
although European consumers could enjoy more industrial goods and services, they did
not necessarily enjoy more agricultural goods. Yet even if European and Asian
consumption baskets were broadly similar in terms of the kilocalories they contained, it
now looks as though Europeans (especially those able to afford the „respectability
basket”) consumed more agricultural value-added than many Asians because of thegreater direct and indirect contribution made by animals to the contents of that basket.

32

The per capita GDP estimates for India in Table 24B, taken from Broadberry and Gupta(2009) suggests that although Indian living standards were higher at the peak of the
Mughal Empire than in the nineteenth century, they were already by this stage
substantially lower than in the most developed parts of Western Europe.

VIII. CONCLUSIONSThis paper provides the first annual estimates of GDP for England between 1270 and
1700 and for Great Britain between 1700 and 1870, constructed from the output side. For
agriculture, the estimates rest on a detailed reconstruction of arable and pastoral farming,
built up from manorial records during the medieval period, probate inventories during theearly modern period and farm accounts during the modern period. For industry andservices, indices of gross output are assembled for the major sectors and combined withvalue added weights. The GDP data are then combined with population estimates tocalculate GDP per capita.

Our results suggest English per capita income growth of 0.20 per cent per annum
between 1270 and 1700, with the strongest growth after the Black Death and in thesecond half of the seventeenth century. For the period 1700-1870, we find British per
capita income growth of 0.48 per cent per annum, broadly in line with the widely
accepted estimates of Crafts and Harley (1992). This modest trend growth in per capita
income before the Industrial Revolution suggests that, working back from the present,
living standards in the late medieval period were well above “bare bones subsistence”.
This can be reconciled with modest levels of kilocalorie consumption per head because of33

the very large share of pastoral production in agriculture. Contrary to the claims of the
California School, Western Europe was on a very different path of development from
Asia long before the Great Divergence, characterized by high value added, capitalintensive and non-human energy intensive production.

34

TABLE 1: English arable land use (millions of acres)
Wheat
1270
1300
1380
1420
1450
1500
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1830
1871

2.01
2.43
1.66
1.38
1.39
1.45
1.85
2.04
2.02
1.96
2.59
3.33
3.32

Rye/
Maslin
0.67
0.55
0.33
0.27
0.28
0.35
0.76
0.40
0.43
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06

Barley/Dredge
1.13
1.15
1.10
1.03
1.04
1.09
1.44
1.89
1.85
1.51
1.46
1.96
1.96

Oats

Pulses Potatoes

2.71
2.87
1.69
1.43
1.44
1.43
1.31
1.15
1.17
1.83
2.05
1.56
1.45

0.26
0.40
0.43
0.39
0.40
0.43
0.61
1.03
0.99
0.98
0.83
0.59
0.90

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.17
0.28
0.39

Other
crops
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.73
1.37
1.31
2.63
3.07
5.09
5.66

Total
sown
6.77
7.40
5.21
4.51
4.55
4.85
6.72
7.87
7.76
9.06
10.23
12.86
13.35

Fallow
arable
4.75
4.13
3.52
3.25
3.09
2.96
2.16
1.92
1.94
1.62
1.29
1.33
0.48

Total
arable
11.52
11.52
8.73
7.76
7.64
7.81
8.87
9.79
9.70
10.67
11.52
14.19
13.83

Sources: Overton and Campbell (1996: Tables III, V); Campbell et al. (1996); Medieval Accounts Database; Early Modern Probate
Inventory Database; Holderness (1989); Overton (1996).

35

FIGURE 1: English weighted national average wheat yields per acre, gross of titheand seed (bushels, log scale)

Sources: Medieval Accounts Database, the Early Modern Probate Inventories Database
and the Modern Farm Accounts Database.

TABLE 2: English mean yields per acre gross of tithes, net of seeds in bushels (10year averages)

1270-1279
1300-1309
1350-1359
1400-1409
1450-1459

Wheat
8.54
7.99
6.91
6.75
6.52

Rye
13.32
10.49
8.05
9.32
11.19

Barley
10.47
9.63
7.49
8.63
7.09

Oats
6.61
6.08
5.35
7.06
7.01

Pulses
3.81
7.23
4.54
5.43
3.86

1550-1559
1600-1609
1650-1659
1700-1709
1750-1759
1800-1809
1850-1859
1861-1870

8.98
11.43
12.93
14.38
17.75
19.43
25.25
28.19

7.28
10.54
12.86
15.94
17.26
16.56
20.06
19.99

8.43
12.07
16.93
17.33
20.93
23.62
26.13
27.15

9.80
11.62
11.14
11.54
22.66
25.28
30.60
31.69

5.06
9.70
12.77
9.88
10.36
16.13
16.58
17.35

Potatoes

150.00150.00150.00150.00150.00Sources and notes: Gross Yield per acre taken from the Medieval Accounts Database, the
Early Modern Probate Inventories Database and the Modern Farm Accounts Database.
Seed sown per acre from the Medieval and Modern Databases. Pulses for the modern
period and all seeds sown for the early modern period are taken from Overton andCampbell (1996), Allen (2005).
36

FIGURE 2: Working animals in England in millions (10-year moving averages, log
scale)

Sources: Derived from the Medieval Accounts Database; the Early Modern Probate
Inventories Database; Allen (1994); John (1989); Turner (1998).

37

TABLE 3: English arable output net of seed and animal consumption in million
bushels (10-year averages)

1270-1279
1300-1309
1350-1359
1400-1409
1450-1459

Wheat
17.49
19.39
11.91
9.46
9.09

Rye
8.81
5.73
2.79
2.59
3.29

Barley
11.92
11.06
8.29
8.93
7.40

Oats
15.62
14.01
6.34
7.67
7.65

Pulses
0.51
1.46
0.96
1.08
0.78

Potatoes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1550-1559
1600-1609
1650-1659
1700-1709
1750-1759
1800-1809
1850-1859
1861-1870

14.75
21.44
26.45
29.75
38.63
48.54
68.36
70.75

4.00
7.53
4.89
6.41
1.12
1.01
1.12
1.07

10.62
18.00
32.32
30.78
30.36
34.56
68.18
83.16

9.14
9.40
3.97
5.21
16.36
31.16
13.97
12.91

1.48
4.00
9.10
7.29
7.50
9.10
8.56
9.61

NA
NA
NA
1.31
13.91
25.98
47.90
50.14

Source: Output gross of tithe and net of seed were derived by multiplying sown area from
Table 1 with net yields from Table 2. The sown area from Table 1 was interpolated where
necessary. Consumption by working animals was derived from the numbers of working
animals shown in Figure 2. For oats, outlying observations based on a very small numberof inventories were dropped in 1700-09 and 1750-59, to eliminate excessive volatility.

38

FIGURE 3: Non-working livestock in England in millions (10-year moving averages,
log scale)

Sources: Derived from the Medieval Accounts Database; Early Modern Probate
Inventories Database; Allen (2005); John (1989); Mitchell (1988); Turner (1998).

39

TABLE 4: Numbers of non-working animals in England in millions (10-year
averages)Milk
cattleBeefcattleCalves

Sheep

Swine

1270-1279
1300-1309
1350-1359
1400-1409
1450-1459

0.60
0.68
0.44
0.40
0.31

0.54
0.61
0.40
0.36
0.28

0.60
0.68
0.44
0.40
0.31

10.99
16.14
15.90
13.10
16.24

0.70
0.92
0.83
0.71
0.75

Livestockunits per
100 acres
44.07
51.37
56.15
57.45
58.16

1550-1559
1600-1609
1650-1659
1700-1709
1750-1759
1800-1809
1850-1859
1861-1870

0.32
0.40
0.36
0.36
0.47
0.83
1.15
1.30

0.29
0.36
0.33
0.33
0.42
0.75
1.04
1.17

0.32
0.40
0.36
0.36
0.47
0.83
1.15
1.30

11.20
14.76
14.57
15.68
14.86
19.82
22.62
25.39

0.66
1.04
0.98
0.97
1.12
1.75
2.20
2.19

38.04
40.99
33.84
35.04
32.44
46.18
46.49
51.46

Sources and notes: Derived from Medieval Accounts Database; Early Modern Probate
Inventory Database; Allen (2005); John (1989 Tales III.1 and III.2).
* Livestock units compare different animals on the basis of relative feed requirements.
Ratios from Campbell (2000: 104-107): (adult cattle for beef and milk x 1.2) + (immaturecattle x 0.8) + (sheep and swine x 0.1).

TABLE 5: Percentages of English animals producing specific products

1300
1700
1850

Milk
90
90
90

Beef
15
25
33

Veal
14.1
21.1
25.0

Mutton
26
26
40

Pork
49
49
100

Sources: Holderness (1989: 147); Clark (1991: 216); Ecclestone (1996).

40

Wool
90
90
80

TABLE 6: English yields per animal (10-year averages)
Years
1270-1279
1300-1309
1350-1359
1400-1409
1450-1459

Milk(gallons)
100.00100.96112.27124.83138.81Beef(lb)
168.00169.26183.91199.82217.11

Veal
(lb)
29.00
29.22
31.79
34.59
37.63

Mutton
(lb)
22.00
22.14
23.81
25.60
27.52

Pork
(lb)
64.00
64.11
65.36
66.64
67.94

Wool
(lb)
1.63
1.48
1.81
1.49
1.24

1550-1559
1600-1609
1650-1659
1700-1709
1750-1759
1800-1809
1850-1859
1861-1870

172.35200.66233.63272.01
316.69368.72429.29443.90257.50294.44336.68384.98440.22503.37575.59592.82

44.74
51.22
58.63
67.12
76.84
87.96
100.69103.73

31.96
36.18
40.97
46.39
52.53
59.49
67.36
69.22

70.62
72.00
75.85
86.56
98.78
112.72
128.63132.42

1.64
1.88
2.17
2.51
2.91
3.38
3.92
4.05

Sources and notes: Beef, pork, milk, and mutton are obtained from Clark (1991: 216),
while veal is taken from Allen (2005: Table 6). Wool yield index from Stephenson (1988:
Table 3), with the benchmark of 1.4 lb in 1300 from Britnell (2004: 416). The missing
years were interpolated in line with the ratio of product to animal prices.

41

TABLE 7: Output in English pastoral farming (10-year averages)
Years
1270-1279
1300-1309
1350-1359
1400-1409
1450-1459

Milk(m.gals)
54.10
61.72
44.72
45.36
39.06

Beef
(m. lb)
13.58
15.55
11.74
12.42
11.15

Veal
(m. lb)
2.54
2.98
2.22
2.32
2.06

Mutton(m. lb)
62.89
92.94
98.43
87.19
116.19Pork(m. lb)
21.90
28.87
26.63
23.02
24.94

Wool
(m. lb)
16.13
21.50
25.86
17.57
18.16

Hides
(m. lb)
5.93
7.72
7.01
6.47
7.41

Hay
(m. tons)
0.09
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.05

1550-1559
1600-1609
1650-1659
1700-1709
1750-1759
1800-1809
1850-1859
1861-1870

50.26
72.29
76.56
89.16
133.51275.67443.26517.47

15.61
23.52
26.01
31.91
51.51
114.30196.73228.77

2.82
4.19
4.60
5.54
8.59
18.27
28.88
33.59

93.09
139.10155.30191.86237.29414.29609.29703.05

22.72
36.52
36.91
49.67
78.30
167.54282.94290.31

16.52
25.03
28.42
35.34
37.32
55.53
70.85
82.19

7.07
10.48
11.91
14.65
20.59
38.03
53.48
59.69

0.09
0.13
0.22
0.32
0.51
1.37
1.93
1.94

Sources: Total output estimates are derived by multiplying animal numbers from Table 4
with the percentage of animals producing in Table 5. The resulting numbers of producing
animals are then multiplied with the animal yields from Table 6.

42

FIGURE 4: Indexed output in English arable and pastoral agriculture (log scale,
1700=100)

Sources: See text.

43

TABLE 8: Output growth in English agriculture in constant 1700 prices
Years
1270/79 - 1300/09
1300/09 - 1340/48
1340/48 - 1400/09
1400/09 - 1450/59
1450/59 - 1470/79
1470/79 - 1553/59
1553/59 - 1600/09
1600/09 - 1650/59
1650/59 - 1700/09
1700/09 - 1750/59
1750/59 - 1800/09
1800/09 – 1830/09
1830/09 - 1861/70
1270/79 - 1340/48
1270/79 - 1700/09
1270/79 - 1861/70
1700/09 - 1861/70

Arable sector(% per annum)
0.00
0.12
-1.00
-0.13
-0.88
0.66
0.93
0.52
0.15
0.15
0.45
1.18
0.22

Pastoral sector(% per annum)
0.99
0.04
-0.30
0.27
-0.45
0.02
0.81
0.23
0.48
0.61
1.41
0.56
1.28

0.06
0.12
0.21
0.45

0.43
0.22
0.43
0.98

Total agriculture(% per annum)
0.44
0.08
-0.63
0.11
-0.61
0.27
0.97
0.42
0.27
0.33
0.91
0.84
0.75
0.22
0.18
0.31
0.69

Sources and notes: Derived from Medieval Accounts Database; Early Modern Probate
Inventories Database; Modern Farm Accounts Database.

44TABLE 9: Output shares in English agriculture, in current prices, 10-year averages(%)
A. Arable products
Year
Wheat
Rye
BarleyOats
PulsesPotatoes
Total arable
products
1270-79
24.0
5.2
11.2
11.9
0.6
52.9
1350-59
18.8
1.9
8.9
5.8
1.2
36.6
1450-59
15.2
2.3
6.6
4.7
0.9
29.7
1550-59
30.4
4.8
12.6
8.3
1.8
57.9
1650-59
32.4
4.0
20.4
1.8
7.6
66.3
1750-59
32.0
0.6
13.5
8.4
4.0
4.1
62.5
1800-09
28.8
0.4
10.3
6.5
3.4
3.1
52.6
1861-70
17.4
0.2
14.3
1.5
1.9
7.6
42.8
B. Pastoral products
Year

1270-79
1350-591450-59
1550-59
1650-59
1750-59
1800-09
1861-70

Total
pastoral
Dairy
Beef
Pork
Mutton Hay
Wool
Hides
products
8.4
2.7
4.3
16.4
0.7
14.0
0.7
47.1
8.2
2.5
5.6
30.5
1.2
14.9
0.6
63.4
7.6
2.8
6.0
42.3
1.0
9.3
1.3
70.3
9.8
2.0
2.8
16.6
1.8
7.2
1.9
42.1
7.4
2.2
2.5
12.7
3.0
5.0
1.0
33.7
9.4
3.2
4.6
10.9
4.8
3.4
1.2
37.5
11.6
5.1
5.6
13.7
7.6
2.9
0.8
47.4
16.1
7.1
7.9
14.9
6.2
4.3
0.9
57.2

Sources: Derived from Medieval Accounts Database; Early Modern Probate Inventories
Database; Modern Farm Accounts Database.

45

TABLE 10: English industrial output weights, circa 1700

Tin
Iron
Coal
METALS & MINING
Woollens
LeatherTEXTILES & LEATHER
Food
Books
Building
OTHER INDUSTRYTOTAL INDUSTRY

%
1.7
11.8
11.4
24.9
26.6
14.8
41.4
21.3
3.6
8.8
33.7
100.0

Sources: Derived from Hoffmann (1955) and Crafts et al. (1989).

46

TABLE 11: Growth of English industrial production, 1270-1700

1270/79 - 1300/09
1300/09 - 1340/48
1340/48 - 1400/09
1400/09 - 1450/59
1450/59 - 1480/89
1480/89 - 1553/59
1553/59 - 1600/09
1600/09 - 1650/59
1650/59 - 1691/1700% per annum
0.78
0.37
-0.24
-0.11
-0.19
0.50
0.78
0.38
0.64

1270/79 - 1691/1700

0.32

Sources and notes: See text.

FIGURE 5: English industrial production index, 1270-1700 (10-year moving
average, log scale, 1700=100)

Sources: See text.

47

TABLE 12: Output growth in British industry, 1700-1870 (% per annum)
CraftsHarley

1700-1760
1760-1780
1780-1801
1801-1830
1830-1870

0.71
1.29
1.96
2.78

1700-1870--

Present
estimates(annual
data)
0.49
1.00
2.18
2.59
3.01

1700/09 - 1760/69
1760/69 - 1780/89
1780/89 - 1801/10
1801/10 - 1830/39
1830/9 - 1861/70

Present
estimates(10-yearaverages)
0.58
1.04
2.01
2.87
2.91

1.72

1700/09 - 1861/70

1.93

Sources: Crafts (1985: 32); Crafts and Harley (1992: 715); see text.

FIGURE 6: British industrial output in real terms, 1700-1870 (log scale, 1700=100)

Sources: Crafts and Harley (1992); Hoffmann (1955); see text.

48

TABLE 13: English service sector weights, circa 1700%
37.2

Commerce
Of which:
Finance
Domestic trade and transport
International trade and transport
Housing and domestic
Government
Total

5.0
21.5
10.7
46.6
16.2
100.0

Sources: Derived from Crafts (1985: 16).

49

TABLE 14: Growth of English service sector output, 1270-1700
1270/79 – 1300/09
1300/09 - 1340/48
1340/48 - 1400/09
1400/09 - 1450/59
1450/59 - 1480/89
1480/89 - 1553/59
1553/59 - 1600/09
1600/09 - 1650/59
1650/59 - 1691/1700% per annum
0.37
0.13
-1.15
-0.22
0.29
0.49
0.82
0.92
0.53

1270/79 - 1691/1700

0.21

Sources and notes: See text.

FIGURE 7: English service sector output, 1270-1700 (log scale, 1700=100)

Sources: See text.

50

TABLE 15: Output growth in British services, 1700-1870 (% per annum)
CraftsHarley

1700-1760
1760-1780
1780-1801
1801-1830
1830-1870

0.74
0.77
1.31
1.68
--

Present
estimates(annual
data)
0.71
0.66
1.40
1.79
2.58

1700-1870

--

1.61

1700/09 - 1760/69
1760/69 - 1780/89
1780/89 - 1801/10
1801/10 - 1830/39
1830/39 - 1861/70

Present
estimates(10-yearaverages)
0.56
0.85
1.90
1.67
2.71

1700/09 - 1861/70

1.58

Sources: Derived from Crafts (1985: 16-17, 32, 37); Crafts and Harley (1992: 715); seetext.

FIGURE 8: British service sector output in real terms, 1700-1870 (log scale,
1700=100)

Sources: See text.

51

TABLE 16: Sectoral shares in English GDP, 1270-1700 (%)

Agriculture
Industry
Services
Total

1381
42.4
36.3
21.3
100.0

1522
35.6
43.7
20.7
100.0

1600
41.8
34.6
23.6
100.0

1700
28.0
37.8
34.2
100.0

Sources and notes: Derived from reconstruction of nominal GDP by sector. Real output
trends above are transformed into current price trends using sectoral price deflators, withabsolute levels of GDP in current prices established using an input-output table for 1841;
1381 weights used for 1270-1450; 1522 weights used for 1450-1550; 1600 weights used
for 1550-1650; 1700 weights used for 1650-1700.

TABLE 17: Growth of English GDP, 1270-1700
1270/79 – 1300/09
1300/09 - 1340/48
1340/48 - 1400/09
1400/09 - 1450/59
1450/59 - 1480/89
1480/89 - 1553/59
1553/59 - 1600/09
1600/09 - 1650/59
1650/59 - 1691/1700% per annum
0.52
0.19
-0.60
-0.04
-0.15
0.47
0.79
0.50
0.48

1270/09 - 1691/1700

0.24

Sources: See text.

52

FIGURE 9: English real GDP, 1270-1700 (log scale, 1700=100)

Sources: See text.

53

TABLE 18: English population, 1250-1700
A. Levels of population (millions)
Year
1250
1290
1300
1315
1348
1351
1377

Total
population
4.23
4.75
4.73
4.69
4.81
2.60
2.50

Year
1400
1450
1490
1560
1600
1650
1700

Total
population
2.08
1.90
2.14
3.02
4.11
5.31
5.20

B. Growth rates of population (% per annum)
Annualdata

10-yearaverages

1270-1300
1300-1348
1348-1400
1400-1450
1450-1490
1490-1560
1560-1600
1600-1650
1650-1700

0.27
0.04
-1.60
-0.18
0.29
0.55
0.60
0.51
-0.04

1270/79 – 1300/09
1300/09 – 1340/48
1340/48 - 1400/09
1400/09 - 1450/59
1450/59 - 1480/89
1480/89 - 1553/59
1553/59 - 1600/09
1600/09 - 1650/59
1650/59 - 1691/1700

0.23
-0.02
-1.33
-0.14
0.29
0.54
0.67
0.45
-0.08

1270-1700

0.04

1270/79 - 1691/1700

0.04

Sources: Medieval period: based on parish data (see text); Wrigley et al. (1997),
interpolated using Wrigley and Schofield (1989).

54

TABLE 19: Growth of English GDP per capita, 1270-1700
1270/79 – 1300/09
1300/09 – 1340/48
1340/48 - 1400/09
1400/09 - 1450/59
1450/59 - 1480/89
1480/89 - 1553/59
1553/59 - 1600/09
1600/09 - 1650/59
1650/59 - 1691/1700% per annum
0.29
0.21
0.73
0.10
-0.44
-0.07
0.12
0.05
0.57

1270/79 - 1691/1700

0.20

Sources and notes: See text.

FIGURE 10: English real GDP per capita, 1270-1700 (log scale, 1700=100)

Sources: See text.

55

TABLE 20: British sectoral weights, 1700-1850 (%)

Agriculture
Industry
Services
GDP

1700
28.0
37.8
34.2
100.0

1755
26.1
38.6
35.3
100.0

1801
30.9
31.9
37.2
100.0

1841
22.1
36.4
41.5
100.0

Sources and notes: Derived from reconstruction of nominal GDP by sector. Real output
trends above are transformed into current price trends using sectoral price deflators, withabsolute levels of GDP in current prices established using an input-output table for 1841,
based on Horrell et al. (1994). 1700 weights are used for the period 1700-1740, 1759weights for 1740-1780, 1801 weights for 1780-1820 and 1841 weights for 1820-1870.

TABLE 21: British GDP growth, 1700-1870 (% per annum)
Annual data

1700-1760
1760-1780
1780-1801
1801-1830
1830-1870

CraftsHarley
0.69
0.64
1.38
1.90
--

Present
estimates
0.63
0.81
1.54
1.69
2.40

1700/09 - 1760/69
1760/69 - 1780/89
1780/89 - 1801/10
1801/10 - 1830/39
1830/39 - 1861/70

10-yearaverages
Present
estimates
0.52
0.89
1.66
1.86
2.40

1700-1870

--

1.36

1700/09 - 1861/70

1.31

Sources: Crafts (1985: 45); Crafts and Harley (1992: 715); see text.

56

FIGURE 11: British GDP in real terms, 1700-1870 (log scale, 1700=100)

Sources: See text.

TABLE 22: Average annual growth rate of British population and per capita
income, 1700-1870 (% per annum)

1700-1760
1760-1780
1780-1801
1801-1830
1830-1870
1700-1870

Annual data
Population Per capita
growthGDP
growth
0.32
0.31
0.62
0.19
0.97
0.56
1.43
0.25
1.18
1.22
0.83

0.53

1700/09 - 1760/69
1760/69 - 1780/89
1780/89 - 1801/10
1801/10 - 1830/39
1830/39 - 1861/70
1700/09 - 1861/70

10-year averages
Population
Per capita
growthGDP
growth
0.31
0.21
0.68
0.20
1.10
0.56
1.44
0.42
1.21
1.20
0.83

0.48

Sources: Mitchell (1988), Wrigley and Schofield (1989), Schofield (1994) and Wrigley etal. (1997); see text.

57

FIGURE 12: British real GDP per capita, 1700-1870 (log scale, 1700 = 100)

Sources: See text.

58

TABLE 23: Per capita daily kilocalorie consumption of major arable crops andanimal products in EnglandYears

1270/79
1300/091310/191380/891420/291450/59
1600/09
1700/091750/59
1800/09
1850/59

Population Animal(mlns)

4.40
4.72
4.63
2.36
2.03
1.93
4.27
5.26
6.07
9.06
17.46

ArableKcal

Kcal.
net of
seed

117
139
136
242
292
312
214
242
293
379
329

2,671
2,256
2,185
3,603
2,992
3,038
3,140
3,386
3,892
3,422
2,957

Kcal. net
% foodof seed, extraction
losses, &rate
fodder
1,415
53
1,242
55
1,199
55
1,801
50
1,468
49
1,512
50
1,664
53
1,639
48
1,878
48
1,741
51
1,555
53

Total

Kcalories

Total (10%higher arable
production in
non-demesne
sector)
Kcalories

1,531
1,381
1,334
2,042
1,760
1,823
1,877
1,880
2,170
2,120
1,883

1,646
1,481
1,432
2,188
1,891
1,958
1,877
1,880
2,170
2,120
1,883

Sources and notes: Kilocalories per bushel for the medieval period are taken from
Campbell et al. (1993: 41). Following Overton and Campbell (1996: Table XIII), storage
losses are assumed to have been 10%, with food conversion losses of 20% for wheat andrye, 22% for barley, and 44% for oats when processed into bread, and 70% for barley andoats when malted and brewed into ale/beer. For the post Black Death period (1380/89 to
1450/59) patterns of grain consumption are assumed to have been equivalent to those for1600 given by Overton and Campbell (1996: Table XII): 98% of wheat and rye and alloats not fed to livestock were eaten. However, we assumed that 50% of barley was eaten
and the remainder brewed. For the pre-Black Death period it is assumed that 60% ofbarley was eaten and only 40% brewed. For 1600-1850 the estimates of Overton andCampbell (1996: Tables XII and XIII) were followed.
*Includes net grain imports and potatoes.

59

FIGURE 13: Indexed daily real wage of an unskilled building worker and GDP per
capita (10-year moving averages, 1700=100, log scale)

Sources: Allen (2001); Clark (2005); see text.

60

TABLE 24: GDP per capita levels in 1990 international dollars
A. Northwest Europe
Great England Netherlands Holland
Britain
1270
638
1300
739
1348
803
876
1400
1,303
1,195
1500
1,128
1,454
1570
1,172
1,432
1600
1,126
2,662
1650
978
2,691
1700
1,506
1,568
2,105
1750
1,660
2,355
1800
2,140
1,853
2,408
1820
2,124
1,886
1850
2,718
2,371
1870
3,670
2,774
B. Other countries
Belgium Italy
Spain
Germany Sweden India
1300
1,644
1400
1,726
1500
929
1,644
1,295
1,332
1570
1,089
1,463
860
1600
1,073
1,302
1,382
894
792
1650
1,203
1,255
1,130
746
1700
1,264
1,398
1,230
1,068
728
1750
1,375
1,553
1,191
1,162
669
1800
1,497
1,333
1,205
1,140
953
646
1820
1,534
1,445
1,009
587
1850
1,841
1,350
1,487
1,428
1,289
594
Sources: Netherlands: van Leuwen and van Zanden (2009); Belgium: Buyst (2009);
Blomme and van der Wee (1994); Italy: Malanima (2009b); Spain: Álvarez-Nogal andPrados de la Escosura (2009); Germany: Pfister (2009); Sweden: Krantz (2004); Krantz
and Schön (2007); India: Broadberry and Gupta (2009).

61

REFERENCES
Allen, R.C. (1994) “Agriculture During the Industrial Revolution”, in Floud, R. and
McCloskey, D. (eds.), The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Second
Edition. Volume 1:1700-1860, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96-122.
Allen, R.C. (2000), „Economic structure and agricultural productivity in Europe,
1300-1800‟, European Review of Economic History, 3, 1-25.
Allen, R.C. (2001), “The Great Divergence in European Wages and Prices from theMiddle Ages to the First World War”, Explorations in Economic History, 38,
411-447.
Allen, R.C. (2005) “English and Welsh Agriculture 1300-1850: Output, Inputs andIncome”, Nuffield College, Oxford,
http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/users/allen/unpublished/AllenE&W.pdf.
Allen, R.C. (2009), The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Álvarez-Nogal, C. and Prados de la Escosura, L. (2009), “The Rise and Fall of Spain,
800-1850”, Universidad Carlos III, Madrid.
Beveridge, W. (1939), Prices and Wages in England from the Twelfth to the NineteenthCentury, Vol. I, Price Tables: Mercantile Era, London: Longmans, Green.
Biddick, K. (1989), The Other Economy: Pastoral Husbandry on a Medieval Estate,
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blomme, J. and van der Wee, H. (1994), “The Belgian Economy in a Long-Term
Historical Perspective: Economic Development in Flanders and Brabant, 15001812”, in Maddison, A. and van der Wee, H. (eds.), Economic Growth andStructural Change: Comparative Approaches over the Long Run, Milan:
International Economic History Congress, 77-96.
Boserup, E, (1965), The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian
Change under Population Pressure, London: Allen & Unwin.
Boserup, E. (1981), Population and Technological Change: A Study in Long-TermTrends, Oxford: Blackwell.
Britnell R. H. (2004), Britain and Ireland 1050-1530: Economy and Society, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

62

Broadberry, S.N. and Gupta, B. (2006), “The Early Modern Great Divergence: Wages,
Prices and Economic Development in Europe and Asia, 1500-1800”, Economic
History Review, 59, 2-31.
Broadberry, S.N. and Gupta, B. (2009), “Indian GDP Before 1870: Some Preliminary
Estimates and a Comparison with Britain”, University of Warwick,
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/broadberry/wp.
Broadberry, S.N. and van Leeuwen, B. (2010a), “Estimating English Agricultural Output,
1492-1553”, University of Warwick.
Broadberry, S.N. and van Leeuween, B. (2010b), “The Sectoral Distribution of Output
and the Labour Force in Britain, 1300-1870”, University of Warwick.
Buyst,

E. (2009), Estimates of Economic Growth in the Southern Low
Countries/Belgium, c.1770-1846”, Centre for Economic Studies, Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven.

Cameron, R. (1967), “England, 1750-1844”, in Cameron, R. (ed.), Banking in the Early
Stages of Industrialization: A Study in Comparative Economic History, New
York: Oxford University Press, 15-59.
Campbell, B.M.S. (1995), “Measuring the Commercialisation of Seigneurial Agriculturec. 1300”, in Britnell, R.H. and Campbell, B.M.S. (eds.), A Commercialising
Economy: England 1086 to c. 1300, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Campbell, B.M.S. (2000), English Seigniorial Agriculture, 1250-1450, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, B.M.S. (2007), Three centuries of English crop yields, 1211-1491 [WWW
document]. URL http://www.cropyields.ac.uk.
Campbell B.M.S. (2008) “Benchmarking Medieval Economic Development: England,
Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, c.1290” Economic History Review, 61, 896-945.
Campbell, B. M. S., Bartley, K.C. and Power, J. P. (1996), “The Demesne-Farming
Systems of Post Black Death England: A Classification”, Agricultural History
Review, 44, 131-79.
Campbell, B.M.S., Galloway, J.A., Keene, D. and Murphy, M. (1993), A Medieval
Capital and its Grain Supply: Agrarian Production and Distribution in the
London Region, c.1300. Belfast: Historical Geography Research Group.
Carus-Wilson, E.M. and Coleman, O. (1963), England’s Export Trade, 1275-1547,
Oxford: Clarendon.

63

Clark. G. (1991), “Labour Productivity in English Agriculture, 1300-1860”, in Campbell
B.M.S and Overton, M. (eds.), Land, Labour and Livestock: Historical Studies in
European Agricultural Productivity, Manchester: Manchester University Press,211-235.
Clark, G. (2004), “The Price History of English Agriculture, 1209-1914”, Research in
Economic History, 22, 41-125.
Clark, G. (2005), “The Condition of the Working-Class in England, 1209-2004”, Journalof Political Economy, 113, 1307-1340.
Clark, G. (2007a), A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Clark, G. (2007b), “The Long March of History: Farm Wages, Population and Economic
Growth, England 1209-1869”, Economic History Review, 60, 97-135.
Clarkson, L.A. (1989), “The Manufacture of Leather”, in Mingay, G.E. (ed.), The
Agrarian History of England and Wales, Volume VI: 1750-1850, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 466-485.
Crafts, N.F.R. (1985), British Economic Growth during the Industrial Revolution,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crafts, N.F.R. and Harley, C.K. (1992), “Output Growth and the Industrial Revolution: A
Restatement of the Crafts-Harley View”, Economic History Review, 45, 703-730.
Crafts, N.F.R., Leybourne, S.J. and Mills, T.C. (1989), “Trends and Cycles in British
Industrial Production, 1700-1913”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, SeriesA, 152, 43-60.
Davis, R. (1954), “English Foreign Trade, 1660-1700”, Economic History Review, 7,
150-166.
Davis, R. (1962), The Rise of the English Shipping Industry in the Seventeenth andEighteenth Centuries, London: Macmillan.
Deane, P. and Cole, W.A. (1967), British Economic Growth, 1688-1959: Trends andStructure, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dodds, B. (2004), “Estimating Arable Output Using Durham Priory Tithe Receipts,
1341-1450”, Economic History Review, 58, 245-285.
Dodds, B. (2007), Peasants and Production in the Medieval North-East: The Evidence
from Tithes 1270-1536, Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer.

64Ecclestone, M. J. (1996), “Dairy Production on the Glastonbury Abbey Demesnes 12581334”, unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Bristol.
Farmer, D. L. (1988), “Prices and Wages”, in Hallam, H.E. (ed.), The Agrarian History ofEngland and Wales, Volume II: 1042-1350, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 715-817.
Farmer, D. L. (1991), “Prices and Wages, 1350-1500”, in Miller, E. (ed.), The Agrarian
History of England and Wales, Volume III: 1348-1500, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 431-525.
Feinstein, C.H. (1988), “National Statistics, 1760-1920: Sources and Methods ofEstimation for Domestic Reproducible Fixed Assets, Stocks and Works in
Progress, Overseas Assets, and Land”, in Feinstein, C.H. and Pollard, S. (eds.),
Studies in Capital Formation in the United Kingdom, 1750-1920, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 257-471.
Fisher, F.J. (1940), “Commercial Trends and Policy in Sixteenth-Century England”,
Economic History Review, 10, 95-117.
Fisher, F.J. (1950), “London‟s Export Trade in the Early Seventeenth Century”,
Economic History Review, New Series 3, 151-161.
Hallam, H.E. (1988), “Population Movements in England, 1086-1350”, in Hallam, H.E.
(ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales, Vol. II, 1042-1350,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 508-593.
Harley, C. K. (1982) “British Industrialization Before 1841: Evidence of Slower Growth
During the Industrial Revolution”, Journal of Economic History, 42, 267-289.
Hatcher, J. (1973), English Tin Production and Trade before 1550, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Hatcher, J. (1993), The History of the British Coal Industry, Volume 1, Before 1700:
Towards the Age of Coal, Oxford; Oxford University Press.
Hoffmann, W.G. (1955), British Industry 1700-1950, Oxford: Blackwell.
Holderness, B.A. (1989), “Prices, Productivity, and Output”, in Mingay, G.E. (ed.), The
Agrarian History of England and Wales, Volume VI: 1750-1850, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 84-189.
Horrell, S., Humphries, J. and Weale, M. (1994), “An Input-Output Table for 1841”,
Economic History Review, 47, 545-566.

65

John A.H. (1989), “Statistical Appendix”, in Mingay G. E. (ed.), The Agrarian History ofEngland and Wales, Volume VI: 1750-1850, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 972-1155.
King, G. [1696] (1936), “Natural and Political Observations and Conclusions upon theState and Condition of England”, in Barnett, G.E. (ed.), Two Tracts by Gregory
King, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
King, P. (2005), “The Production and Consumption of Bar Iron in Early Modern Englandand Wales”, Economic History Review, 58, 1-33.
Krantz, O. (2004), “An Estimate of Swedish GDP in 1571”, in Heikkinen, S. and van
Zanden, J.L. (eds.), Exploring Economic Growth: Essays in Measurement andAnalysis, Amsterdam: Aksant, 105-130.
Krantz, O. and Schön, L. (2007), “Swedish Historical National Accounts, 1800-2000”,
Lund University Macroeconomic and Demographic Database,
http://www.ehl.lu.se/database/LU-MADD/National%20Accounts/default.htm.
van Leeuwen, B. and van Zanden, J.L. (2009), “The Origins of Modern Economic
Growth? Holland between 1500 and 1800”, University of Warwick and Utrecht
University.
Letters, S. (2005), “Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516”,
Centre for Metropolitan History,
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=272.
Livi-Bacci, M. (1991), Population and Nutrition, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Maddison, A. (2003), The World Economy: Historical Statistics, Paris: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development.
Malanima, P. (2009a), Pre-Modern European Economy: One Thousand Years (10th - 19th
Centuries, Leiden: Brill.
Malanima, P. (2009b), “Italian GDP, 1300-1913”, Institute of Studies on MediterraneanSocieties (ISSM), Italian National Research Council (CNR).
Mayhew, N.J. (2009), “Money Supply and GDP in England 1085-1700”, XVth World
Economic History Congress, Utrecht, Session E4,
http://www.wehc2009.org/programme.asp?day=2&time=4.
Mitchell, B.R. (1988), British Historical Statistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
66

Mokyr, J. and Voth, H.J. (2010), “Understanding Growth in Europe, 1700-1870: Theory
and Evidence”, in Broadberry, S. and O‟Rourke, K. (eds.). The Cambridge
Economic History of Modern Europe, Volume 1: 1700-1870, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).
Nef, J.U. (1932), The Rise of the British Coal Industry, Volume II, London: Routledge.
O‟Brien, P.K. and Hunt, P.A. (1999), “England, 1485-1815”, in Bonney, R. (ed.), The
Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe, c.1200-1850, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
53-100.
Overton, M. (1996), Agricultural Revolution in England: The Transformation of theAgrarian Economy 1500-1850, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Overton, M. (2006), “Household Wealth, Indebtedness, and Economic Growth in Early
Modern England”, presented at International Economic History Congress,
Helsinki, Session 122, Progress, Stasis, and Crisis: Demographic and Economic
Developments in England and Beyond, AD c.1000-c.1800,
http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/sessions81_124.html.
Overton, M. and Campbell, B.M.S. (1996), “Production et productivité dans l‟agriculture
anglais, 1086-1871”, Histoire et Mesure, 11, 255-297.
Overton, M., Whittle, J., Dean, D. and Haan, A. (2004), Production and Consumption in
English Households, 1600-1750, London: Routledge.
Perren, R. (1975), “The Meat and Livestock Trade in Britain, 1850-70”, Economic
History Review, 28, 385-400.
Pfister, U. (2009), “German Economic Growth, 1500-1850”, Historisches Seminar,
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.
Phelps Brown, H. and Hopkins, S.V. (1981), A Perspective of Wages and Prices,
London: Methuen.
Pomeranz, K. (2000), The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of theModern World Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Postan, M.M. (1966), “Medieval Agrarian Society in its Prime: England”, in Postan,
M.M. (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Vol. I: The AgrarianLife of the Middle Ages, second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,549-632.
Postan, M.M. (1972), The Medieval Economy and Society: An Economic History of
Britain in the Middle Ages, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
67

Prince, H.C. (1989), “The Changing Rural Landscape, 1750-1850”, in Mingay, G.E.
(ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales, Volume VI: 1750-1850,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 7-83.
Sapoznik, A. (2008), “Using Tithes to Compare Landlord and Peasant Cropping Patterns
at Fourteenth-Century Oakington”, Economic History Society Annual
Conference, Nottingham.
Schofield, R. (1994), “British population change, 1700-1871”, in Floud, R. and
McClosky, D.N. (eds.), The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Second
Edition: Volume 1: 1700-1860, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 60-95.
Smith, R.M. (1991), “Demographic Developments in Rural England, 1300-1348: A
Survey”, in Campbell, B.M.S. (ed.), Before the Black Death: Studies in the“Crisis” of the Early Fourteenth Century, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 25-77.
Stephenson, M. J. (1988), “Wool Yields in the Medieval Economy”, Economic History
Review, 61, 368-91.
Stone, D. J. (2006), “The Consumption of Field Crops in Late Medieval England”, in
Woolgar, C.M., Serjeantson, D. and Waldron, T. (eds.), Food in Medieval
England: Diet and Nutrition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thorold Rogers, J.E. (1866-1902), A History of Agriculture and Prices in England,
Volumes 1-6, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Turner, M.E. (1998), “Counting Sheep: Waking up to New Estimates of Livestock
Numbers in England”, Agricultural History Review, 46, 142-161.
Turner, M.E., J.V. Beckett, and B. Afton (2001), Farm Production in England 17001914, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Vries, J. (1994), “The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution”, Journalof Economic History, 54, 249-270.
Wrigley, E.A. (1985), “Urban Growth and Agricultural Change: England and theContinent in the Early Modern Period”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 15,683-728.
Wrigley, E.A. (2006), “The Transition to an Advanced Organic Economy: Half a
Millennium of English Agriculture”, Economic History Review, 59, 435-480.

68

Wrigley, E.A., Davies, R.S., Oeppen, J.E. and Schofield, R.S. (1997), English Population
History from Family Reconstitution, 1580-1837, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wrigley, E.A. and Schofield, R.S. (1989), The Population History of England, 15411871: A Reconstruction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

69