DOI: 10.4232/1.8204
title: Regionale Differenzierung in der ökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert
title: Regional differentiation of German economic development in the 19th Century

description: Die Studie ist ein Beitrag zur regionalen Erwerbsstruktur in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert. Den Schwerpunkt bilden die sektoralen Erwerbsstrukturunterschiede zwischen preußischen Provinzen (teils auch Regierungsbezirken) und außerpreußischen deutschen Bundesstaaten für die Zeit von 1861 bis 1907. Zielsetzung der Untersuchung ist es, Hypothesen über die die regionale Verteilung der deutschen Industrialisierung im 19. Jahrhundert zu überprüfen. Tipton verwendet als Maß den Grad der Spezialisierung der Beschäftigten auf industrielle Berufe und unterscheidet insgesamt 32 Regionen (preußische Provinzen, deutsche Einzelstaaten) im Deutschen Reich. Er analysiert die konkreten Veränderungen der regionalen Entwicklungsmuster in einem breiten Rahmen erklärender Variablen, wobei die regionale Spezialisierung eine zentrale Erklärungsgröße darstellt. 
Als Ursache der von Tipton ab 1860 verstärkt beobachteten Differenzen sieht er die Verteilung des Gewerbes im Raum an. Tipton kommt im ganzen zu dem Schluss, dass sich die Unterschiede der Erwerbsstruktur in dieser Zeit der Industrialisierung Deutschlands kontinuierlich verschärften und sich zwischen den industrialisierten Regionen des Ruhrgebiets, Sachsens, Berlins, Oberschlesiens, Elsaß-Lothringen einerseits und den östlichen preußischen Provinzen andererseits eine immer größere Kluft auftrat. Diesen Pr0zeß will er nicht zu sehr vereinfachen: Auch unter den Industrieregionen verstärkten sich die Unterschiede; auch tertiäre Regionen wie Hamburg und Bremen spezialisierten sich immer mehr; auch im Westen gab es zurückgebliebene Agrarregionen. 
Verzeichnis der Tabellen in HISTAT: 
Beschäftigungsstruktur in Deutschland (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Ost- und West-Preussen (1861-1882)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Ost-Preussen (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in West-Preussen (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Posen (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Pommern (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Oppeln, Oberschlesien (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Breslau, Liegnitz (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Frankfurt/Oder (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Potsdam (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Berlin (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Schleswig-Holstein (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hannover (1867-1882)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hannover, Oldenburg, Braunschweig,Schaumburg-Lippe (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Lübeck, Bremen, Hamburg (Hansestädte) (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur im Königreich Sachsen (1849-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Sachsen (Preussen) (1861-1882)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Magdeburg, Anhalt (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Merseburg, Erfurt, Thüringen (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Münster, Minden, nördl. Westfalen, ohne Lippe, Waldeck (1861-1875)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Münster, Minden, nördl. Westfalen, mit Lippe, Waldeck (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Düsseldorf, Arnsberg (Ruhr) (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Aachen (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Köln (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Trier, Koblenz (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hessen-Nassau, Oberhessen Posen (1867-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Bayern (1847-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Württemberg, Hohenzollern (1861-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Baden (1847-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hessen ohne Oberhessen (1867-1882)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Hessen mit Oberhessen (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Rheinpfalz (1847-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur in Lothringen (1882-1907)Beschäftigungsstruktur im Elsass (1882-1907)
description: This study deals with the regional acquisition structure in Germany in the 19th century. The focus is on sectoral difference in the acquisition structure between the Prussian provinces (partly also government districts) and other German states in the period from 1861 to 1907. The goal of the investigation is to test hypothesis on the regional distribution of German industrialization in the 19th century. Tipton uses the degree of specialization of workers in industrial occupations as an indicator and distinguishes between 32 regions (Prussian provinces, other German states) in the German Reich. He analyzes the concrete changes in the regional development pattern in a broad framework of explaining variables of which regional specialization is the central explaining variable. 
Tipton observed increasing differences and sees the geographical distribution of business as the main reason. Tipton concludes that the differences in the acquisition structure in this period of industrialization increase continuously and that there was an increasing gap between the industrialized regions such as the Ruhr area, Saxony, Berlin, Upper Silesia and Alsace-Lorraine on the one side and the Eastern Prussian provinces of the other side. He does not want to oversimplify this process: also within the industry regions the differences were increasing, also tertiary regions like Hamburg and Bremen specialized more and more and also in the West there were less developed agrarian regions.
Register of tables in HISTAT:
Employment structure in Germany (1882-1907)Employment structure in Eastern and Western Prussia (1861-1882)Employment structure in Eastern Prussia (1882-1907)Employment structure in Western Prussia (1882-1907)Employment structure in Posen (1861-1907)Employment structure in Pomerania (1861-1907)Employment structure in Opole, Upper Silesia (1861-1907)Employment structure in Breslau, Legnica (1861-1907)Employment structure in Frankfurt/Oder (1861-1907)Employment structure in Potsdam (1861-1907)Employment structure in Berlin (1861-1907)Employment structure in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1882-1907)Employment structure in Schleswig-Holstein (1861-1907)Employment structure in Hanover (1867-1882)Employment structure in Hanover, Oldenburg, Brunswick, Schaumburg-Lippe (1882-1907)Employment structure in Lübeck, Bremen, Hamburg (Hanseatic cities) (1882-1907)Employment structure in the kingdom of Saxony (1849-1907)Employment structure in Saxony (Prussia) (1861-1882)Employment structure in Magdeburg, Anhalt (1882-1907)Employment structure in Merseburg, Erfurt, Thuringia (1882-1907)Employment structure in Münster, Minden, Northern Westphalia, without Lippe, Waldeck (1861-1875)Employment structure in Münster, Minden, Northern Westphalia, with Lippe, Waldeck (1882-1907)Employment structure in Düsseldorf, Arnsberg (Ruhr) (1861-1907)Employment structure in Aachen (1861-1907)Employment structure in Cologne (1861-1907)Employment structure in Trier, Koblenz (1861-1907)Employment structure in Hesse-Nassau, Upper Hesse Posen (1867-1907)Employment structure in Bavaria (1847-1907)Employment structure in Württemberg, Hohenzollern (1861-1907)Employment structure in Baden (1847-1907)Employment structure in Hesse without upper Hesse 1867-1882)Employment structure in Hesse with upper Hesse (1882-1907)Employment structure in Rhenish Palatine (1847-1907)Employment structure in Lorraine (1882-1907)Employment structure in Alsace (1882-1907)
description: Fundort (= Quellenverzeichnis):
(Zitiert aus: Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 166-169).

1847: 
Data for Bavaria and Rheinpfalz from Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs Bayern 10 (1862). Data for Baden from Rudolf Dietz, Die Gewerbe im Grossherzogtum Baden (Karlsruhe, 1863). Figures for mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction. Dietz presents a wide range of official figures relating to the economy of Baden in the 1850s.
1849:
Data for the Kingdom of Saxony from Zeitschrift des konig¬lichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus 25 (1879). The original figures were the results of an occupational census undertaken by the Saxon Statistical Office, rearranged to fit the categories of the Imperial census of 1875. The census covered all employed persons, including domestic servants.
1861:
Data for Prussia from Preussische Statistik 5 (1864) cover all employed persons except for those in mining. The latter are taken from Preussische Statistik 40 (1878): 92. Complete figures are given for provinces and for administrative districts. Data for the Kingdom of Sax¬ony from Zeitschrift des königlichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus 25 (1879) cover all employed persons. Data for Württemberg from Württembergische Jahrbücher . . . , Jahrgang 1862, Heft 2 (1863), for Bavaria and Rheinpfalz from Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs Bayern 10 (1862) and for Baden from Dietz, Baden, cover mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction only.
1867:
Data for Prussia from Preussische Statistik 16 (1869) cover all employed persons but combine manufacturing and construction into a single category. Complete figures are given for provinces and for ad ministrative districts. Includes Schleswig-Holstein, Hannover, and Hes¬sen-Nassau, all annexed by Prussia in 1867.
1871:
Data for the entire empire from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, Bd. 14, Heft 3, Abteilung 3 (1875), pp. 124-47, cover all employed persons but only according to broad sectoral classifications. Mining, manufacturing, and construction make up one category, while transportation is grouped with trade and hotels. The division between the industrial and service sectors is therefore not comparable to that used for the other years. Within each household, the distinctions be¬tween workers, servants and other dependents was considered imprecise. The assignment of peasant-artisans to either industry or agriculture was not uniform, nor was the use of the category of miscellaneous personal service and wage labor. Some enumerators tried to place laborers under one or another of the sectoral categories, while others placed virtually all ´laborers´ in the ´miscellaneous´ category.
1875: 
Data for the entire empire from Statistik des deutschen Reiches 34 (1879). An industrial census, limited to mining and smelt¬ing, manufacturing and construction, and taking the firm rather than the individual as its unit of observation. The continuing effects of the 1873 crash and a severe cold wave at the time of the census probably affected the results in ways which it is impossible to determine exactly. The definition of an independent firm was extremely broad, and persons in many small ´firms´ should actually have been listed as the employees of firms for which they worked at home 42 On the other hand, greater precision with regard to definitions and the date to which responses were supposed to refer were held to make the 1875 census superior to its 1861 predecessor.
1882:
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupa¬tional census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 4 (1884) and of the industrial census from ibid. 7 (1886). These are large adminis trative units (Prussian Regierungsbezirke and provinces of the other states). Data for county (Kreis) units were not published, but there are maps showing employment per ten thousand population in each county for selected industries in ibid. 6 (1886). The results of the occupational census are repeated in more convenient form and compared with the 1895 figures in ibid. 111 (1899): 60*-75*, but do not list domestic servants residing with their employers separately. There is a brief re¬gional comparison of the 1882 and 1875 occupational censuses showing employment per one thousand population and per square kilometer for industry classifications in ibid. 6 (1886). As in 1875 there was a ten¬dency to overstate the number of firms and understate their size. Where several types of product were produced by the same establishment, the establishment was counted as a separate firm in each industry and its workers divided according to the type of product with which they were ´usually´ occupied. Where several establishments were under the same ownership, each was counted as a separate firm. The Imperial Statistical Office never solved this problem, and consequently the official figures were held to understate the growth of large firms relative to total em¬ployment. With regard to the occupational census, no distinction was made between an individual´s major source of income and the amount of time spent in a given occupation, and the definition of part-time employment is therefore not precise. In addition agriculturalists with part-time industrial occupations apparently preferred to cite the latter as their ´main´ employment.
1895:
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupa¬tional census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 104 (1897) for Prussia and ibid. 105 (1897) for the other states. Industrial census figures from ibid. 118 (1898) : 351ff. cover large administrative units, and county results were published in ibid. 117 (1898) and 118 (1898): 2-350.
1907:
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupa¬tional census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 204 (1909) for Prussia and ibid. 205 (1910) for the other states. Industrial census figures from ibid. 218 (1909) and 219 (1909) are given only for county and provincial units, but the county units can be added together to give figures for the intermediate administrative districts. There is a regional comparison of the 1907 figures with the 1895 results, showing employment per ten thousand population and average size of firm for the industry groups in ibid. 220/221 (1914), Anhang, 221 *ff. A tabular comparison of the industrial classifications of 1907 with those of 1895 and 1882 is inside the cover of ibid. 213 (1910). None of the changes significantly affected the relatively broad industrial divisions used here”.
description: Register of sources: 

(Quoted from: Tipton, Frank B., 1976: Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, S. 166-169). 

1847: 
Data for Bavaria and Rheinpfalz from Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs Bayern 10 (1862). Data for Baden from Rudolf Dietz, Die Gewerbe im Grossherzogtum Baden (Karlsruhe, 1863). Figures for mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction. Dietz presents a wide range of official figures relating to the economy of Baden in the 1850s. 
1849: 
Data for the Kingdom of Saxony from Zeitschrift des konig¬lichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus 25 (1879). The original figures were the results of an occupational census undertaken by the Saxon Statistical Office, rearranged to fit the categories of the Imperial census of 1875. The census covered all employed persons, including domestic servants. 
1861: 
Data for Prussia from Preussische Statistik 5 (1864) cover all employed persons except for those in mining. The latter are taken from Preussische Statistik 40 (1878): 92. Complete figures are given for provinces and for administrative districts. Data for the Kingdom of Saxony from Zeitschrift des königlichen sächsischen statistischen Bureaus 25 (1879) cover all employed persons. Data for Württemberg from Württembergische Jahrbücher . . . , Jahrgang 1862, Heft 2 (1863), for Bavaria and Rheinpfalz from Beiträge zur Statistik des Königreichs Bayern 10 (1862) and for Baden from Dietz, Baden, cover mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction only. 
1867: 
Data for Prussia from Preussische Statistik 16 (1869) cover all employed persons but combine manufacturing and construction into a single category. Complete figures are given for provinces and for ad ministrative districts. Includes Schleswig-Holstein, Hannover, and Hessen-Nassau, all annexed by Prussia in 1867. 
1871: 
Data for the entire empire from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, Bd. 14, Heft 3, Abteilung 3 (1875), pp. 124-47, cover all employed persons but only according to broad sectoral classifications. Mining, manufacturing, and construction make up one category, while transportation is grouped with trade and hotels. The division between the industrial and service sectors is therefore not comparable to that used for the other years. Within each household, the distinctions between workers, servants and other dependents was considered imprecise. The assignment of peasant-artisans to either industry or agriculture was not uniform, nor was the use of the category of miscellaneous personal service and wage labor. Some enumerators tried to place laborers under one or another of the sectoral categories, while others placed virtually all ´laborers´ in the ´miscellaneous´ category. 
1875: 
Data for the entire empire from Statistik des deutschen Reiches 34 (1879). An industrial census, limited to mining and smelting, manufacturing and construction, and taking the firm rather than the individual as its unit of observation. The continuing effects of the 1873 crash and a severe cold wave at the time of the census probably affected the results in ways which it is impossible to determine exactly. The definition of an independent firm was extremely broad, and persons in many small ´firms´ should actually have been listed as the employees of firms for which they worked at home 42 On the other hand, greater precision with regard to definitions and the date to which responses were supposed to refer were held to make the 1875 census superior to its 1861 predecessor. 
1882: 
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupational census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 4 (1884) and of the industrial census from ibid. 7 (1886). These are large administrative units (Prussian Regierungsbezirke and provinces of the other states). Data for county (Kreis) units were not published, but there are maps showing employment per ten thousand population in each county for selected industries in ibid. 6 (1886). The results of the occupational census are repeated in more convenient form and compared with the 1895 figures in ibid. 111 (1899): 60*-75*, but do not list domestic servants residing with their employers separately. There is a brief regional comparison of the 1882 and 1875 occupational censuses showing employment per one thousand population and per square kilometer for industry classifications in ibid. 6 (1886). As in 1875 there was a tendency to overstate the number of firms and understate their size. Where several types of product were produced by the same establishment, the establishment was counted as a separate firm in each industry and its workers divided according to the type of product with which they were ´usually´ occupied. Where several establishments were under the same ownership, each was counted as a separate firm. The Imperial Statistical Office never solved this problem, and consequently the official figures were held to understate the growth of large firms relative to total employment. With regard to the occupational census, no distinction was made between an individual´s major source of income and the amount of time spent in a given occupation, and the definition of part-time employment is therefore not precise. In addition agriculturalists with part-time industrial occupations apparently preferred to cite the latter as their ´main´ employment. 
1895: 
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupational census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 104 (1897) for Prussia and ibid. 105 (1897) for the other states. Industrial census figures from ibid. 118 (1898) : 351ff. cover large administrative units, and county results were published in ibid. 117 (1898) and 118 (1898): 2-350. 
1907: 
Data for the entire empire. Regional results of the occupational census from Statistik des deutschen Reiches, n.F., 204 (1909) for Prussia and ibid. 205 (1910) for the other states. Industrial census figures from ibid. 218 (1909) and 219 (1909) are given only for county and provincial units, but the county units can be added together to give figures for the intermediate administrative districts. There is a regional comparison of the 1907 figures with the 1895 results, showing employment per ten thousand population and average size of firm for the industry groups in ibid. 220/221 (1914), Anhang, 221 *ff. A tabular comparison of the industrial classifications of 1907 with those of 1895 and 1882 is inside the cover of ibid. 213 (1910). None of the changes significantly affected the relatively broad industrial divisions used here”.