Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of plates
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- General introduction
- Part I Demography, and the health of the nation
- Part II Economic Transition
- 3 Economic performance and industrialization: the Dutch debate
- 4 Factor inputs: labour, capital, materials
- 5 Economic influences: entrepreneurship, technology, and government policy
- 6 Sectoral analysis
- 7 Features of demand
- 8 Economic transition: conclusion
- Part III Social transition: state, society, individual and nation
- General conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
6 - Sectoral analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of plates
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- General introduction
- Part I Demography, and the health of the nation
- Part II Economic Transition
- 3 Economic performance and industrialization: the Dutch debate
- 4 Factor inputs: labour, capital, materials
- 5 Economic influences: entrepreneurship, technology, and government policy
- 6 Sectoral analysis
- 7 Features of demand
- 8 Economic transition: conclusion
- Part III Social transition: state, society, individual and nation
- General conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Introduction: the distribution of the labour force
We now come to the question of sectoral distribution within the Dutch economy. Regarding the workforce, it was noted in section 3.2 that the proportion engaged in manufacturing industry was modest in the nineteenth century, and in the section on the factor labour (4.2) that the growth of the labour supply was constant throughout the century, with the exception of the 1850s. Here we shall examine the sectoral distribution of the registered labour force, and how that distribution changed over time.
The occupational census figures, displayed in Table II.2 for 1807 and from 1849 right through to 1971, show the picture over time, though they take no account of the differential productivity of labour in the various sectors. (Figures for ‘industrial’ Belgium have been added to the table for purposes of comparison.) According to conventional development models, it is clear that the Netherlands trailed behind compared to its southern neighbour: at the mid-century, the Netherlands had just 19 per cent of its registered waged workforce in manufacturing as opposed to 32 per cent in Belgium, and by the eve of World War I the Netherlands still only managed 25 per cent in industry, compared to Belgium's 35 per cent. If extractive industry is added to manufacturing then she trailed even more, for there was very little extraction in the nineteenth century, with the exception of some peat-cutting. However, there were more building workers, proportionately, in the Netherlands than in Belgium.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- An Economic and Social History of the Netherlands, 1800–1920Demographic, Economic and Social Transition, pp. 166 - 212Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2000