An industrious revolution in Norway? A Norwegian road to the

modern market economy?

By Ragnhild Hutchison, Post doc, NTNU

Introduction

Jan de Vries’ theory of an industrious revolution has received

much attention from historians working on economic and social

development. The theory aims at being a meta-theory unifying

the contrasting descriptions of the rise of the Industrial

Revolution and rests on the results of the more recent studies

of the early modern period, new macro economic studies, studies

of the west European marriage patterns and new economic

theories regarding the household.1 But to what extent does the

theory coincide with the empirical development? This article

tests if the industrious revolution is a fruitful concept to

use while describing and explaining pre-industrial development

in Norway ca 1750 to ca.1830.

Jan de Vries argues that an important demand side process

occurred in the pre-industrial period, and calls this an

industrious revolution. It preceded and prepared the way for

the Industrial Revolution and took shape as a shift in

household behaviour towards increased market production and

consumption. As such it was a process of household-based

reallocation of resources (such as labour and time) which

increased both the supply of market commodities and labour, as

well as the demand for market-supplied goods. The process was 1

driven by commercial incentives, as well as changing taste. The

former were changes in real prices, which micro economic

studies have shown remained stable or rising, but also due to

declining transaction costs. The latter was often created by

aspirations of family or household members. In this way the

gradual pre-industrial economic growth identified by the macro

economic studies and the rising production and consumption

found by the revolt of the early modernists, is explained as

the result of increased market oriented household behaviour.

This lead to increased supply of market commodities and labour,

as well as demand for market-supplied goods.

De Vries argued that households became more “industrious”

through an increase of workdays and working hours, which, even

if wages were stable or declining, enabled increased potential

earnings. The mobilizing of previously unused labour, largely

women and children, in specialized, market-oriented production

of goods is used to explain the growth in agricultural

productivity and of proto-industry. A third factor underlying

the industriousness was that households increased their work

intensity. These shifts occurred in response to changing market

conditions, of which changing transactions costs played an

important role in enabling households to become aware of new

goods, but also made it easier for them to sell their produce.2

2

The industrious revolution has been taken up by many historians

and used to explain both an overall change in the early modern

period, and in the “great divergence debate” to explain

Europe’s lead from the late 18th century. However, so far the

number of studies testing the theory empirically is limited. Of

those made, some support de Vries’ claims that women

increasingly engaged in market oriented work, and that the

number of days worked in a year increased.3 Others do not only

question the increase of workdays, but also whether the

voluntary shift to more market oriented work was done to

realize consumer aspirations, or if need played a possibly more

significant role. The theory has also been criticised for

ignoring social institutions like guilds and sumptuary laws

which in many cases have been found to limit especially women’s

participation in the market, both as producers and consumers.4

Another challenge to the industrious revolution theory is that

it does not take into account the transnational aspects of the

early modern economy. Thus it does not discuss issues such as

how changing consumer aspirations in one country impacted on

production in other countries. Being rooted in English and

Dutch pre-industrial empirics, the theory does not deal with

the roads to industrialization and a modern market economy

which other European countries took. Nor that specialization

was the only way of organizing a household’s productive

activities. These two latter issues were key features of

3

economies on the outskirts of the main early modern growth

areas, of which Norway was one.5

The aim of this article is to test the industrious revolution

theory empirically on the economic and structural changes

taking place in Norway in the pre-industrial period, more

specifically 1750-1830. It will conclude that even though

Norway at this time certainly increased its production, one

cannot say that an important demand side process, in the

industrious revolution-sense, was the main driving force behind

the growth. Instead interregional European trade and foreign

consumers’ demand, combined with a way of organizing production

adapted to market failures, here called pluriactivity, were

more vital driving forces for the economy in the pre-industrial

period. These factors were essential in paving the way for

Norway’s later relatively fast and painless industrialization

and entrance into a modern market economy.

The article will first discuss indicators of economic

development in Norway and how they relate to the industrious

revolution theory, before moving on to discuss the economic and

social characteristics which played more vital roles in

Norwegian pre-industrial development and later

industrialisation. The study is based on primary sources, of

which price studies, probate inventories and contemporary

4

descriptions have been central, but also on the compilation of

relevant secondary literature, much of it in Norwegian.

An industrious revolution in early modern Norway?

It is clear that economic development took place in pre-

industrial Norway, even if the speed and characteristics varied

between regions and communities. In the following, econometric

and demographic indicators, as well as changes in production,

consumption and infrastructural development will be discussed.

This will be related to whether an industrious revolution can

be identified in Norway between ca. 1750 and 1830. The focus

will largely be on eastern, western and southern Norway.

Econometric and demographic indicators

The microeconomic indicators which the industrious revolution

theory rests on show that the economic growth preceding the

Industrial Revolution was slow and stretched far back into the

18th and even 17th centuries. This was also the case for

Norwegian growth. Statistical data is largely lacking for

Norway before around 1820. However, econometric methods enable

some estimations, even if these must be used with care. Angus

Maddison’s estimates indicate that the Norwegian per capita GDP

was 722 dollars ( ‘1990 Int. GK dollars’6 ) in 1700, rising to

801dollars in 1820, slightly lower than the Western European

average of 1032 dollars and 1243 dollars respectively. They

5

also indicate an annual growth rate for Norway of 0,54 percent

between 1500-1820, while the population grew with 0,37 percent

in the same period.7 This shows the economy grew faster than

the population.

Population growth and changing life expectancy is an often-used

indicator of economic development. In this case they can be

used to indicate industriousness since they also signal

improvements in living standards which more industrious

households are assumed to have experienced. From the early

eighteenth century onwards the Norwegian population increased,

growing with an annual rate of 0.38 percent between 1701 and

1750, and the same again between 1750 and 1801.8 By 1855 the

population had reached 1 490 000, a growth rate of 0.93 percent

per year from 1801. Most of the growth between 1801 and 1850

occurred after 1815, reflecting the hardship of the years

during the Napoleonic war. Comparing Norwegian and European

growth rates can only be indicative as the time periods covered

by the estimates differ. Taking this into account it appears

that the Norwegian growth rate was higher than the European

rate of 0.15 percent between 1600 and 1750, and 0.63 percent

from 1750 to 1850.9 The western European marriage pattern of

which Norway was part, helped counter the pressure on resources

by limiting the population growth through restricting the

number of marriages to those with resources enough to afford a

family and household. Life expectancy also rose between 1750

and 1850 further indicating improved living conditions. In 1750

6

life expectancy was on average 35 years, but varied between the

ages 30 and 45 depending on the region. Between 1821 and 1850

it had risen to 45 years due to declining child mortality.10

This is in line with the general European trends.11

In the industrious revolution theory declining or stable wages

were supposed to have stimulated households to increase their

labour input. The few studies of Norwegian wages (largely

sailors and miners) indicate that Norway differed from this

trend. Norwegian studies show a rise in wages in the last half

of the eighteenth century, before plummeting during the

Napoleonic war. After the war, wages again rose, outstripping

price inflation from the 1820s onwards. The wage studies are

few, and the Napoleonic war and following years were ripe with

financial instability, and so these wage trends should be

treated indicatively until more systematic studies can be

made.12 Also, it is doubtful if real wages are the most

suitable indicators for largely agrarian economies such as the

pre-industrial Norwegian.

To capture changing purchasing power, an alternative to wages

is the changing relationship of prices of necessities such as

grain, compared to the prices of the households’ main produce

made for the market. In the Norwegian case, the most suited

goods is barley, which was the most widely consumed grain. This

can be compared to the price of timber and fish, which were

7

the main exports. Using Danish price series, since Norwegian

ones are unavailable, it is possible to gain at least an

impression of this relationship.13 Contrary to studies of

English households in the pre-industrial period which show

increasing prices of consumer goods and necessities relative to

wages, figures1 and 2 show that for those engaged in the export

1Notes

? De Vries, The Industrial Revolution and the IndustriousRevolution, 249, 255-7.; De Vries, `Between purchasing power`;De Vries and Van Der Woude: The First Modern Economy; De Vries, TheIndustrious Revolution. 2 De Vries The Industrious Revolution, 823 Meerkerk, `Couples cooperating`, 237-266.; Allen and Weisdorf: `Was there an ”industrious revolution” `, 715-729.; Voth, `Time and Work in Eighteenth-Century London`, 29-58.4 Clark and Werf: `Work in Progress`830-843.; Ogilvie, S.: ` Consumption, Social Capital, and the ”Industrious Revolution`. 5 Hutchison, R.: In the Doorway to Development, 219-224.6 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars.7 Maddison, The World Economy 1-2001: Historical Statistics.8 Dyrvik, et. al, Norsk økonomisk historie, 124 -128.; Population censuses 1769, 1801, 1815, 1855; Online: http://digitalarkivet.uib.no/.9 Livi-Bacci, A Concise History of World Population, 66.10 Drake, Population and society in Norway, 41-43; Dyrvik, Den demografiske overgangen, 67-71; Sogner, S.: `Familie, husstand og befolkningsutvikling`, 169-175; Dyrvik, et.al., Norsk økonomisk historie, 124 -128.11 Livi-Bacci, A Concise History of World Population, 109.12 Grytten, `Gross Domestic Product`.; Grytten, `A ConsumerPrice Index`.; Grytten, `Norwegian Real Wages`.; Fløystad,Arbeidsmandens Lod, 122-9.13 Danish prices cannot be assumed to be precisely the same as those in Norway, but since Denmark-Norway was part of the same customs union they were likely to be more akin than prices in other countries. Freight rates to Denmark were also lower than those for trade to warring countries in the late 18th century,

8

trades, the purchasing power remained stable (though with

significant fluctuations), and even improved.

Figure 1: Relative price of a barrel of barley to 10 alen deals

of timber. 1750-1800. Danish prices.

Source: Andersen, and Pedersen, A History of Prices and Wages in Denmark

Figure 2. Relative price of barley to clipfish and bergfish.

1750-1800. Danish prices.

strengthening the argument for using Danish prices instead of those of e.g. London.? Distance and transportation costs of course impacted on prices, but taking into account Norway’s geography, transport within Norway would often have been more difficult and costly than transport to or from Denmark. It should be emphasised that the price studies only show general trends over time, and even if based on Norwegian prices, would not reflect the nominal price which a household received or paid for a given commodity. The main source for Danish prices is: Andersen and Pedersen, A History of Prices and Wages in Denmark.

9

Source: Andersen, and Pedersen, A History of Prices and Wages in Denmark

(Bergfish is likely what is called ‘tørrfisk’ (dried fish)).

The results of this relative price study must be understood

only indicatively since transportation costs would have raised

the price of deals and fish in Denmark compared to the prices

in Norway. Also, John Herstads study has shown that the price

of grain was usually higher in Norway than in Denmark.14

Further more, these relative prices only represent what was

paid in urban areas, by merchants with exporting and importing

rights. The price which rural households paid, and were paid

remain to be studied. Taking this into account, even if not

accurate, the trends found in figures 1 and 2 nevertheless

indicate that those engaged in timber and fish experienced

improved purchasing power in the second half of the 18th

century.

14 Herstad, I helstatens grep.10

Norwegian CPI calculations for the period prior to 1820 are

biased toward urban areas, especially Bergen, and the number of

goods covered is limited. Bearing this in mind, they show an

estimated average inflation of 0.5 percent per annum until the

end of the mid 1790’s and the start of the Napoleonic war.15

Production

Productivity increased in agriculture as well as the export

oriented sectors of timber, fisheries, mining and shipping

through the second half of the 18th century.16 A growing number

of households in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth

centuries became engaged in production of processed goods with

origins in the primary sector and destined for the

international market, and to some extent manufactured consumer

goods for the domestic market as well. Most of this production

took place in rural areas, was seasonal, and combined with

other productive activities requiring labour migration for

parts of the year. As such households typically engaged in

several activities, e.g. combining some agricultural production

with work in the fishing or timber sectors, as well as

production and sale of textiles or other goods made in the

household. This way of organising production is here called

pluriactivity (‘mangesysleri’).

15 Grytten, `A Consumer Price Index`. 16 Dyrvik, et. al., Norsk økonomisk historie

11

As in other European countries the Norwegian population growth

was supported by improvements in land use and increased

efficiency in agricultural production. The increase in planted

grain (‘utsæd’), the new plant, the potato, as well as

expansion of agricultural land, all this shows that

agricultural production increased through the period, a

development termed by some, though much discussed, as an

‘agricultural revolution.’17 Most of the improvements utilised

already existing technology such as communal grain storage

facilities, irrigation, drainage, crop rotation and

fertilising, and, some have argued, the spread of the potato.18

Calculations of animal produce, as expressed in milk output,

indicate relative stability from the sixteenth century onwards,

rising slightly from the mid eighteenth century.19 Much of the

agricultural growth began after the population boom which

coincides with Ester Boserup’s theory that population growth

stimulates change in agricultural methods.20

Data on grain output are unavailable making it impossible to

discover how much of Norwegian grain consumption was covered by

17 Dyrvik, et. al., Norsk økonomisk historie,144.18Hovland, `Jordbruksproduksjon, kornimport og mattilgang`;Dyrvik, Poteta, dødsrata og demografien´; Teigen, `Potet,alternativkostnad og kontrafaktisk metode´; Lunden,`Potetkommentar´; Lunden “Potetdyrkinga og den raskarefolketalsvoksteren `; Hovland, `Åkerbruket i Norge´; Lunden,`Norges landbrukshistorie`,159-180.; Nedkvitne, Mens Bøndeneseilte.19 Lunden, `Norges landbrukshistorie`, 264-79.20 Boserup, The conditions of agricultural growth.

12

domestic production. Instead studies show a tendency towards

increased dependence on Danish and imported grains after the

mid eighteenth century in both the north and south of Norway.21

In contemporary budgets the annual grain consumption of a

household consisting of four adults and two children was about

21 barrels.22 When the per capita grain imports are compared

with this, it becomes clear that only 2-3 barrels of grain

consumed by the household originated from outside Norway, or

between 10 to 15 percent of the households’ annual grain

consumption.23 This shows that on average, during good grain

years, most of the grain consumed in Norway was in fact

domestically produced. However, it is not known to what extent

each household itself produced it or how this varied depending

on other economic conditions. Only isolated studies have been

done of how domestic grain produced for sale was traded.24

Dairy and meat were essential parts of the diet for Norwegian

households, especially in the inland. If surplus production was

sold to the market, it was an important source of income. A

contemporary study of the mountainous community Trysil in

inland Eastern Norway in the 1780s indicates that dairy and

21 Herstad, I helstatens grep, 238.22 Smith, `Trysil´, 135-7; Wilse, Spydeberg, 322-5.; Døssland, `Sunnmørsk jordbruksøkonomi´, Døssland,`Melchior Falch´. ( In North Norway a perfectly sufficient amount of grain was generally reccond to be 1 ½ barrel per adult. Fjærvoll, Korndyrking i Hålogaland` 93f)23 Hutchison, In the doorway to development, 36.24 Bull, Fra pest til potetet, 325.

13

meat production for sale made up 18% of a household’s annual

income. This was approximately as much as it spent on servants’

wages, artisan work, tobacco, salt and herring. A contemporary

author, Peder Holm, writing from Lister and Mandal (along the

southern coast) confirmed the importance of dairy production

for the household’s income, saying it was the “the only thing

that provided them (the households) wth money to pay taxes and

other expenses”.25 Even in the grain producing community

Spydeberg in Eastern Norway, the sale of dairy produce brought

in 3% of the household’s income, which was enough to cover its

expenses for salted herring. Animal husbandry and dairy

production was traditionally thought of as women’s work, and

the share which it made up in the households income shows that

women’s production for the market could contribute

significantly to the household’s total earnings.

Even if agriculture remained the main activity for most

Norwegian pre-industrial households, an increasing number

engaged in pluriactivity by combining it with work in other,

market-oriented, productive activities. Many of these were

within what is often termed ‘the export sectors’, which

included the timber, fishing, mining and shipping sectors. In

some places the trade in these goods became large scale as

early as in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The main

markets were first the Hansa communities in the fourteenth

25 Smith, `Trysil´, 137.; Wilse, Spydeberg, 322-5.; Holm, `Listerog Mandal`.

14

century, then the Dutch, and in the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries the English. Prior to the foreign interests in the

Norwegian goods, these sectors were little developed, engaged

few households and were mainly utilized only for self-

sufficiency. Thus, any engagement in these sectors meant that

the household increased its engagement in the market as

producers. An example of this is found in the inland,

mountainous community Trysil to which the timber trade spread

only in the 18th century. The timber trades share in Trysil’s

income rose from 0% to 40% though the century.26

The Norwegian households’ labour resources were flexible as

long as the work could be combined in some way with

agriculture.27 This was a problem for full-time employment in

manufacturing, but less so for engagement in the exporting

sectors where work was seasonal. In practice the division of

labour often implied that the men took on seasonal work outside

the household, leaving the women in charge of much of the day-

to-day running of the farm. The Lofoten fisheries taking place

in January to April and the felling of trees which also

occurred in the winter, were thus both possible to combine with

agriculture which demanded most resources in spring and autumn.

Through increasing their participation in these trades,

households activated and used labour resources which previously

had been idle in these seasons. Not all sectors were as easily

26 Løberg, En tidligkapitalistisk skogbruksrevolusjon.27 Also observed by e.g. Bull, De trondhjemske handelshusene, 79-81.

15

combined. Sailors were away from home in the warm months, which

coincided with sowing and harvesting, and those floating the

timber or transporting fish were likewise away in spring.

Table 1: Norwegian export of herring and cod. Average for aselection of years 1756-1850.

Time period Herring (barrels) Cod* (tons raw

fish**)1720 10 0001756-60 170 000 40 0001804-06 50 000 73 0001815-19 140 000 40 0001846-50 620 000 105 000*All sorts of cod, as well as saithe, ling and tusk.

** 3 kg raw fish per 1 kg clipfish, and 4,5 kg per kg stockfish.

Source: Dyrvik, et. al. Norsk økonomisk historie, 155.

Even if significant traces of economic change and development

can be identified as far back as the mid 17th century, it is

nevertheless the second half of the eighteenth century which is

termed ‘the blooming years’ (den florisante periode) for the

Norwegian pre-industrial economy. Table 1 shows how exports of

fish grew significantly in the long eighteenth century, though

with variations due to changing availability. Figure 3 shows

that Norwegian exports of timber, deals and battens to Britain

remained relatively stable until the outbreak of the Napoleonic

war, after which Norway increased its exports of fir timber, 16

likely taking over for the Baltic fir timber, before declining

when Denmark/ Norway was drawn into the war and remaining low

long after the war because Britain imposed new protectionist

measures favouring its colonies.28 The importance in the pre-

industrial period of both fish and timber for the state’s

economy is illustrated by the export duties making up about

half of Norway’s share of the Danish-Norwegian state’s income

through most of the long eighteenth century.29 A low estimate

of the exports’ contribution to the Norwegian economy indicates

that in 1805 (a good year for Norwegian exports), timber

constituted 4.5 million riksdaler, fish 2.7 million riksdaler,

iron and copper 0. 8 million riksdaler and freight shipping 2

million riksdaler.30

Figure 3:

28 Before the war Norwegian deals and battens had approximately70% of the British market, Norwegian fir timber had ca 15%.29 Dyrvik, S. et. Al., Norsk økonomisk historie, 218.30 Ibid.,117.

17

Source: HoC, Britain: “Report from the Select Committee on Timber Duties”,

1835, appendix 5

Even if the export trades were controlled by a relatively

small merchant elite who profited significantly and a state

filling its coffers through duties on the exports, the active

involvement of farmers, cotters and others ensured that some of

the profits also reached the wider population.31 A contemporary

study made by the parson Axel Smith indicates that timber made

up approximately 82% of a household’s annual income in the

forested inland community of Trysil in the 1780s. In the 31 The fur, leather and hide trade frequently appears in theexport records and likely played an important role as anadditional income for many households. However, no studies havebeen made of it and thus little is known.

18

largely deforested community of Spydeberg a study from 1779

indicates that working for others in the timber trade

contributed 13% of the household’s annual income. In neither of

these was the households’ production for self sufficiency

included.32 No contemporary calculations exist for the

contribution which fishing made to households’ budgets, but

writing in 1762, the parson Hans Strøm made clear that incomes

from fishing played a crucial role in the households’ income

and allocation of resources. He noted that:

Fishing has caused the greatest changes in our agriculture, and caused those

farms which previously had only one farmer (‘oppsiter’) to now be shared by 3

or 4. Since the fisheries have expanded greatly in recent years, it has not been

possible to engage in agricultural developments. With the aid of annual

profits from fishing it has been possible to survive on smaller plots. In addition

there is the shortage of servants which forces the farmer to give part of his

land to his son, as early as possible, so that he can be relieved in the otherwise

enormous agricultural work. In this way … the population grows, especially

the share of those engaged in farming.33

32 Smith, `Trysil´,137.; Wilse, Spydeberg, 322-5.33 “I øvrig have Fiskeriene gjort den største Forandring iJordbruget hos os, og foraarsaget at de Gaarde, som tilfornhavde kun een Opsider, ere nu deelt imellem 3 eller 4; thi daSøebruget i de senere Tider meget stærkt har tiltaget, har manei kundet befatte sig med vidløftig Jordebrug eller Land-Brug,men ved hielp og aarlig Fordeel af Fiskerierne kunde ernære sigaf smaa Jord-Parter; hvortil kommer den mangel paa Tieneste.Folk, som nøder en Bonde til, jo før jo heller at dele Jordenmed sin Søn, for at faae en Lettelse i sit ellersuovervindelige Jord-Arbeid. Paa saadan Maade er og bliverenhver Jord-Part desto mer Forbedret, og saa vel Folkets Antalli Almidelighet, som de for Jordbrugendes i særdeleshed, stærktforøget”, Strøm, Sunnmøre, 505.

19

Studies of Norwegian economic development often overlook that

work in the exporting sectors was not merely the extracting of

resources, much was also processing of these. This has led to a

misunderstanding that pre-industrial Norway was primarily a raw

material exporting country. Attention should instead be drawn

to the fact that most of the raw materials were processed into

half, or even fully processed goods before they were exported.

Timber was sawn into deals and battens, fish processed into

stock- or clipfish, iron ore smelted into bars are examples of

this. The shipping sector must be understood as a tertiary

sector providing transport services. Thus, even if the

production was not as advanced as the manufactories in London

or Amsterdam in the long eighteenth century, the Norwegian

productive sectors were more developed than what has

traditionally been understood.

Still, gradually the beginnings of a manufacturing sector grew

forth in Norway from the middle to the end of the eighteenth

century. Little quantitative data exist on the spread, but

contemporary descriptions and studies enable the identification

of some overall trends.34 Contemporary records, in which

information is often lacking or approximate, and thus can only

be used as indicators, note that in 1776 there were at least

2,350 persons employed in production of durable and semi-

durable goods.35 The number included those working in the metal

20

works, but likely not women and children in supportive jobs. To

what extent seasonal labour was included is not clear, it

probably varied. In 1835, 4,214 persons were noted to be

employed in a factory survey which did not include those

working in metal works, and it is unclear if it included

seasonal labour, or women and children.36

Production was varied. It ranged from pre-fabricated housing

made in rural communities and sold to urban areas, to tar

production in forested areas, supposedly exquisite gloves,

ladies’ hats, pyramid shaped boxes with drawers, shoes and

other leatherwork, tailoring, spinning, weaving and knitting,

carpentry and metal workings, basket weaving, button making,

various sorts of spoons, and boat and ship building along the

coast. The increased comfort that many of these goods provided

is in line with consumer trends found in other parts of Europe.

Studies of production of durable and semi durable goods tend to

focus on specialized production, either in manufactories, or at

least as a household’s fulltime employment. In Norway few, if

indeed any, pre-industrial households structured their

34 E.g. Pram, Reise i Norge.; Strøm, Sunnmøre.35 This was approximately 0,003% of the population which in 1769 was 727 000.36 RA, Oslo, Kommerciekollegiet, Norske saker, Industrisaker pakke, General tabell over Fabrikerne i Norge 1776.; Beretninger,Table 14: over de vigtigste Industrie-Anlæg, som foruden Bergverkerne haves i Norge ved Udgangen af Aaret 1835.

21

production in this way. Instead it was organized pluriactively,

usually combined with agriculture, but often together with one

of the export trades. It was done seasonally or part-time (or

both), usually located in rural areas, often on a farm and

owned by a farmer, though putting-out systems also occurred.

Its contribution to the households economy varied, but it was

not insignificant. Anna Tranbergs study of three women’s

spinning in Toten has shown that it contributed a significant

share of the households annual income; approximately 25% of the

rent of their three cotter holdings. Axel Smiths contemporary

study of the Trysil community indicated that the household

industry like spinning wheels, scissors etc. contributed ca

1.5% of the mainly timber producing community`s total income. 37

There was little full-time manufacturing in the form of

manufactories or factories. The few found were largely linked

to exotic goods or textile production, and often closely tied

to the poor relief system. Most of these units were located in,

or close to, towns, and usually owned by merchants.38 The

exception was the metal works which usually were located close

to the mines and employed specialists for the skilled jobs.

Local farmers would work for the mines by carting firewood or

metal ore and produce, or produce coal, activities which were

possible to combine with agriculture. Some smaller production

37 Tranberg, `Tekstilproduksjon på Hedemarken´, 137.38 Grieg, Norsk Tekstil. ; Hutchison, Enigheten.;Bull,’Industriousness and development´, 425-446; Hutchison, Inthe doorway to development, 52-59.

22

units produced at full-time, but these tended to be organized

as artisan production. They were often within sectors demanding

more skills or capital investment such as the making of soap,

dyes or paper, and were often protected by privileges or guilds

if they were located in towns.

Norwegian households first became acquainted with the market

through their production of goods for exports. It was through

this contact that they became familiar with the market as

consumers. Purchases of durable and semi-durable goods to meet

consumer aspirations were made possible by earnings from the

export trades, or in the words of Axel Smith: “approximately

half the sum (spent on tobacco) is due to the timber trade. It

certainly leads to (the purchasing of) some 40 additional mats

of tobacco that would otherwise not have been possible”.39

Consumption

In the industrious revolution theory it is households’ consumer

aspirations that is the main driving force behind the pre-

industrial economic development and the onset of

industrialisation and a modern market economy. De Vries argues

that these consumer aspirations are visible in the many studies

showing that while there was no consumer revolution in the long

18th century, there was still a clear increase in households’

consumption of material goods acquired from, or in response to,39 Smith, Trysil´, 30.

23

contact with the market. This changing behaviour shows that

households had developed consumer aspirations and actively

engaged in the market, building consumer capital which enabled

them to be better prepared for the onset of the modern market

economy.

In Norway studies of living conditions show that households

increasingly took part in the market as consumers.40 At the

start of the century most houses were smoky and drafty one-

floor, one room buildings with open hearths or fire places,

eating utensils were few, usually wooden and often communal. By

the end of the 18th century, chimneys, cast iron stoves,

windows, plates and warmer bedding and private rooms had spread

to a wider share of the population. The availability of sugar

and tobacco increased, making it possible for many to consume

these items, even on a daily basis. These goods were all

either purchased from the market, or had been made by the

household in response to contact with consumer trends it had

met through the market.

It is difficult to get a clear impression of how much Norwegian

households spent to fulfil their consumer aspirations. A 40 Hutchison, In the doorway to development, Chapt. 5 and 6.; Fløystad, Arbeidsmandens Lod; Løberg, En tidligkapitalistisk skogbruksrevolusjon.; Bøhmer, Bondestanden i Asker.; Elstad, Å: `Skiftemateriale, hamskiftet og klesskikk, in Martinsen `; Hutchinson, A.: Skifteprotokoller som kilde til studier av materielle kår;

24

glimpse of the share, variety and spread of the goods is,

however, possible. Studies of late 18th century household

budgets, idealized by contemporaries to represent a typical

household in a specific community and focusing on what was

perceived to be the basic necessities, note little, if anything

spent on more than survival.41 Only in the Trysil budget are

other goods than food and clothing are mentioned, noting that

tobacco and goods produced by artisans made up 5 % of

households expenses. The local parson Axel Smith noted that he

thought these were goods which households should do without,

but which they clearly craved and prioritized. The household

budgets only indicate overall annual flows, they say nothing

about larger investments. Unnecessary expenses were generally

kept out in order to show what was the minimum requirement.

To learn more of larger investments done in a lifetime, probate

inventories may help as they contain the stock of goods a

person has compiled at the time of death. There are

nevertheless significant problems in using probate inventories.

They are biased towards households with at least some wealth.

They are not representative of the whole population, and as

such they cannot be relied on to contain all of a deceased

person’s items. Often basic tools, clothing or food necessary

for survival are missing, and cash is frequently not noted. The

tendency to group items together, making it impossible to

41 Smith, `Trysil´; Wilse, Spydeberg, 322-5.; Døssland, `Sunnmørsk jordbruksøkonomi ´.; Døssland, `Melchior Falch´.

25

identify then individually, further complicates the use of

probate inventories in studies of material consumption. Most

studies of probate inventories have a local history approach,

and thus they do not provide an overview of consumer trends in

all of Norway, even if they can be used to gain an

impression.42

The trend found in studies of Norwegian probate inventory is

that households in the long 18th century increasingly

surrounded themselves with more and more varied things.43 Items

like cushions, furniture, books and decorations became more

frequent and spread in a wider share of the population. Old

ways were replaced by new, such as communal eating bowls being

replaced by individual plates, and sleeping skins and hides by

feather filled duvets. The process was slow, the changes

gradual; but they were seen over time. Nevertheless, Bente

Hartvigsens study of inheritance in Nordland 1780 to 1865 shows

that only the richest one-third of the farming population left

a surplus to inherit after the estate was settled, indicating

that much of the profits (in this case from the fisheries) went

to merchants to repay loans for purchases of necessities and

other goods.44

42 Hutchinson, Skifteprotokoller som kilde.; Hutchison, Enigheten.; Tveite `The Norwegian Textile Market´.; Bøhmer, Bondestanden i Asker. 43 See note 4044 Hartviksen, Fiskerbøndenes arv, 468-71

26

The trends in consumption found in Norway follow the same lines

as those widespread in other Western European countries in the

18th century. Several of the goods introduced increased

physical or social comfort by making living spaces more

comfortable. Social gatherings became more dignified e.g. by

replacing alcoholic drink with non-alcoholic coffee or tea.

Many of the goods also became more “breakable” as less skilled

workers and larger scale production lead to declining quality,

but also lower prices, enabling more attainable goods as well

as more frequent replacement. An example of this is sugar which

was produced cheaply and in large scale by slaves on

plantations. Figure 4 shows how sugar prices remained stable or

declined relative to Norwegian exports (using Danish prices in

both cases). In the same period the amounts of sugar per capita

brought legally to Norway increased significantly; from 0.37 kg

in 1750 to 1.05 in 1835.45

Figure 4: Relative price of sugar to deals of timber, clipfish

and bergfish 1750-1800 (Danish prices).

45 Hutchison, In the doorway to development, 241-43.27

Source: Andersen, and Pedersen, A History of Prices and Wages in Denmark

It should be noted that some of the new consumer goods helped

households become more industrious. The wider use of windows

allowed light from outside to enter the house, making it easier

to do work requiring good lighting, e.g. sewing, to be done

indoors. The cast iron stove increased the room temperature and

facilitated removal of sooth and smoke. It made it easier to

use candles or other forms of light, as the draft which the

hearth or fire place had required, not only had left the rooms

cold, but also extinguished the flame. Together this expanded

the working hours into the evenings, and with a cup of coffee

or tea with sugar, or some tobacco, a person was provided with

the extra energy to work longer and more intensively.

Infrastructural developments

Changing transactions costs enabling more households to easier

come into contact with the market is much emphasized in the

28

industrious revolution theory. It could possibly be considered

a pre-requisite. The Norwegian pre-industrial market lagged far

behind the contemporary economic leaders in this; not even

households in urban areas could depend on the market to

predictably supply its needs, and self-sufficiency was vital

for all households’ survival irrespective of wealth and

standing. As such, there was no well-functioning market for

households to come into contact with. Instead the domestic

market was developing between the Norwegian regions, while at

the same time the world market was reaching new rural

communities. Essential for this to occur was changes in

infrastructural, judicial reforms and the spread of new forms

of retail trades. These changes helped expand the domestic

market, and strengthen connections with the world market,

laying important foundations for the onset of the Industrial

Revolution and the spread of the modern world economy.

The Norwegian economy before the Industrial Revolution has been

described as consisting of regional economies with little

interaction.46 This is correct in many respects, as geography,

in the form of difficult terrain, long distances, and harsh

weather, has been a continuous underlying influence and

obstacle in Norwegian development and internal market

formation. Another obstacle for the market was the trade

legislation in which mercantilist interests had long restricted

trade to only a few places and persons. Infrastructural and

46 Helle, et.al., Vestlandets historie, 192.29

judicial developments taking place in the long 18th century

helped Norwegian goods to reach European markets, and a

gradually increasing number of foreign and domestic goods reach

households even in the remotest Norwegian valleys.

Improvements in the physical infrastructure were first closely

tied to the export trades. Rising European timber prices

enabled Norwegian private timber interests to financed

improvements to waterways in order to increase efficiency,

enabling more logs to reach the sawmills faster. These were

mainly small developments, such as removing river sandbanks or

shallows, but at the turn of the nineteenth century this was no

longer sufficient to eliminate bottlenecks.47 Networks of

merchant representatives were established to purchase timber

directly from the farmer, and in the first half of the

nineteenth century cartels were formed to invest in more

capital-intensive projects such as sluices and canals.48 In

regions where fishing was important, infrastructures in the

form of more permanent locations for drying, salting and

hanging of the fish were established. These increased both

productivity and storage capacity, and were often financed by a

local merchant or some of the wealthier farmers.49 They also

became places for traders catering for the needs of those

47 Løberg, En tidligkapitalistisk skogbruksrevolusjon.; Frydenlund,Stormannen Peder Anker, 111-126.48 Bødtker, Norsk fløtingshistorie, 165.49 Døssland, `Økonomi og marknad i Møre og Romsdal på 1700-talet`,

125-7; Brautaset, Norsk eksport av fisk 1830-1865,124 30

working in the export trades, as well as for any locals.

Together these changes reduced transaction costs, increased

predictability and facilitated the exchange of information,

enabling the spread of the world market to more households.

Several other infrastructural developments further reduced

transactions costs. One was the establishing of a system of

light houses in the latter part of the seventeenth century

which together with improved mapping of the coast and a system

of pilots, increased safety at sea. The skyssvesen (a coaching or

conveyance system), institutionalized in the late 17th century,

spread widely through the 18th century, providing food and

lodging for travellers and aimed at alleviating the challenges

of travelling both by land and by sea. A postal system was

developed in the seventeenth century to help speed up the

spread of information. Contributing to the easing of inter-

regional transactions was the Danish-Norwegian introduction (as

one of the first European countries) of a unified system for

weights and measures. It was implemented in the 1680’s to

replace the multitude of regional and local systems operating

within its borders. 50

Changes in the trade laws also played a significant role

facilitating trade between the Norwegian regions. Through the 50 Jarmann, `Kjøreveien og hjulredskapen´.; Johannessen, Alltid under veis, 106.; Rogan, Plikt, byrde - og inntektskilde.; Hutchison, Fra mangfold til enhet, 20-29.

31

second half of the 18th century the privileges granted

merchants in the 17th century were softened. This took form as

an increase of licensed small scale traders called ‘høkere’

(hawkers/small scale peddlers) who could trade in small or

medium sized quantities of necessities like salted and dried

meat, fish, salt, flour, peas, tar, tobacco, beer and alcohol.

The state gradually changed its attitude to farmers’ trade, and

exceptions were imposed to the 1662 urban prerogatives

regulating trade to towns enabling rural people to engage in

‘traditional farmers’ trade.’ This was never clearly defined,

but appears to have implied that the rural population could

sell the goods which they themselves had produced in the

household, trading with other regions or towns and at

markets.51

Gradually the trade laws opened for establishing more places to

trade. Being primarily a rural country, only a small, but

slowly rising share of the Norwegian population lived in urban

areas52: 10 percent in 1801, 10.8 percent in 1835, 12.2 percent

in 1845 and 13.3 percent in 1855.53 The number of places in

which to trade grew faster up to the long 18th century. It grew

from from 11 in 1560, to 18 in 1665, to 32 around 1800 and to

34 in 1825. Even if the growing urban population was a

significant market for parts of the rural population, the

51 Schweigaard, Norges statistikk, 77-9.52 Urban areas are here defined as settlements of more than 350 persons in accordance with Helle, et.al., Norsk byhistorie.53 Helle, et.al., Norsk byhistorie, 131.

32

rising number of towns was likely more important since this

reduced transaction costs both by increasing the number of

places to trade legally, but also by enabling more

predictability with regards to meeting customers or traders.

Judicial changes furthermore enabled new retail forms such as

shops, guesthouses and auctions to gradually spread in rural

areas, increasing the ease of which households could enter into

trade transactions both as producers and consumers 54 Geography

influenced the speed with which consumer trends disseminated,

but most importantly distance and terrain impacted on the

extent to which communities were integrated in the market.

Contemporary commentators noted, and probate inventories

studies confirm it, that those first to pick up new trends were

communities that were located on trade routes or close to urban

areas. This was not a guarantee: there are examples of more

geographically isolated communities who were quicker to adapt

new consumer aspirations and habits than those close to urban

areas.55 In this case the former were often deeply engaged in

one of the export trades, or in the domestic grain market.

Characteristics of Norwegian pre-industrial growth

At first glance the economic and structural changes taking

place in Norway in the pre-industrial period correspond well

with the theory of an industrious revolution; both production

and consumption rose. Households’ labour was re-allocated 54 Ibid.147.55 Hutchison, In the doorway to development, Chapt. 5 and 6.

33

towards increased market oriented production and the population

became more accustomed to the market. However, looking more

closely, it is clear that aspects considered essential to the

theory are not present in the Norwegian development.

Consumption increased, but it was not the consumer aspirations

of Norwegian households which was the initial, nor the main,

motivation for the reallocation of resources towards the

market, although over time this may have played an increasing

role. Norwegian households did not become more industrious

because of declining wages and rising prices of necessities and

other goods. Quite the contrary, the price of goods produced

for sale by Norwegians rose or remained stable, relative to

both consumer goods and necessities. In addition, the

Norwegian market was so undeveloped that it could not be relied

on to predictably supply necessities, or any other goods. As

such, the industrious revolution theory, as defined by Jan de

Vries, does not fit the economic growth and development taking

place in Norway in the pre-industrial period.

To understand the pre-industrial Norwegian economic development

it is necessary to take a wider view, including transnational

perspectives and recognize other ways to economic development.

The main drives behind the changes came from outside the

country’s borders; they were the changing aspirations of

European consumers and the growing inter-regional European

trade. Enabling the development was the pluriactive way which

34

pre-industrial Norwegian households organized their production,

and which was adapted to the undeveloped market conditions.

Changing European consumer aspirations

Even if the consumption of Norwegian households played only a

small role in pre-industrial Norwegian economic development,

changing consumer aspirations were not unimportant. But to see

this, one must have a transnational perspective. As ever more

European households in the early modern period turned to the

market for necessities and other goods, the demand for

Norwegian goods increased. The Norwegian exports fed into the

European economic and demographic growth; dried and salted

Norwegian fish fed the European urban masses and even slave

populations in the West-Indies. Norwegian timber and iron

helped build ships and towns in Europe, and filled them with a

growing number of wooden goods like household furnishings. It

was also used as packaging and even coffins, and Norwegian

ships and sailors freighted both Norwegian and other countries’

goods in the growing European inter-regional and global

trade.56

As rural communities became more integrated with other regions

and with the world market, the increased availability of goods

sometimes replaced old items, but also initiated new trends. 56 Hutchison, In the doorway to development, Chapt. 5 and 6; Brautaset, Norsk eksport av fisk 1830-1865,124

35

Combined with changing social ideals, this created new consumer

aspirations in Norwegian households too. Improvements in

material living standards show that many must have been able to

realize at least part of an ambition in which more comfortable

lives played an essential part. These were not necessarily

large steps; they could be small things like a warmer bed, more

light, a cup of sugared coffee or a pipe of tobacco on a cold

winter night which helped ease an otherwise hard life. For the

richest people such things had been accessible in the century

or so before 1750, but especially in the latter half of the

18th century they slowly became available also for a wider

share of the population, at least when political and natural

circumstances were favorable. The price of Norwegian exports

rose or remained stable, relative to the price of consumer

goods. This helped enable change. The Norwegians were never as

engaged in the market as the population in the economic leading

countries. The changes nevertheless provided Norwegian

households with basic consumer capital, helping prepare them

for functioning in the later Industrial Revolution and modern

market economy.

Inter-regional European trade

Facilitating the world market’s spread in the pre-industrial

period were changes in transaction costs which eased transport

and trade between regions and states. The role this

interregional and foreign trade played in countries’ economic

36

development varied; estimates indicate that the ratio of

domestic exports to gross national product in Britain was

approx. 10 % in the pre-industrial period. The same was found

for Portugal and Holland. Some have argued that this is too

small to have played a significant role in the birth of the

Industrial Revolution, but that does not mean that exports and

foreign trade was unimportant for pre-industrial economic

development and later industrialization in other European

countries. 57

For the Norwegian economy, foreign trade, mainly inter-regional

European trade, constituted around 20 – 30 % of the total

Norwegian output between 1750 and 1850 (today it is 40%), and

it was vital for the pre-industrial economic development. 58 The

export trades facilitated infrastructural change which spread

the market to more households. This resulted in production of

goods for exports and for purchasing goods as consumers. In

this way Norwegian households became accustomed to operating in

a market, an aspect important in explaining the later fast, and

relatively painless, industrialization and entrance into the

modern market.59 Since much of the processing occurred in rural

areas and was significantly influenced by rural interests, some

profits also trickled down to rural communities and households,

at least in good times. Rising prices of timber, fish and

57 O’Brien, `European Economic Development58 Dyrvik, et. al.Norsk økonomisk historie, 248.59 Hutchison, In the doorway to development, 220-224

37

freight, as well as goods for the domestic market such as

livestock, provided increased income which due to stable or

even declining prices of necessities and other goods provided

real profits for more Norwegian households.

Political conditions played a central role in explaining why

Norwegian exports were so successful in the European market at

the end of the 18th century. Having negotiated a position of

neutrality with the warring European powers, Denmark/Norway

held a unique position in accessing markets for e.g. timber,

fish and shipping which competitors were kept out of due to

warfare and conflict. This strategy resulted in significant

profits, but when it failed, as it did in 1807, when

Denmark/Norway was drawn into the Napoleonic war, it had

dramatic negative consequences. The following peace, in which

Norwegian goods again met competition and protectionism, was

devastating, especially for the timber trade which lost its

main market.60

Social divergence was on the rise in the pre-industrial period.

But in the changing economic situation, not only merchants in

the exporting sectors, but also local farmers or traders could,

and did, increase their control over resources. The few studies

made of social diversification indicate that, despite

60 Brautaset, Norsk eksport 1830-1865 i perspektiv av historiske nasjonalregnskaper,

38

significant regional variations, show that the majority of the

population were relatively homogenous in their poverty.61 But

in most communities, a few households stood out in their

wealth. This was oftentimes a local trader or farmer who

functioned as rural middlemen in the export sectors, or who

controlled access to resources.62 Institutional change, such as

a more legally formalised cotter system, as well as the gradual

disbanding of old trading and production privileges, opened new

opportunities for more rural artisans, and facilitated the

formation of more mobile workers and producers. Lacking the

security of land or other assets, many members of the rural

population led harsh lives; this was made harder as population

growth and competition for land resources increased.

Pluri-activity

Meeting the demands of the European consumers and of the

growing trade was not, as in Britain and the Netherlands,

achieved by specialization. The pre-industrial Norwegian market

could not be relied on to predictably get products made by

specialists to the market, nor provide a stabile supply of

necessities which anyone specializing would need for both their

production, as well as their survival. The solution for most

61 Hutchison, In the doorway to development, 122-3; Hartviksen, B.: Fiskerbøndenes arv, Conclusion.

62 Soltow, `The Distribution of Real Estate´.; Kongsrud, `Hva er en husmann´.; Hutchison, `De små hjulene`

39

Norwegian households was therefore to spread the risk by

engaging in several economic activities: pluriactivity. This

way of organizing the production made Norwegian households

accustomed to slower-paced, or “softer” market participation

than households in countries where they were forced to become

specialists and fully depend on the market for necessities.63

The most common pluriactive combinations involved engaging in

some agriculture (grain or livestock) aimed at self-sufficiency

and sometimes sale, combined with activities in one of the

export trades, in transportation, and/ or something in the

early modern manufacturing. It would not be uncommon that a

household was engaged in three to five different productive

activities which together provided self-sufficiency, income

from sales, or both. Many of the activities were seasonal: They

could be organized to utilize the household’s resources at

different times of the year enabling an efficient use of land,

time and labour. Thus pluriactivity enabled the forming of a

flexible labour force which could be employed where needed, but

which in times of crisis could be absorbed into other

productive activities.

In the Industrious Revolution theory a main point is that

supposed labour reserves, in the form of women and children,

were redirected to production for the market. This was not 63 Hutchison, In the doorway to development, 220-224

40

quite the case in Norway; women did increase their work, but

this was to take over men’s work in the household, thus

enabling the household to reallocate male labour resources to

the export sectors. Thus households were able to ensure both

production for self-sufficiency and a market oriented

production. It should be noted that there were many examples of

women also engaging in market oriented activities, e.g. in

64 Tranberg,´Tekstilproduksjon på Hedemarken i et økonomisk perspektiv´, 31-50

References

Archival references:

House of Commons (HoC), Britain: `Report from the Select Committee on Timber Duties`, 1835, appendix 5.

RA, Oslo, Kommerciekollegiet, Norske saker, Industrisaker pakke, General tabell over Fabrikerne i Norge 1776.

Literature:

Allen, R. C. and J. L. Weisdorf: `Was there an ”industrious revolution” before the industrial revolution? An empirical exercise for England c. 1300-1830`, Economic History Review, 64, 3 (2011); p. 715-729.

Andersen, D. H. and E.H. Pedersen (with the cooperation of M. Ehlers): A History of Prices and Wages in Denmark, 1660-1800. Vol. II. Prices and Wages in Danish estate Accounts, Copenhagen: Schultz Grafisk, 2004.

Boserup, E.: The conditions of agricultural growth. The economics of agrarian change under population pressure, London; Earthscan, (3rd. Ed.) 2002.

41

dairy and animal production for sale, in various forms of

household manufacturing like textile production and in parts of

the commodity chain of the export sectors.64

Beretninger om den Oeconomiske Tilstand m.m. i Norge ved udgangen af Aaret 1835, underdanigst afgivne af Rigets Amtmænd, Christiania,; Chr. Grøndahl, 1836.

Brautaset, C.: `Norsk eksport av fisk 1830-1865 : i perspektiv

av historiske nasjonalrekneskap`, Spesialfagsoppgave ved høyere

avdelings studium i økonomisk historie, Norges handelshøyskole,

Bergen, 1998.

Brautaset, C.: Norsk eksport 1830-1865 i perspektiv av historiske nasjonalregnskaper, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen, 2002.

Bull, I.: De trondhjemske handelshusene på 1700-tallet: slekt, hushold ogforretning, Trondheim: Skriftserie fra Historisk institutt nr. 26,1998.

Bull, I. And A. Dybdal: `Fra pest til poteter: 1350 til 1850´, vol. 2 in Bull, I. (ed.) Trøndelags historie, Trondheim: Tapir, 2005.

Bull, I.: ’Industriousness and development of the school-systemin the eighteenth century: the experience of Norwegian cities’,History of education, vol. 40, no. 4, (2011), 425-446.

Bødtker, R.: Norsk fløtingshistorie inntil 1860, Oslo: Aschehoug, 1938.

Bøhmer, A.M.: `Bondestanden i Asker 1650-1800. En undersøkelse av økonomiske og sosiale forhold`, Hovedoppgave, Oslo: UiO, 1967.

42

Even if pluriactivity was a “softer” way, it did not make

households averse to engaging in the market. This is

exemplified by their reaction after the Napoleonic war; having

retreated into (mainly) agriculture during the war and post-war

depression, households in the late 1820s and early 1830s again

increased their market participation. Declining prices of

Norwegian exports, especially timber, in the post-war period, Clark, G. And Y. V. D. Werf: `Work in Progress? The industriousRevolution`, Journal of Economic History, Vol. 58, no. 3 (1998), p. 830-843.

De Vries, J. and A. Van Der Woude: The First Modern Economy, Success,Failure and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500-1815, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997.

De Vries, J.: `Between purchasing power and the world of goods:understanding the household economy in early modern Europe`, inBrewer, J. and R. Porter: Consumption and the World of Goods, p. 85-132, London: Routledge, 1994.

De Vries, J.: `The Industrial Revolution and the IndustriousRevolution`, Journal of Economic History, vol. 54, no. 2 (1994).

De Vries, J.: The Industrious Revolution. Consumer behaviour and thehousehold economy, 1650 to the present, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2008.

Drake, F.: Population and society in Norway 1735-1865, Cambridge studies in economic history, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press1969.

Dyrvik, S.: A.B. Fossen, E. Hovland, H. Nordvik, and S. Tveite.: Norsk økonomisk historie 1500-1970, b. 1 1500-1850, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, (3rd ed.), 1992.

Dyrvik, S.: `Poteta, dødsrata og demografien`, Historisk tidsskrift,(1978), p. 269-280.

43

made the developing domestic manufacturing sectors more

attractive. This made households more susceptible, either

willingly or because of necessity, to work in them. For the

many involved in household manufacturing, it also provided

entrepreneurial experiences valuable in the later Industrial

Revolution.

Dyrvik, S.: Den demografiske overgangen, Oslo: Samlaget, 2004.

Døssland, A.: `Melchior Falch og den Sunnmørske jordbruksøkonomien på 1700-tallet`, Tidsskrift for Sunnmøre historielag,årg. 58, Sunnmøre: Norsk Foto og Trykk, 1982, p. 70-90.

Døssland, A.: ”Økonomi og marknad i Møre og Romsdal på 1700-talet”, in Tranberg, A. and K. Sprauten (Eds.): Norsk bondeøkonomi 1650-1850, p. 117-135, Samlaget, Gjøvik, 1996.

Døssland, A.: `Sunnmørsk jordbruksøkonomi på 1700-tallet`, Heimen, 1 (1983).

Elstad, Å: `Skiftemateriale, hamskiftet og klesskikk, in Martinsen `, L (Ed.): Skiftene som kilde- en artikkelsamling, p. 92-110,Skrifter fra NLI, nr. 31, Oslo,1996

Fjærvoll, K.: `Korndyrking i Hålogaland i gammel tid`, Svorkmo:Hålogaland historielag, 1961.

Fløystad, I.: Arbeidsmandens Lod Det nødtrøftige Brød, Arbeidernes levekaarved Baaseland/ Næs jernverk 1725-1907, Vol. 1 and 2, Bergen, UiB, 1979.

Frydenlund, B.: Stormannen Peder Anker. En biografi, Oslo: Aschehoug,2009

Grieg, S.: Norsk Tekstil, Oslo: De Norske TekstilfabrikkersHovedforening, 1948.

44

What appears most vital for the allocation of labour resources

between various pluriactive engagements appears nevertheless to

have been the development and predictability of the internal

market to get households produce to the market and to supply it

with necessities. Their changing allocation of resources

between productive activities for self sufficiency and the

market shows that these were conscious decisions aiming at

Grytten, O. H.: “Purchasing power of labour: Norwegian RealWages 1726-2006”, SEHR, vol. 57, no.1 (2009), p. 48-87.

Grytten, O. H.: `Gross Domestic Product`, in Eitrheim, Ø., J.TKlovland and J. F. Quigstad (Eds): Historical Monetary Statistics forNorway 1819-2003, p. 241-288, Oslo: Norges Banks skriftserie /Occasional Papers nr. 35, 2004.

Grytten. O. H.: `A Consumer Price Index for Norway 1516-2003`,in Eitrheim, Ø., J.T Klovland and J. F. Quigstad (Eds):Historical Monetary Statistics for Norway 1819-2003, p. 47-98, Oslo: NorgesBanks skriftserie / Occasional Papers nr. 35, 2004..

Hartviksen, B.: Fiskerbøndenes arv – gjeldsforhold i Nordland 1780-1865 vesentlig belyst ved skiftemateriale, Oslo: Acta Humaniora, UiO, 2007.

Helle, K. (Ed.), O. Grepstad, A. Lillehammer and A. E. Tryti:Vestlandets historie, Natur og næring, bd. 1, Bergen: Vigmostad &Bjørkep, 2006.

Herstad, J.: I helstatens grep. Kornmonopolet 1735-88, Riksarkivarenskriftserie nr. 8, Aschehoug, Oslo:2008.

Holm, P.: `Lister og Mandal`, Topographisk Journal, hefte 8, 1794.

Hovland, E.: `Jordbruksproduksjon, kornimport og mattilgang´,Historisk tidsskrift, bd. 57, 1978, p. 251-268.

Hovland, E.: `Åkerbruket i Norge i begynnelsen av 1800-tallet`,Historisk tidsskrift, bd. 57, vol. 4, 1978, p. 331-346;

45

security and profit, but which of these interests dominated

would have varied from household to household, and over time.

Conclusion

Hutchinson, A.: `Skifteprotokoller som kilde til studier av materielle kår: en kildekritikk med utgangspunkt i en undersøkelse av skifter fra Salten fogderi på 1700-talle`, Hovedoppgave i historie, Tromsø: UiT, 1992.

Hutchison, R.: `Enigheten – tekstilfabrikken i Østerdalen-Fabrikkdrift og teknologioverføring i det norske bondesamfunnpå slutten av 1700-tallet`, Hovedoppgave i historie, Oslo: UiO,2003.

Hutchison, R.: `De små hjulene. En artikkel om strandsitternesbetydning for utviklingen av lokale økonomier langs Agder- ogtelemarkskysten på 1600-tallet` Heimen. bd. 42, (2005), p. 275-290.

Hutchison, R.: Fra mangfold til enhet. Justervesenet og historien om mål og vekt i Norge, Oslo: Justervesenet, 2006.

Hutchison, R.: In the Doorway to Development. An Enquiry into Market Oriented structural Changes in Norway ca. 1750-1830, Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Jarmann, N.: `Kjøreveien og hjulredskapen`, Volund, 1971.

Johannessen, F-E.: Alltid under veis. Postverkets historie gjennom 350 år, bd. 1: 1647-1920, Oslo: Elanders forlag, 1997.

Kongsrud, H.: `Hva er en husmann. Husmannsbegrepet og 1600-tallet`, Historisk tidsskrift, vol. 1 (2007).

Livi-Bacci. M.: A Concise History of World Population, UK: Blackwell,(4th ed.), 2007.

46

It is only at the surface that the Norwegian pre-industrial

economic development resembles an industrious revolution.

Looking closer it, it is clear that the consumer aspirations

which the theory argues motivated a household to increase its

market oriented production was not the main driving force

behind the economic development taking place in pre-industrial

Lunden, K.: Norges landbrukshistorie, bd. 2, 1350-1814, Frå svartedauentil 17. Mai, Oslo: Samlaget, 2002.

Lunden, K.: `Potetdyrkinga og den raskare folketalsvoksteren iNoreg frå 1815`, Historisk tidsskrift, bd. 54, (1975). P. 275-315

Lunden, K.: `Potetkommentar`, Historisk tidsskift,vol. 57 (1978). P.290-299

Løbergs, L.: ` En tidligkapitalistisk skogbruksrevolusjon: hovedtrekkene ved den økonomiske utviklingen i Trysil på 1700-tallet`, Hovedoppgave i historie, Oslo: UiO, 1986.

Maddison, A. The World Economy. Vol. 2, Historical Statistics. Paris: OECD, 2006. And note 6 would be: Maddison, The World Economy, 636-41.

Meerkerk, E. V.N.: `Couples cooperating? Dutch textile workers,family labour and the ”industrious revolution” `, Continuity and Change, vol. 23, nr. 2 (2008) p. 237-266.

Nedkvitne, A.: Mens Bøndene seilte og jekterne for. Nordnorsk og vestnorskkystøkonomi 1500-1730, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1988.

O’Brien, P.: `European Economic Development: the Contribution of the Periphery`, Economic History Review, vol. 35, nr. 1, (1982), p. 1-18.

Ogilvie, S.: `Consumption, Social Capital, and the ”IndustriousRevolution” in Early Modern Germany`, The Journal of Economic History,

47

Norway. To understand it one must instead see the economic and

structural changes in a wider, transnational perspective.

Though changes in household consumption are identified in

Norway, this was not the main driving force behind the economic

Vol. 70, no. 2 (2010), p. 287-385.

Population censuses 1769, 1801, 1815, 1855; Online: http://digitalarkivet.uib.no/.

Pram, Chr.: Kopibøker fra reiser i Norge 1804-6, Lillehammer: DeSandvigske Samlinger (2. Ed), 1964.

Rogan, B.: Plikt, byrde - og inntektskilde?: en undersøkelse av skyssvesenet i Norge på første halvpart av 1800-tallet, Oslo: UiO, 1987.

Schweigaard, A.: Norges statistikk, Christiania, Joh. Dahl, 1840.

Smith, A.: `Trysil`, Topographisk Journal, hefte 23 (1797).

Sogner, S.: `Familie, husstand og befolkningsutvikling`, Heimen, vol. 17, (1978).

Soltow, L.: ´The Distribution of Real Estate Amongst Norwegian Farmers in 1802´, Historisk Tidsskrift, vol. 57 (1978).:

Teigen, H.: `Potet, alternativkostnad og kontrafaktisk metode´,Historisk tidsskift, vol. 57, (1978), p. 280-89.

Tranberg, A.: ´Tekstilproduksjon på Hedemarken i et økonomisk perspektiv´ in Hutchison, R. (ed.): Lokale tråder – tåkling gjennom tekstil og lokalhistorien, Oslo: NLI, 2006, 31-50.

Tveite, S.: ´The Norwegian Textile Market in the 18th century´,SEHR, vol. XVII, no. 2/ (1969).

Voth, H-J.: ´Time and Work in Eighteenth-Century London´, Journal of Economic History, Vol. 58, no. 1, (1998), p. 29-58.

48

development taking place. It was rather the growing inter-

regional European trade and the growing aspirations of

households in other European countries which facilitated and

created the demand for Norwegian exports of timber, fish, iron

goods, and the freighting of these. Unlike the situation for

wage earners in the leading countries, in which increased

industriousness was the only way to counter falling wages and

rising prices, the last half of the 18th century was a

“florisant” period for Norwegian households. The prices of

Norwegian exports were generally rising or stable, relative to

the price of necessities and other goods which declined or was

stable. Merchants controlled the export trades, but since much

of the production of the goods took place in rural areas and

was influenced, sometimes even controlled, by rural farmers,

profits were to some extent also spread in the wider

population, even though social divergence was an ever-present

factor.

This does not mean that living conditions in Norway were as

high as that found amongst the economic leaders. For this the

pre-industrial market was as yet far too underdeveloped; it

could not be relied on to supply enough goods to support

households considering specializing their production, nor of

reliably supplying most other goods which could meet consumer

Wilse, J.R.: Physisk, oekonomisk og statistisk beskrivelse over Spydeberg Præstegield og egn I Aggershuus Stift udi Norge, 1779, reprint Fredrikshald: C.S. Schwach 1920.

49

aspirations. As the market was slowly expanding, the solution

for most households to counter the market failures was to

organize their productive pluriactivety. That meant engaging in

several activities, some of which were also aimed at self-

sufficiency. Thus in times of hardship, when one or more of the

market oriented activities failed, the principal focus was on

production of food for the households’ own needs. At other

times, when other activities were profitable, labour resources

could be reallocated to other activities to realize consumer

aspirations for immediate, as well as long-term, physical and

social comforts. This pluriactive way of organizing production

may not have yielded the same profits as specialization, but

given the uncertainties of the early modern period it was a

rational choice, providing a “softer” introduction to the

market. This enabled Norwegian households to gradually become

accustomed to the market both as consumers and as producers.

These were vital foundations for the rapid spread of the later

Industrial Revolution and modern, capitalist market economy in

Norway.

Norway was not the only pre-industrial European country for

which exports to other European countries, mainly the

financially leading ones, was important. Contemporary studies

by British trade commentators show there was great concern over

the negative balance of trade which Britain had with the

Baltics and the German states in particular. Looking closer at

how this trade impacted on the economic and social development,50

not in Britain and among the economic leaders, but on the

producers in the fringes of Europe, would bring increased

understanding to how economic development occurs and what may

be driving it. And at what forms it may take.

51