We saw last time the difficulties P encounters arguing that Europe
was nearing its limits of pre-industrial growth by 1800. He could not
have it both ways: that Europe had an inefficient agrarian system
with underutilized resources and that Europe had few remaining
ways for further grow without significant industrial changes. Still, P
manages to salvage this argument (from full inconsistency) by
narrowing his focus and comparing England/The Netherlands to
other similar core regions in China.
A good case is made that England had fewer underutilized
resources, and faced serious limitations in two key sectors of
forestry and agriculture. There were few forested areas in England,
and as the scarcity of timber became evident, the price of fuel rose
700% between 1500 and 1630. After 1700, the shortage was so
serious that iron production even declined. English agriculture was
facing similar limitations, as crop output could not keep pace with
population growth. The fertility of the soil seemed to have reached a
dead end; productivity could not be increased any more using the
old pre-industrial techniques. "English agricultural productivity
seems not to have changed much between 1750 and 1850...per
acre and total yields from arable land remained flat and the threat
of decline constant..." (216). Between 1760 and 1790 the price of
wheat relative to other products rose 40%, and England had to
import food to feed its population. "...Britain did not meet its
growing food needs in the way that Grantham suggests for
continental Europe; and thus it strengthens our sense that without
the dual boons of coal and colonies, Britain would have faced an
ecological impasse with no apparent internal solution" (218).
