The subsidiaries of GE, Westinghouse (BTH and British Westinghouse) and Siemens held two third of British market by 1913.
And this is the overall picture:
You seem to consider this evidence that British industry was weak.
However, you're citing... yourself. We don't know what "market" your statistic even means, and in any case it's a little amusing to view "British Westinghouse" and "British Thomson-Houston", manufacturers in Britain of electrical goods, as evidence British manufacturing was weak in that field. Sure, they were owned overseas, but by the same logic much of US manufacturing was built up with British capital investment and thus should be counted against US manufacturing by your metric.
So I'd like to check something at this point.https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=rSffAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT24&dq=german+and+american+firms+two+third+of+british+electrical+industry+1913&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK35bAqOLQAhWFupQKHQ6-DP8Q6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=german and american firms two third of british electrical industry 1913&f=false
These subsidiaries relied on designs and innovations from their home countries
I'm sure Britain could have done better, but so far as I can tell they were doing pretty well without electrification due to having other ways to fulfil the same needs.The problem here is that Britain could have done much better to build up a strong electrical industry of their own. For instance, some state intervention to develop large-scale, centralized electricity supply industry from late 19th century could have resulted in widespread electrification from 1890s-1900s rather than 1920s-1930s. This in turn could create more domestic demand for domestic electrical firms. And some protectionism could have enabled these firms to grow up and become global corporates in the sector.
Do you give credit only to fully domestic invention, innovation and production?
In any case - in the first place that lack of protectionism is kind of what built up the soft trade power that Britain had, and which was so vital in the First World War; in the second place you haven't answered my question. Do you give credit only to fully domestic invention, innovation and production?
What should have been done to prevent or at least, slow down British relative economic decline after 1870?
The problem with Britain is that private firms did not invest or invested little in the new industries which are vital in the long run and do not necessarily yield returns immediately. No tariff made them reluctant to do so because the risk of being outcompeted would be very high. In this case, government must intervene, either by subsidies or tariffs. For example, when the development of electricity supply in UK was retarded in the late 19th century, government must intervene.In 1913 Britain had a GDP per capita of 4900 dollars to Germany's 3600, in 1990 USD. Germany only had 70% of the GDP per capita Britain had. I can hardly see that as a decline. Given that only America surpassed Britain in terms of income levels, I don't think that the data supports your thesis that Britain needs to abandon Laissez Faire when by far the two most Laissez Faire countries ended up becoming the wealthiest.
Or just delay it ot slow it down?I don't think it can reasonably be prevented. Britain had been the first country to industrialise, which gave its economy an advantage against its competitors, but this advantage was always going to reduce once its competitors began catching up.
Then why is Germany so poor compared to Britain in 1914?The problem with Britain is that private firms did not invest or invested little in the new industries which are vital in the long run and do not necessarily yield returns immediately. No tariff made them reluctant to do so because the risk of being outcompeted would be very high. In this case, government must intervene, either by subsidies or tariffs. For example, when the development of electricity supply in UK was retarded in the late 19th century, government must intervene.
It had a much bigger population but a lot of them still worked in agricultural sector, and a lower starting point in 1870.Then why is Germany so poor compared to Britain in 1914?
Your post feels akin to asking how the US can avoid decline compared to Korea, because Korea has a proportionately large manufacturing even though Korea's income levels are two-thirds of America's and Korean factory workers make less than their American counterparts.It had a much bigger population but a lot of them still worked in agricultural sector, and a lower starting point in 1870.
Britain had stronger service sector, and a more efficient agricultural sector. But Germany outperformed in industries
Size and population is just one part of the picture.Your post feels akin to asking how the US can avoid decline compared to Korea, because Korea has a proportionately large manufacturing even though Korea's income levels are two-thirds of America's and Korean factory workers make less than their American counterparts.
Britain was the second wealthiest country in the world. On net they were much better off than any Great Power other than the US. Germany slightly gained on them as a much poorer country in 1870 that still had lower labor costs and greater room for growth, but still never came close to catching up fully. If Germany was better governed they could have done better than going from 60% of Britains per capita income to 75% over a half a century. They should have caught up in that time frame if they had better economic policies.
Britain only had 40 million people. France has the same, Italy nearly as many, Germany 65 million, America 100 million, Russia 180, Austria-Hungary 52, and Japan 50. Britain can't lead lead the world in every industry. They lack the labor. But looking at a Britain on net, they were still well above Germany per capita in overall output and wealth. If Britain is to remain on top in more industries they need an unrealistic population boom.
Also, newer isn't always more efficient. It often costs money in both the short and long run.
Britain never lost its status as the most developed economy in Europe during this period. I don't really understand what this thread is about.
This seems like you're once again creating a thread specifically to bash the British.
Britain never lost its status as the most developed economy in Europe during this period. I don't really understand what this thread is about.
As I've already said, this seems like a thread explicitly to bash the British.A country mostly produced and exported low tech craps do not deserve this status.
A country mostly produced and exported low tech craps do not deserve this status.
As I've already said, this seems like a thread explicitly to bash the British.