György Ránki

Problems of the Development of Hungarian Industry, 1900–1944

The revolution of 1848, by ending the system of serfdom, had created the basic conditions of Hungarys industrialization; however, since the revolution had remained incomplete and the War of Independence had been lost, the ensuing suppression by Austrian absolutism and the considerable feudal survivals proved a strong barrier to the way of social and economic progress. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy, a product of the Compromise of 1867, offered somewhat more favorable conditions for economic development. Nevertheless, the structure of the dual monarchy kept Hungarys industrialization within rather narrow limits: the absence of independent statehood and the existence of a common customs area with Austria exposed the Hungarian market to devastating competition from Austrias more advanced manufacturing industry; and since these circumstances helped to consolidate the political and economic power of the large landowners, the capital accumulating within the country served above all the capitalist development of agriculture. So towards the end of the nineteenth century, nearly half a century after the bourgeois revolution, Hungary was still a wholly agrarian country whose major exports were foodstuffs and agricultural produce. The rapid development of manufacturing industry began as late as the last decade of the nineteenth century and continued until the beginning of World War I, over a span of some twenty-five years.

Economic problems of the Danube region after the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

a number of nations had undergone social transformation and modern capitalist economies had come into being. The strains and tensions engendered by the internal economic contradictions characteristic of the twentieth century, and which were reflected in the level of economic development as compared with more advanced powers, were no doubt a contributory factor in the break-up of the monarchy, but its main causes should rather be sought in the political and social contradictions of the time and their reflection in public consciousness. After the 1914-18 war the political map of Europe was completely transformed. The decay of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy had significantly contributed to this. Instead of large areas, each uniform in colour, smaller units appeared, each of a different hue. These small countries with populations ranging from seven

The Restoration and Crisis of Capitalism in Hungary, 1919–1944 1

The process of gradual transformation from a traditional feudal to a modern economy, which had been going on for over half a century in all of Europe, and at a slower pace in southeastern Europe, came to a temporary halt with the First World War. The economic structure of East-Central Europe which took shape after the end of the war and the revolutions that immediately followed cannot be regarded simply as a continuation of that of the prewar period. Postwar alterations such as the disappearance of former regional economic units, the enormous decrease or increase in the size of various territorial entities and in the number of inhabitants of a given state, and the creation of new states out of lands that had belonged to different empires and which represented different levels of development produced basic changes in the economy of the area.

Some Problems of the Connection between Technical Development and Economic History

Crane Brinton has made a sharp distinction between the speculations of prophets like Spengler and Toynbee, and the professional narrowness of scientific academic historians. I admit quite frankly that I feel myself rather closer to the professional narrow-minded academic historians than to the speculators, and I am afraid that when I try to speculate I am stepping on very marshy ground. To demonstrate my point, let me begin with a statement of Raymond Aron which appears in his Introduction to the Philosophy of History (p. 75): History, according to a classical formula, is the spontaneous memory of societies. The past which is of interest, is first that of the group: historical curiosity seems to be connected with the feeling each individual has of belonging to a whole which transcends him. This is certainly true for primitive forms of history, but in so far as individuals have become conscious of themselves, the historian is no longer limited to exalting by memory, to justifying by legend, or to consecrating by an ideal example, a collectivity or a power. He undertakes his inquiry as he approaches present problems following the variations of social reality and personal judgement. It is certain and cannot be too emphatically stressed that the natural sciences cannot be arbitrarily transposed into history, as has at times occurred.