// wrigley_1986_jih_urban_growth_and_agricultural_change_england_and_the_continent_in_the_early_modern_period
0. basic simplistic hypothesis investigated by paper is: 'A rising level of real income per head and a rising proportion of urban dwellers, other things being equal, are likely to be linked phenomena in a preindustrial economy. If income elasticity of demand for food is less than unity, then, with rising real incomes, demand for secondary and tertiary products will grow more padily than that for primary products, and will therefore cause employment in secondary and tertiary industries to rise more rapidly than in agriculture. Such employment is likely to be higher in towns ... and will result in an increase in the proportion of the total population living in towns. There may be an important feedback element in this relationship, since the growth of towns may help to futher agricultural investment and specializaion and so carry forward the rising trend in real incomes. <emph>Decling real incomes will have an opposite effect.</emph>' [683] (emphasis added)
		1. By 1800: 'Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham stood second, third, and fourth after London. They ranged between 70000 and 90000 in population, having grown fiftyfold or more since the early sixteenth century' [691]
		2. drop in transport costs both to abroad and internally would facilitate concentration of production and hence urbanization (although impact directly through growth of ports etc) [692]
		3. '.... nor is there any compelling reason to suppose that even increases in agricultural productivity as striking as those achieved in England between 1600 1800 must necessarily engender an industrial revolution. Yet the scale of change in early modern England bears stressing. It stands out more clearly if comparison is made with other countries.'
		4. English urbanization (and even population growth) is RADICALLY different from rest of Europe. 'Over the full 200-year period the urban percentage quadrupled in England, scarcely changed in the rest of north-western Europe, and advanced rather modestly on the continent as a whole. The English experience appears to be unique.' [708] Discusses particular example of Holland and France. France conforms particularly closely to De Vries pattern of urban trends and is significantly different from England. Though more urbanized that E. at beginning of period hardly changes 1600 - 1800 whil E. alters rapidly. English agricultural productivity increases faster and proportion of population engaged in agriculture falls:
			Total Pop / 100 agricultural
						E							F
1520/1500		132					138
1801/1800		248 (88%)		170 (23%)

		(from Table 10 [720]))
		
		5. England continues to urbanize strongly even during periods of fall in real wage (1750 - 1820) [691 ff.]. This is tells against simplistic version of initial thesis. To me suggest idea of underlying upward trend overlaid by real-wage trend.
		6. Questions and further work: 'What served to neutralize the operation of declining marginal returns [in agriculture]? The usual answer given to this question is innonvation. .... In a sense this must be the right answer but, because it may be inescapable, it may be unilluminating, for, although it may be logically necessary, it was historically contingent. Relief from such a source was not always or even commonly forthcoming.' [726] In answer to this qustion Wrigley seems to vaguely suggest that the rapid growth of urban demand had a siginificant role in encouraging/requiring innovation (for if the possibility/circumstances for innovation always existed we have the why now? question to answer) [726-8].