The US had already surpassed the UK and left the rest of Europe far behind by 1914. One possible explanation is the very high levels of schooling. However another is that the US was very rich in natural resources. Argentina and Australia were very rich too.

If I were serious about learning about the relative importance of schooling and natural resources, I would look up the work of Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz. They have written a book on the topic, which I haven't read.

"American leaders expanded education and created the highest quality work force on the planet. That quality work force was the single biggest reason the U.S. emerged as the economic superpower of the 20th century."

I don't think Brooks even looked into this one bit. Britain is often singled out for bad education, but I think you could argue that before the G.I. bill, Germany had a more effective system of education and training workers than the U.S. (Its famous training programs, Gymnasia, and Universities--its stratified education system were well-suited to the late 19th century and early 20th century capitalism.) I think the obvious factors such as America's population, it's catch-up growth in adopting British technology, access to land, efficient capital markets etc. need to be accounted for as well.

Brooks's comment is really true, public education is the big thing that allowed the US to go from being an agricultural exporter to a first world country by WWI. Now the two world wars are what gave the US dominant status, but they wouldn't have had event hat opportunity if not for the education.

Is Brooks overselling? Yep, but to deny the importance that public education played in the divergence of the US and Argentina is wrong.

> but I think you could argue
> that before the G.I. bill,
> Germany had a more effective
> system of education and
> training workers than the U.S.
> (Its famous training
> programs, Gymnasia, and
> Universities--its stratified
> education system were
> well-suited to the late 19th
> century and early 20th
> century capitalism.)

And in fact the mass-production US urban school districts of the 1890-1950 time period, which did turn out many very good graduates, were modeled directly after the Bismark system in Germany.

Cranky

Oh, damn ... what all the commentators said.

Yes, the "catch" of the US economy to the UK is variously dated, because of different estimates of GDP and differences on whether to use purchasing power parity or exchange rate valuation, but generally falls in the first decade of the 1900's.

And its not like the US was brilliant at turning out either fighting men or fighting machines in WWII, but the US was brilliant at turning out being able to turn out more fighting machines and being able to field more of them and more fighting men further away from their base of supply than anyone else.

And that was in the aftermath of a Great Depression created because our ability to make stuff had far outstripped our ability to ensure a market for what was produced.

And, yes, all three of the rising economic powers during the end of the 1800's, when Britain was the largest economy in the world ... Germany, the US and Japan ... had put in place education systems that were superior to the system in place in Britain.

Actually, as far as education statistics go, America was not that great at the turn of the 20th century.

For example, in 1900, only half of all children age 5-19 were enrolled in school, compared to 93% today. As late as 1940, more than half of American youth had never gotten further than the 8th grade. In terms of higher education, only 6% of men and 4% of women gained a college degree, compared to roughly 25% today.

All this data is publicly available here:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf

Well, I guess nobody needs to read stuff like this anymore because noted pop sociologist David Brooks has solved the problem:

How Did the United States and Germany Overtake Britain? A Sectoral Analysis of Comparative Productivity Levels, 1870-1990, Journal of Economic History,

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507(199806)58%3A2%3C375%3AHDTUSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D#abstract

Gavin Wright, The Origins of American Industrial Success, 1879-1940, American Economic Review, September 1990, p. 651-68

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(199009)80%3A4%3C651%3ATOOAIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

(One wonders if Krugman will have to slap Brooks down yet again, or whether he will let it pass.)

Steven:

It seems to me the relevant comparison would be against America's contemporary economic competitors.

I don't have the data on hand. But look at this list of Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry. The early part of the century is dominated by Germany:

http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/diverse/bib/nobel_chemie_e.html

America starts dominating only in the late 40s and 50s. After it is was the World's economic superpower. (This doesn't prove we didn't have a good education system, it only suggest that Germany's was probably better and that therefore education can only be one of many factors contributing to America's economic success.)

Steven:

It seems to me the relevant comparison would be against America's contemporary economic competitors.

I don't have the data on hand. But look at this list of Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry. The early part of the century is dominated by Germany:

http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/diverse/bib/nobel_chemie_e.html

America starts dominating only in the late 40s and 50s. After it is was the World's economic superpower. (This doesn't prove we didn't have a good education system, it only suggest that Germany's was probably better and that therefore education can only be one of many factors contributing to America's economic success.)

Sorry about the dual post.

Very true, David, unfortunately I wasn't able to find as handy a source for, say, Britain, France, and Germany.

If anyone has had better luck, we can do a comparison. But the raw data is pretty damn bad on its own.

There was also that little matter of the expropriation of the vast natural resources of a comparatively depopulous continent. Remember that the U.S., unlike Europe, had more than enough petroleum to meet its own needs (we used to export it, those were the days), vast forests, iron ore and bauxite and copper, infinite farmland, etc. etc.

It's all pretty much played out now, of course.

Steven:

This data is interesting and would seem to confirm what we have been saying:

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h49soc.htm

"At the end of the century, Germany was benefiting from a literacy rate of 99.9 percent and education levels that provided Germany with its engineers, chemists, opticians, skilled workers for its factories, skilled managers, knowledgeable farmers and skilled military personnel. Literacy was not quiet so high in other European countries, but above 90 percent in Britain, France, Norway and Sweden, and Australia - one of the ingredients that gave Western societies an advantage in the world in economic advancement. Literacy was in the 70 to 90 percent range in the United States, Canada and Japan; 78 percent in Italy; 50 to 70 in the Balkans, 30 to 50 percent range in Russia; and below 30 percent in China, India, Africa and the Islamic countries. [note]"

David:

Yeah, that seems about right. The overall picture seems to be that the U.S was in a second-tier of educational attainment at a time when its economic position was first in the world, suggesting a minor link between the two factors.

"But look at this list of Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry. The early part of the century is dominated by Germany: . . . America starts dominating only in the late 40s and 50s"

It also helped that - I suspect, would have to actually follow the link and research winners - at least some of the folks who would have been winning Nobel Prizes for Germany (or training/inspiring/etc. winners) fled or were expropriated to the U.S. . . .

The hot-sale Ugg Boots are coming now.We offer wide range of colors and styles ugg boots uk and Ugg Boots Sale for you.Shopping now for your favorite!