Introduction

During the eighteenth century the rise of manufactures and manufacturing became one of the central concerns for economic policymakers in the territorial states of the Holy Roman Empire. This theme also occupied a prominent place in the treatises on cameralism that proliferated during the second half of the century. This essay explores this relationship through an examination of the institutional framework of ‘industrial policy’ (Gewerbepolicey) as discussed in cameralist works and applied to policy.

Consideration of the economic and social context of the Holy Roman Empire explains why the focus on manufacturing and manufactories is typical for cameralism in the second half of the eighteenth century. This sector offered possibilities for the employment of a growing population and so resolve the increasingly acute problem of poverty, in particular after the grain shortage of 1771–72. For these reasons the states governments in the Holy Roman Empire were under pressure, and were also prompted to introduce measures of Gewerbepolicey advocated by the flourishing economic discourse of the second half of the eighteenth century, including the cameral sciences. Furthermore, this sector had to be developed to offset a perception of economic backwardness in comparison to France, England, and the Dutch Republic, and to confront economic competition among the states of Holy Roman Empire. Given the impossibility of most German states increasing their power through territorial and colonial conquest, development of their industry was a primary objective. According to recent studies, this is a criterion that distinguishes German cameralism – centred on agricultural and industrial production – from trade-oriented English mercantilist discourse, which gave priority to a positive balance of trade.

A few preliminary observations will be useful. First, an analysis of the relationship between cameralist proposals and their application in German states (in other words, the relationship between theory and practice) points to a number of unresolved issues. Showing that theoretical proposals and particular policies have similarities is one thing; demonstrating that the former influenced the latter is quite another. One can also ask to what extent cameralists took any account of policies already in place, thereby reversing the terms of the question. Second, distinguishing an interventionist mercantilism or cameralism from a liberalism hostile to state intervention is not a helpful approach to the writings of the cameral sciences.