I have argued, tentatively, that England was unique among European powers in its experience of *intensive* agricultural growth during the 18th century, by comparing England's 59% increased in output per man over the period 1710 to 1800 with France's 20% increased in total agricultural output and total population. Just found that Ellen Wood agrees with me: "English agriculture was uniquely productive. By the end of the seventeenth century... grain and cereal production had risen so dramatically that England became a leading exporter of those commodities. These advantages in production were achieved with a relatively small agricultural labor force. This is what it means to speak of the unique *productivity* of English agriculture. Some historians have tried to challenge the very idea of agrarian capitalism by suggesting that the `productivity' of French agriculture in the 18th century was more or less equal to that of England. But what they really mean is that *total agricultural production* in the two countries was more or less equal. What they fail to point is that in one country, that level of production was achieved by a much smaller work force, in a declining rural population. In other words, the issue here is not total output but *productivity* in the sense of output per unit of work" (Monthly Review, July/August 1998, her italics). Without using the terms "extensive-intensive" growth, Wood is making the same distinction in the sense of total production and productivity per capita. Frank too is falling into the same error, with regards to China, that Wood here detects in those who compared French total output to England's. I differ with Wood in emphasising the role of the "engrossing" yeomen, and not just the enclosing landlords.
