JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

economic history
particular point in time, more striking contrasts than similarities
would be found. At a time when the economies of Western
Europe were caught up in the process of economic growth,
those of Eastern Europe during the same period were in a state
of relative stagnation in which the process of economic development
either did not get off the ground or was arrested by
the prevailing political regime. While in the West the end of
the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century witnessed new
economic opportunities for its indigenous population and for
immigrants, the Jews included, the wholesale bankruptcy of
the Jewish community organizations of Poland in the second
half of the 18th century and the economic plight of the majority
of the Polish and Russian Jews around the turn of the 19th
century were examples of the different situations of the Jewish
communities in various countries at those times.
How did the Jews fare under the conditions which were
defined as the transition period? There is no doubt that the
initial benefits were considerable since they signified the
changed status of the Jews. Even in the absence of equal civil
rights or true emancipation they meant an increased sense of
personal security, a decrease in arbitrariness, and a greater
recourse to the prevailing law of the land. It is possible to describe,
rather than measure, the economic effects of these transitional
changes upon the activities of the Jews in two distinct
areas, labor and capital.
The loosening of restrictions affecting places of habitat
or work made it possible for labor to move more freely in
search of markets with higher earnings. Thanks to the relaxation
of restrictions, on entering particular professions Jews
could avail themselves of training opportunities or enter educational
institutions with hopes for upward social mobility
and higher incomes. The rising demand for new types of employment,
spurred by the accelerated pace of economic development,
provided possibilities for absorption of at least a
part of the relatively large groups of unemployed members
of the Jewish communities in the labor market. The greater
degree of personal safety and security of their assets had a
number of effects upon Jewish owners of capital. There was a
reduction of the size of reserves previously kept as personal
insurance against various emergencies. The size of such reserves
for Jewish merchants was variously estimated as up to
a third of their wealth. By reducing the reserve it was possible
to devote a larger part of the total wealth to productive use.
The improvement of the legal position of the Jews increased
the amount of credit that could be extended to them without
excessive risks on the part of the lenders. This development
in turn probably led to a decrease in the rates of interest at
which Jews could borrow. Added security and new opportunities
enabled the Jewish owners of capital to use it in a number
of areas (real estate, industry) hitherto closed to them, thus
increasing both the returns and effectiveness of capital. The
removal of some discriminatory regulations (such as double
taxation), which previously increased the costs for Jews of
carrying on economic activities and affected the size of their
income, had the effect of increasing their disposable income
and could have led to simultaneous growth in, or to a redistribution
of the shares of, consumption and savings. In some
cases an increase of savings (or investment) could be expected;
in other cases an increase of consumption or an increase in
family size could follow. With regard to the last, it is clear that
even partial removal of some discriminatory rules applied to
the Jews, like restriction on settlement, on marriage, and the
like (see, e.g., *Familiants Laws), resulted in an increase in the
birth rate and population growth.
The transition period can be characterized as the beginnings
of consideration of the “Jewish problem” as a matter of
social and national policies for the states and societies in Europe,
in contradistinction to earlier preoccupation with fiscal
interests, Church concerns, or narrowly defined group competition.
The growing concern of the state with the economic
activity of the Jews was exhibited in various attempts by governments
to influence such activity. Some attempts could be
classified as representing a policy of “productivization” of Jews
and attempts to change the social composition of the Jewish
population. Interesting examples of such policies, perhaps in
part also inspired by physiocratic thought, were the attempts
to settle Jews on the land by “enlightened absolutist” regimes
such as those of *Joseph II in Austria and Alexander I in Russia.
It is immaterial here that such attempts were completely
unsuccessful, either because the schemes were insufficiently
prepared and financed or because they were sabotaged by the
bureaucracy that was to administer them. The disappointments
of tens of thousands of Jews and the sufferings of thousands
who participated in the failing experiments are also not
at issue. The important feature was the clearer realization that
in part, at least, government policies were responsible for the
peculiarities of Jewish economic activities or social structure
and that state policies – as a part of the social and legal
framework of Jewish activity – had to be brought in line with
or adjusted to the economic changes that were taking place.
Therefore, while during the transition period, governmentsponsored
agricultural colonization in southern Russia resulted
in settling on land only a few thousand Jewish families
and failed abysmally in Austria, it nevertheless raised by implication
the problem of legal tenancy and ownership of land
for Jews. This in turn resulted in the subsequent development
of a small but socially diverse farming element in the Jewish
communities of Eastern Europe during the 19th century.
Whatever the impact of the changing economic and social
conditions on the economic activities of the Jews, during
the transition period the Jewish communities had to face an
imminent, fundamental change. For the Jewish communities
the problem was how to continue as a distinct group in the
general society, not under conditions of forced separation
but under those of free choice by their members. For the first
time within the general period under consideration, it became
possible for larger numbers of Jews to break away culturally
and socially from the Jewish community, even while
maintaining their religious beliefs, and to be accepted by the
community at large. Social acceptance was offered to a small
128 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6