History is a discipline in a state of perpetual crisis.Thus, in 1970, Arthur Marwick explained much of thecontroversy over historians' use of social sciencemethods and theories in the latest incarnation of asocial history which emerged after the Second WorldWar. History's flirtations with the social sciencesare recurrent. So are its crises. In the 1980s,Marwick's view of cyclical crises in history hasbeen borne out. The use in history of ‘illuminating’social science methods and concepts is now widelyaccepted. A spirit of tolerance, respect andprofessional courtesy has replaced the outwardhostility which until recently characterizedexchanges between the so-called ‘traditional’ andnew social historians respectively.

The debate about the comparative performance of theBritish and American economies around the turn ofthe century has involved most industrial sectors. Inthe case of the railways, the argument goes back atleast to 1887, when a critical analysis of Englishrailway operations compared to those of the UnitedStates was published. For British railway companies,the years after 1900 were a particularly difficulttime especially in the capital market, and many newinvestment projects were abandoned, although notsolely because of adverse conditions in the capitalmarket. A substantial number of these projects wereprobably of a marginal nature but the eighteen-yearperiod between 1890 and 1908 also saw thedevelopment of a new type of railway – the urbanrapid transit system. This was in response to twovery different factors – the continuing growth ofcities and the application of electric power in aform suitable for railway use. The spread of thesesystems in Britain paralleled their expansion in theUnited States.

In 1976 a medieval and renaissance theatre historyproject was launched under the masthead Records ofEarly English Drama (now more familiarly known asREED). The official launch had taken two years ofplanning by scholars from Britain, Canada and theUnited States, and was given assurance for thefuture through a ten-year major Editorial Grant fromthe Canada Council. REED's stated goal – then as now– was to find, transcribe and publish evidence ofdramatic, ceremonial and musical activity in GreatBritain before the theatres were closed in 1642. Thesystematic survey undertaken would make availablefor analysis records relating to the evolution ofEnglish theatre from its origins in minstrelsy,through the flowering of drama in the renaissance,to the suppression first of local and then ofprofessional entertainment under the Puritans.

While there has been much interest recently in theearly modern history of London there has been littlework done on establishing a comprehensive picture ofthe City, the central core of its economy. Thepopulation history of the City has begun to beexplored in a systematic way. The social andeconomic structure of one or two small areas hasbegun to be examined, both within the City andoutside, in districts such as Southwark and the EastEnd. Other studies concentrating on single issueshave attempted to establish such things as theeconomic profile of the metropolis from theoccupations given in a sample of parish deathregisters, resulting in a claim that the Londonmanufacturing sector was more significant thancommerce, and not the reverse, as had been assumedpreviously. Another study, by Power, based on thehearth tax from a small sample of parishes concludedwith the comment that ‘the impression is gained ofan urban scene where occupations and rich and poorare thoroughly jumbled’.

Urban historians are much concerned with the need tostudy their towns from the perspective of socialclass and socio-spatial segregation, especially inperiods of rapid industrialization. The models ofsuch scholars as Engels, Sjöberg, Burgess, Hoyt andothers are predicated on the possibility ofidentifying clearly the members of defined socialclasses. The manuscript census enumerators' books(CEBs) are one of the basic sources used forVictorian Britain (1841–81), but it is no simplematter to attribute the occupational descriptionsfound in them to a range of social classes. Problemsoccur at two levels: those associated with theconceptual validity of systems of class distinction,and those encountered in attributing occupationswithin such systems. As this article shows, there isalso a degree of interaction between the two levelssince it is useless to pursue concepts that cannotbe systematically and straightforwardly related tothe information available.

Dutch urban history has finally accorded the eighteenthcentury the attention it deserves in a number ofrecent publications. That century was characterizedby the economic and political decline of the DutchRepublic generally, and certain towns in particular.The ‘Zuiderzee’ towns witnessed a dramatic fall inpopulation, reflecting their economic decline, andin the southern part of the province of Hollandurban life also stagnated. In contrast to the ports,inland towns derived status in the urban hierarchyfrom their industrial interests, but due to foreigncompetition in the eighteenth century, they toodeclined; most notably, the cloth industry ofLeiden, the clay pipe industry of Gouda, and thebreweries and potteries of Delft each lost theleading position established in the seventeenthcentury. Leiden was the largest of the towns withmore than 70,000 inhabitants in the last quarter ofthe seventeenth century, and after Amsterdam, wasthe most populous town of the Republic. Leidenhowever could not maintain that position, and lostalmost 50 per cent of its inhabitants during thefirst half of the eighteenth century, decliningfurther to under 30,000 residents by 1800. Goudanumbered about 20,000 in 1732, but declined to12,000 in 1795; Hoorn with 12,000 inhabitantsdiminished to only 9,500 in 1795 and the populationof Delft, too, fell from around 24,000 in 1680 to14,000 in 1795.

Although small and consequently often overlooked,Belgium none the less provides historians with aninteresting case study for comparing social andeconomic trends among Western European countries.Belgian society in the nineteenth century wastransformed by the same forces as its closeneighbours – Britain, France and Germany. Indeed,Belgium was the second country in the world toindustrialize and it has long been one of the mostheavily urbanized societies as well. Yeturbanization and industrialization affected Belgiumin some significantly different ways than they didother Western European countries.