If the explosion of the global population is driven by the industruial revolution, then it would've impacted France's population the same way. So it makes sense to compare this way.
The industrial revolution did not impact everywhere at the same time nor with the same magnitude of improvement.
One could even say that the power shifts due to the industrial revolution were detrimental for the influence of France by favoring other nations and populations to a greater degree.
It did not - the population inhabiting the current French territory had represented 20% of Europe's population quite consistently since medieval times. E.g. France numbered 19.7 million inhabitants as early as 1457 [1]
The population explosion that's discussed in the article (the population dividend of the demographic transition) just never happened in France - which is the whole point of why its relative standing dropped so much over the past two centuries compared to other hitherto much smaller countries such as England and Germany.
The demographic transition in France began earlier than in other industrial economies. I'm not even sure industrialization has much to do with it.
The fertility rate in Britain was still higher in the 1880s than it was in France back in 1800. Economically Britain was 20-50 years ahead of France but demographically France was almost a hundred years ahead.
Not just that, but in cold economic terms there are diminishing on having large families in industrialized societies. A large broad is an asset in agrarian societies but largely a liability in an industrialized one.
A large family is an asset in industrialized societies too, but in the long run. For example, having lots of siblings can help you later on for networking or being able to go someone to depend on, assuming a decent number of them obtain useful positions in society.
But in the short term, it is a lot of sacrifice, especially for the woman who has to give birth and raise all those babies. And of course, it is a lot of work to instill values such that the family stays close, and luck such as being located in a location that is experiencing an economic boom.
True, but that’s not a benefit to the people making the decision to have more children. It’s a beneficial second order effect that won’t negate the cost to the parent.
