58 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2002
© 2002, CORNELL UNIVERSITY
The restaurant as we know it is more a culmination of economic forces than, as commonly
believed, an artifact of the French Revolution.
Paris was the dominant commercial and cultural center at
the time of the emergence of the restaurant in Europe. Because Paris is widely cited as the birthplace of the restaurant,
I focus mostly on the development of restaurants there.1 Taverns made money principally from alcohol sales; inns and
boarding houses from renting rooms, as well as serving food.
These institutions served a table d’hôte at fixed hours and a set
price. Often the diners were a regular crowd who knew how
to sit near the table’s center. Meals could be intimidating to
strangers, who sat at the common table with the regulars. A
1 On Paris as the birthplace of the restaurant, see: Henri Gault and Christian Millau, A Parisian’s Guide to Paris (New York: Random House, 1969);
Barbara K. Wheaton, Savoring the Past: The French Kitchen and Table from
1300 to 1789 (Philadelphia: U. of Pennsylvania Press, 1983); and Rebecca
Spang, The Invention of the Restaurant (Boston: Harvard University Press,
1999).
BY NICHOLAS M. KIEFER
Revolutionary Paris is often cited as the birthplace of the modern-day restaurant, but restaurants existed long before the French Revolution in other locations
when economics and social mores made them feasible. In this
article I explain the history and economics of restaurant development, both in eighteenth-century Paris and in thirteenthcentury China.
The restaurant as it is known today had its origin in the
taverns, inns, traiteurs (cookshops), and boarding houses of
an earlier day. Those establishments offered food service (along
with alcoholic beverages or lodging) well before the appearance of the modern restaurant, with its cook-to-order menu.
Those early “ur-restaurants” (that is, primitive restaurants)
existed in Paris and in other commercial cities in Europe (and
elsewhere) well before the eighteenth century.
Economics and the
Origin of the Restaurant
AUGUST 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 59

quick hand was essential, as table service was
“family style,” and portioning was competitive.
There was no possibility of choice in ordering—indeed, no ordering at all. One ate what
one could get from the common serving. Payment was for a place at the table, rather than for
dishes ordered or eaten. Regulars would sometimes be allowed to run a tab and pay from time
to time. Strangers would be quoted prices on the
spot, inviting bargaining and leading travelers to
complain (reasonably) that they were being exploited. Visitors reported uniformly low quality,
either because of lack of variety, poorly stored
food, or improper cooking. Unpredictable table
companions were another cause for concern.
Dining times varied from establishment to establishment, meaning that travelers would occasionally have to try several places to find a meal.2
Taverns—unlike roadhouses—had a long tradition of charging for items ordered—and providing drinks to order. That concept was a necessary precursor to the modern-day restaurant.
With economic growth, the forces were in place
to extend this concept to dining.
Economics of Restaurants
Pressures leading to the creation of the restaurant—with its individual tables, individual orders, flexible dining times convenient to the patrons, and payment by item ordered—came from
both those who demanded food away from home
and from its suppliers. From the diner’s point of
view, the restaurant format offered a kind of privacy. The diner could eat alone or with companions of his or her choosing. The table d’hôte format is more social, but the mix of companions
facing a stranger coming to an inn or cookshop
wasn’t always ideal for outsiders. More important, the diner in a restaurant could order, eat,
drink, and pay for only and exactly what she
wished. In contrast, in the table d’hôte format one
ate what one could grab of what was served. Finally, the restaurant patron could eat at the time
of his convenience, rather than when the host
chose to serve the meal. Of course, the diner had
to be willing to pay for that privacy, convenience,
and choice. Business travelers, informed and solvent, were particularly attractive customers. Thus,
this demand-side force was strongest where incomes were high and commercial activity was
lively.
Supply-side pressures are also compelling. In
the table d’hôte format, some diners would be willing to pay more for more or better food, while
others did not come to the table at all because
they did not want to pay for or eat so much. The
restaurateur could hope to increase profits by selling different items at different prices both to trenchermen and to light eaters—in a rudimentary
form of market segmentation.
Menus. The modern menu is a device for segmenting the meal market. Steakhouses offer fish
or pasta dishes along with their signature meat
items. Likewise, hamburger chains offer chicken
as an alternative to their burgers. The hungry traveler who does not really want a hamburger may
be unwilling to buy a burger at any price; certainly not at a premium. On the other hand, that
person might pay a premium for a chicken sandwich. The burger lover, though, will gladly pay
top price for the burger. By offering both items,
the restaurateur sorts consumers into two groups,
namely, those willing to pay for chicken and those
willing to pay a premium for the burger.
The point of this type of segmentation from
the consumer’s viewpoint is that both groups are
eating what they prefer. From the restaurateur’s
viewpoint, diners are willingly paying for the
privilege to eat what they want. Market segmentation is a key to profitability in restaurants, just
as it is in other retail businesses. With a restaurant format the entrepreneur can sell diners what
they want. Costs and prices are much higher in
the restaurant than in the roadhouse, but diners
with high incomes are willing to pay a premium
to get what they want to eat without arm wrestling a stranger for the food. Of course, market
segmentation does not rule out the table d’hôte.
2 Spang, pp. 7, 8, ff., reports travelers’ accounts of eating
out in Paris before the restaurant came into existence.
At the earliest taverns, strangers seeking a meal
would be quoted prices on the spot, inviting
bargaining and leading travelers to complain
(reasonably) that they were being exploited.

60 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2002
Indeed, it is possible that efficient market segmentation leads to an institution with a table
d’hôte, as well as restaurant service at other tables.
This coincidence of styles occurred as restaurants
were developed in Paris.
Ultimately, the forces of competition will engender the market segmentation that consumers
desire. A cookshop or inn that is the only place
to eat away from home in a village has flexibility
in what it offers. However, competition forces
suppliers to pay attention to consumers’ desires.
As dining establishments proliferate within a
town or city, they will find that they must compete with each other for customers. Offering
choice is one way to compete and to boost market share and profits. The supply-side and demand-side forces are thus reinforced by competitive pressures.
All in all, the economic forces promoting a
shift from table d’hôte, operations to restaurant
service are likely to be strongest in large and growing cities, where incomes are also large and growing. Growth is driven by commerce, and the flow
of business travelers into a commercial city provides a steady demand. At the end of the eighteenth century, Paris was such a city. All that was
needed was the idea of individual ordering and
payment according to the item ordered. Already
present in taverns, this type of service came next
to cafés, and then to restaurants.
Paris Cafés
Cafés came later than taverns or inns, but clearly
predated restaurants. Cafés could not come to
Europe before coffee did, and coffee came to
France from the Middle East and Ottoman Turkey (i.e., the Levant) in the seventeenth century.
Coffee and cafés existed in Arabia and Persia in
the fifteenth century, and in the Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century. French travelers to
Constantinople reported: “Les Turcs ont un
breuvage dont la couleur est noire…. On l’avale
chaud… non pas durant le repas, mais après….” 3
In 1644 a café opened in Marseille (“cette ville a
toujours être la porte de l’Orient” ), the village that
had always been the doorway to the East, but
this was evidently frequented by a group of
Levantine friends and did not resemble the popular later cafés.
The first public cafés came to Marseille in
1671, about the same time as they appeared in
Paris. There had been an earlier, unsuccessful attempt to open a café in Paris. “En 1643 déjà un
Levantin en avait bien ouvert un a Paris,… mais
céla n’avait pas réussi.” 4 By 1671 one could buy
coffee in a number of boutiques throughout Paris.
In 1672 the first successful café by that name
was established: “vers 1672 un Armenian du nom
de Pascal ouvrait à la Foire St-Germain ce que nous
appelons un café: une boutique ou l’on pouvait
consommer du café.” 5 Cafés served tea, hot chocolate, and coffee, and soon they also offered liqueurs, eaux de senteur, confitures, fruits confites,
chocolate, ices, and sorbets. Café au lait appeared
in 1685.
By January 1692 coffee imports and sales were
substantial enough to attract the attention of the
taxing authorities. In an abortive effort, the sale
of coffee became a monopoly of the public treasury. The price was fixed and imports were allowed only through Marseille and Rouen. Smuggling naturally became briefly profitable. The
price was fixed so high that sales fell significantly.
By August 1692 official prices were lowered
to about a quarter of the previous fixed price.
This helped, but consumption bounced back
slowly and smuggling remained profitable. By
May 1693 the experiment had been dropped. The
price was no longer regulated and only the import tax remained.
3 “The Turks have a beverage the color of which is black.
One swallows it hot, not only during the meal, but after.”
Letter from Pietro della Valle, February 7, 1615, quoted
by: François Fosca, Histoire des Cafes de Paris (Paris: FirminDidot, 1934), p. 2.
4 “In 1643 a ‘Levantine’ had been opened in Paris, but that
did not succeed.” Fosca, p. 3.
5 “By 1672 an Armenian named Pascal opened what we
could call a café on the Foire St. Germain—a boutique where
one could consume coffee.” Fosca, p. 6.
Before restaurants appeared, travelers sat
at a tavern’s “family style” table with the
regulars, where a quick hand was essential.
AUGUST 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 61

Thus, cafés were part of the Paris scene almost 100 years before the revolution. By the
middle of the eighteenth century, cafés were centers of social activity. Literary and political discussions attracted students, scholars, revolutionaries, informers, and agitators. These cafés had
many of the characteristics of modern restaurants—namely, individual orders, tables, and
checks, and some proprietors posted prices. The
only thing missing was food service.
Birth of the Parisian-style Restaurant
Restaurants as we know them are widely supposed
to have originated in Paris at the time of the revolution. Gault and Millau, for example, express
the standard view: “But with the revolution, and
especially after 1792, these great chefs…took
their savings and opened restaurants.” 6 Likewise,
Wheaton writes, “Restaurants did not become
an important part of the Parisian gastronomic
scene until after the revolution.” 7 The elimination of Guild rules that, among other things,
prevented the baker from serving sandwiches or
the butcher from selling bread, combined with
the new Republican ideas of equality and fraternity led the way for the development of the restaurant. Most critically, the chefs and kitchen staff
of the Old Regime aristocracy entered the Paris
labor market. “Public” celebratory feasts spurred
the demand for chefs, cooks, waiters, and kitchen
workers, while ostensibly celebrating the ideas of
equality underlying the new Federation.
Restaurants were enjoyed and attacked by both
revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries. The
former accused restaurants of breaking up the
tradition of common meals (and thus revolutionary solidarity), while the latter saw restaurant
dining as an uncivilized revolutionary excess. Although restaurants proliferated in Paris during
the last five years of the eighteenth century, the
idea of the restaurant, offering individual tables,
orders, and service at listed prices, preceded the
revolution by at least three decades.8 The weakening of Guild authority began well before the
revolution as a result of the physiocrat Robert
Turgot’s efforts as Controller General in 1776.
Restaurants flourished after the revolution (more
precisely, after 1794), but they existed in Paris,
complete with menus, well before.9
Roze de Chantoiseau, self-styled inventor of
the restaurant, provided the elite with healthy
concoctions at private tables at the customer’s
convenience. By 1773 the restaurant served full
meals emphasizing health and cleanliness. The
connection between cookery and medicine was
closer then than it is today. People typically studied medicine together with food preparation in
the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Indeed, restaurants were still called “maisons de santé” (literally, “houses of health”) during this period. Restaurateurs emphasized the health-related aspects
of their businesses in arguing that regulations applying to cabarets, inns, and taverns should not
apply to them (most specifically, closing hours).
Indeed, the word restaurant meant “a cup of
soup”—a restorative—well before the modern
notion of a restaurant existed in western Europe.
Early restaurants in Paris served bouillon to
order at the customer’s convenience, at individual
tables, and at a listed price, just as cafés served
coffee. An enterprising early restaurateur named
Boulanger attempted to add a stew to his list of
bouillons, but the traiteurs sued and won.10 Restaurants could sell restoratives but not food, although that situation did not last long. Some
restaurants combined elements of the restaurant
and the earlier traiteur, providing both table d’hôte
and restaurant service. It soon became clear that
providing individual table service to order (and
individual private dining rooms, in many cases)
was more popular and profitable than was offering a table d’hôte. The printed menu appeared by
1770. Through the magic of synecdoche, the
word restaurant came to apply to the establishments serving restaurants, and became the name
of the new class of businesses as they added food
to their menus.
The restaurant industry, like all other aspects
of city life, was an adventure during the period
immediately after the Revolution of 1789. As I
6 Gault and Millau, p. 8.
7 Wheaton, op. cit.
8 Documented convincingly by: Spang, p. 14 (for example).
9 Ibid.
10 Spang examined this well-known story and concluded
that it is unfounded. See: Spang, p. 9.

62 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2002
indicated above, the cooks of the Old Regime
aristocracy found new opportunities as restaurateurs in Paris. Brillat-Savarin wrote that a man
eating at a first-class restaurant was treated as well
as a prince. The New Penal Code of 1791 specified that stealing from a restaurant was like theft
from a house by a guest. This offered restaurants
good protection, since the penalties for crimes
were doubled for guests stealing from hosts,
for hosts stealing from guests, for servants convicted of stealing from their masters, and for
masters stealing from servants. As a result, theft
from a restaurant could lead to eight years of
forced labor.11
Restaurants suffered the down side of this
uncertain period with the New Regime’s uneven
governing ability. This is illustrated by the story
related by Spang of Charles Doyen, who moved
from the Queen’s kitchens to the Palais-Royal
restaurant after the revolution.12 Doyen was arrested during the Terror under the Law of Suspects and guillotined because he admitted to
missing the Old Regime and his former royal
employers. Another ill-advised policy was 1793’s
Law of the Maximum, a massive attempt at wage
and price fixing. This was predictably followed
by a radical police state and commodity shortages. The maximum did not cover prepared foods
(except bread), but, of course, the effects of shortages were transmitted throughout the economy.
Militants characterized restaurants as ostentatious
and an insult to the republic. Restaurateurs were
occasionally charged with “hoarding,” an offense
on a par with treason.
The coup against Robespierre in 1794, which
closed the most militant phase of the revolution,
led to an era of extravagance, frivolity, and fun.
Naturally, restaurants flourished in this environment. Ornate settings and four-column menus
provoked one English writer to count 11 preparations of beef, 11 savory pastries, 32 poultry and
game dishes, and 17 of mutton, 22 of veal, and
23 of fish on one menu.13 There were 2,000 restaurants in Paris by the beginning of the nineteenth century. The restaurant had arrived, and
Paris was the dining capital of the world.
Why Paris?
Within continental Europe, it makes sense to
look to Paris as the leading city and a center for
innovation, particularly in the era when the restaurant arose. France in the eighteenth century
was the largest and most populous country in
Western Europe. Agriculture was still the dominant economic force, and France was blessed with
fertile soil, a temperate climate, and abundant
natural resources. Though mercantilism was taking its toll in terms of economic clout and Louis
XVI was weak and ineffective, France remained
Europe’s dominant cultural, intellectual, and
military power. Spain’s glory had foundered with
its New World misadventures. It had lost Belgium, Luxembourg, Milan, and Naples. Prussia
and Austria were at war. Dutch commercial power
was on the decline, while Britain was still seeking ascendancy after its own failure in the New
World. The revolution left Paris a hotbed of ideas,
experimentation, and commerce.
Why Not Elsewhere?
Although the French Revolution may have been
a singular event, the economic forces underlying
the development of restaurants were not unique
to Paris. The City of Light, dominant in Europe,
was not the largest, richest, or fastest-growing city
in the world at that time. Western Europe was
still recovering from the demographic effects of
the plague, had not yet abandoned mercantilism,
and was just beginning the transition to the industrial revolution. It makes sense to look elsewhere for the elements that would permit development of restaurants.
Thirteenth-century China provides an ideal
setting. Restaurants that offered individual service and pricing at the customer’s convenience
existed long before the eighteenth century and
arose in a culture entirely separate from that of
France. It turns out that restaurants of this kind
existed in China before the Mongol invasions.
China’s Southern Sung dynasty (ca. 1127–1279),
for instance, had all the elements necessary for
restaurants. The dynasty’s dominion covered an
area approximately four times the size of
eighteenth-century France, and it governed a
11 Spang, p. 104.
12 Spang, p. 141.
13 Francis Blagdon, an English traveler and writer, cited by:
Spang, p. 170.
AUGUST 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 63

population of over 60 million people.14 China
then was lively, commercial, entrepreneurial, and
corrupt. It had a monetary economy with a
widely accepted paper currency and enjoyed an
active foreign trade, primarily in silks and porcelain. Its capitol was the city of Hangchow.
Restaurants in Thirteenth-century
Hangchow
Before the Mongol invasions, Hangchow was the
largest city in the world, with about a million
inhabitants. By contrast the largest cities in Europe, including Paris, were only a few tens of
thousands. Hangchow had both roads and canals, and boats were used for passenger traffic as
well as for freight. The main thoroughfare was
the Imperial Way, stretching three miles from the
Imperial Palace to the city gates. It was 60 yards
wide and paved with stone and bricks. The center city featured multistory buildings, and ten
major market areas featured pork, game, vegetables, fruit, fish (fresh and salt), and rice. Fashion products were available in specialized shops,
and street vendors sold pieces of roast pork.
Hangchow was wealthy and luxurious, the
center of elegance in China, much as Paris was
for Europe 500 years later. Street entertainment
(e.g., jugglers, minstrels, acrobats) was common,
and there were daily performances in popular
theaters, including singing and dancing.
Teahouses and taverns, specializing in varieties
of rice wine, proliferated. At this point, tea drinking had been popular in China for about 500
years. Three varieties of tea were cultivated near
Hangchow. Others were imported from elsewhere
in China. Taverns typically sold a limited selection of food as well as drinks. Menus would be
handed to customers and might list pies (e.g.,
shrimp pie, silkworm pie, pork or mutton pie)
or bean-curd soup, oysters, or mussels.15 (In contrast, taverns in the west, much later, would simply set out food for those who were drinking.
This practice was common in pre-prohibition
America and does not, by the definition used
here, make the tavern a restaurant.)
The street activity and abundant commercial
traffic in Hangchow generated demand for restaurants. The economic environment was perfect for the development of the restaurant trade,
and contemporary accounts note “innumerable”
restaurants. Gernet, for example, wrote: “The big
restaurants had doors in the form of archways
decorated with flowers.” 16 Quoting an account
dated 1275, Gernet continued: “‘As soon as the
customers have chosen where they will sit, they
are asked what they want to have. The people of
Hangchow are very difficult to please. Hundreds
of orders are given on all sides: this person wants
something hot, another something cold, a third
something tepid, a fourth something chilled; one
wants cooked food, another raw, another chooses
roast, another grill.…’”17 Hangchow also had
many restaurants devoted to certain kinds of food
or to regional cooking. Marco Polo commented
on the restaurant scene there (with descriptions
similar to those of the Chinese contemporaries)
and in fact referred with enthusiasm to
Hangchow as “the most noble city and the best
that is in the world.”18
Market segmentation had become quite sophisticated by 1275. Rice was a staple, both in
home and restaurant cooking. Nine different
types of rice were cultivated near Hangchow. Beef
was not eaten because the ox was a useful and
expensive farm animal. As in contemporary
China, there was no dairy herd. Milk and cheese
The word restaurant meant “a cup of
soup”—a restorative—well before the
modern notion of a restaurant existed
in western Europe.
14 Jacques Gernet, Daily Life in China on the Eve of the
Mongol Invasion 1250-1276 (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1962), p. 17.
15 Gernet, p. 50.
16 Ibid.
17 Gernet, p. 58, citing Meng liang lu, 1275, an edition published in Shanghai in 1956.
18 From The Book of Ser Marco Polo Concerning the Kingdoms and Marvels of the East, cited by: Gernet, p. 55.
19 These details are from: Gernet, Chapters 1 and 3.

64 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2002
were not part of the diet, but there was extensive
variety in the restaurant cuisine.19 There were
restaurants in the Kaefeng style, Szechwan (spicy
even at that time), Ch’uchou (low-priced restaurants serving noodles with meat or fish), and
possibly restaurants catering to the Muslim population—omitting from the menu pork, dog, and
snails. Both fresh and salt-water fish were readily
available. Geese and duck from the lake area and
game from the nearby mountains found their way
to the menus in Hangchow. Restaurants were also
known for particular dishes like goose with apricots, pimento soup with mussels, scented shellfish soup in rice wine, ravioli stuffed with pork,
and pig cooked in ashes.
Propelled by Demand, Economics
Restaurants, now constituting a $400-billion industry in the United States alone, did not originate solely in Paris. The economic forces associated with the development of the restaurant are
those associated with growth in income, population, and commerce. The French Revolution is
widely thought to have spurred the invention of
the restaurant, but Spang demonstrates that there
were restaurants in Paris before 1789. Once one
turns attention away from the revolution itself
as a catalyst and toward the relevant economic
forces, it makes sense to look elsewhere for development of restaurants. The Southern Sung
dynasty provides a convincing case that Paris is
not the only city with the characteristics for the
development of restaurants. Although restaurants
doubtless did not originate in thirteenth-century
Hangchow, there was a lively, urban, restaurant
culture there 500 years before restaurants existed
in Paris (indeed, 400 years before Parisians knew
of the fork). ■
© 2002, Cornell University; an invited paper.
Nicholas M. Kiefer, Ph.D., is the Ta-Chung Liu
Professor of Economics at Cornell University
([email protected]) and is a founding principal in
the consumer-interest forecasting firm Trendfinder,
LLC and the financial advising firm MNK International, and founding principal and developer of the
systems sold by RRMS, Inc. The author gratefully
acknowledges the comments and help from Alex
Hursky, H.C. Kiefer, Kit Kiefer, and Tom Lyons.