IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ozechr/v56y2016i2p198-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Tale of Two Tails: Establishment Size and Labour Productivity in United States and German Manufacturing at the Start of the Twentieth Century

Author

Listed:
  • Joost Veenstra
  • Herman Jong

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Joost Veenstra & Herman Jong, 2016. "A Tale of Two Tails: Establishment Size and Labour Productivity in United States and German Manufacturing at the Start of the Twentieth Century," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(2), pages 198-220, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ozechr:v:56:y:2016:i:2:p:198-220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/aehr.12100
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Broadberry, S N, 1994. "Technological Leadership and Productivity Leadership in Manufacturing since the Industrial Revolution: Implications for the Convergence Debate," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(423), pages 291-302, March.
    2. Broadberry, Stephen & Burhop, Carsten, 2007. "Comparative Productivity in British and German Manufacturing Before World War II: Reconciling Direct Benchmark Estimates and Time Series Projections," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 315-349, June.
    3. Williamson Jeffrey G., 1995. "The Evolution of Global Labor Markets since 1830: Background Evidence and Hypotheses," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 141-196, April.
    4. Broadberry, Stephen & Burhop, Carsten, 2008. "Resolving the Anglo-German Industrial Productivity Puzzle, 1895–1935: A Response to Professor Ritschl," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 930-934, September.
    5. Ritschl, Albrecht, 2008. "The Anglo-German productivity puzzle, 1895-1935: a restatement and a possible resolution," Economic History Working Papers 22309, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    6. Fremdling, Rainer & De Jong, Herman & Timmer, Marcel P., 2007. "British and German Manufacturing Productivity Compared: A New Benchmark for 1935/36 Based on Double Deflated Value Added," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 350-378, June.
    7. Allen, Robert C., 1979. "International Competition in Iron and Steel, 1850–1913," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 911-937, December.
    8. Burhop, Carsten & Lübbers, Thorsten, 2009. "Cartels, Managerial Incentives, and Productive Efficiency in German Coal Mining, 1881–1913," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 500-527, June.
    9. Broadberry,Steve N., 2005. "The Productivity Race," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521023580, October.
    10. Veenstra, Joost, 2015. "Output growth in German manufacturing, 1907–1936. A reinterpretation of time-series evidence," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 38-49.
    11. Burhop, Carsten, 2008. "The level of labour productivity in German mining, crafts and industry in 1913: evidence from output data," European Review of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 201-219, August.
    12. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    13. Broadberry, Stephen N. & Irwin, Douglas A., 2006. "Labor productivity in the United States and the United Kingdom during the nineteenth century," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 257-279, April.
    14. Ritschl, Albrecht, 2008. "The Anglo-German Industrial Productivity Puzzle, 1895–1935: A Restatement and a Possible Resolution," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(2), pages 535-565, June.
    15. Broadberry, Stephen & Burhop, Carsten, 2010. "Real Wages and Labor Productivity in Britain and Germany, 1871–1938: A Unified Approach to the International Comparison of Living Standards," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(2), pages 400-427, June.
    16. Hannah, Leslie, 2008. "Logistics, Market Size, and Giant Plants in the Early Twentieth Century: A Global View," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 46-79, March.
    17. James Field, Alexander, 1985. "On the unimportance of machinery," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 378-401, October.
    18. Broadberry, S N & Fremdling, Rainer, 1990. "Comparative Productivity in British and German Industry 1907-37," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 52(4), pages 403-421, Special I.
    19. Chandler, Alfred D., 1990. "Scale and Scope: A Review Colloquium - Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. By Alfred D. ChandlerJr., with Takashi Hikino · Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990. xix + 8," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 690-735, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nikita I. Lychakov & Dmitrii L. Saprykin & Nadia Vanteeva, 2020. "Not Backward: Comparative Labour Productivity In British And Russian Manufacturing, Circa 1908," HSE Working papers WP BRP 199/HUM/2020, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    2. Broadberry, Stephen & Burhop, Carsten, 2008. "Resolving the Anglo-German Industrial Productivity Puzzle, 1895–1935: A Response to Professor Ritschl," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 930-934, September.
    3. Broadberry, Stephen & Klein, Alexander, 2011. "When and why did eastern European economies begin to fail? Lessons from a Czechoslovak/UK productivity comparison, 1921-1991," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-52, January.
    4. Veenstra, Joost, 2015. "Output growth in German manufacturing, 1907–1936. A reinterpretation of time-series evidence," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 38-49.
    5. Cristiano Andrea Ristuccia & Adam Tooze, 2013. "Machine tools and mass production in the armaments boom: Germany and the United States, 1929–44," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 66(4), pages 953-974, November.
    6. Joost Veenstra & Herman de Jong, 2015. "A Tale of Two Tails: Plant Size Variation and Comparative Labor Productivity in U.S. and German Manufacturing in the Early 20th Century," CEH Discussion Papers 032, Centre for Economic History, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    7. Allen, Robert C., 2014. "American Exceptionalism as a Problem in Global History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 309-350, June.
    8. Fremdling, Rainer, 2018. "Statistik und Organisation der NS-Kriegswirtschaft und der DDR-Planwirtschaft 1933-1949/50 [Statistics and Organization of the NS-War Economy and the East-German Planned Economy 1933-1949/50]," MPRA Paper 87664, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Robert C. Allen, 2021. "The Interplay among Wages, Technology, and Globalization: The Labour Market and Inequality, 1620-2020," Working Papers 20210065, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Jun 2021.
    10. Rainer Fremdling & Reiner Staeglin, 2014. "Editor's choice Output, national income, and expenditure: an input–output table of Germany in 1936," European Review of Economic History, European Historical Economics Society, vol. 18(4), pages 371-397.
    11. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-108 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Herman De Jong & Pieter Woltjer, 2011. "Depression dynamics: a new estimate of the Anglo‐American manufacturing productivity gap in the interwar period," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 64(2), pages 472-492, May.
    13. Jong, H. de & Woltjer, P., 2009. "A Comparison of Real Output and Productivity for British and American Manufacturing in 1935," GGDC Research Memorandum GD-108, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen.
    14. Fukao, Kyoji & Broadberry, Stephen & Zammit, Nick, 2015. "How Did Japan Catch-Up On The West? A Sectoral Analysis Of Anglo-Japanese Productivity Differences, 1885-2000," CEPR Discussion Papers 10570, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Greasley, David & Oxley, Les, 1998. "Comparing British and American Economic and Industrial Performance 1860-1993: A Time Series Perspective," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 171-195, April.
    16. Broadberry, S. N., 1995. "Comparative productivity levels in manufacturing since the Industrial Revolution: Lessons from Britain, America, Germany and Japan," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 71-95, March.
    17. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-141 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Ritschl, Albrecht, 2008. "The Anglo-German productivity puzzle, 1895-1935: a restatement and a possible resolution," Economic History Working Papers 22309, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    19. Timothy Leunig, 2003. "A British industrial success: productivity in the Lancashire and New England cotton spinning industries a century ago," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 56(1), pages 90-117, February.
    20. Brian D. Varian, 2022. "Imperial preference before the Ottawa Agreements: Evidence from New Zealand's Preferential and Reciprocal Trade Act of 1903," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 75(4), pages 1214-1241, November.
    21. Stephen Redding, 2002. "Path Dependence, Endogenous Innovation, and Growth," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1215-1248, November.
    22. repec:bla:germec:v:9:y:2008:i::p:65-86 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-90 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Tobias A. Jopp, 2015. "Did closures do any good? Labour productivity, mine dynamics, and rationalization in interwar Ruhr coal-mining," Working Papers 0085, European Historical Economics Society (EHES).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ozechr:v:56:y:2016:i:2:p:198-220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/oznzsea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.