Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-xsjpr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-10-08T01:50:43.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pattern of Austrian Industrial Growth from the Eighteenth to the Early Twentieth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Richard L. Rudolph
Richard L. Rudolph
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The wealth of literature published in the last twenty-five years on economic growth, economic development, and comparative economic history contains little information about Austria-Hungary. Fortunately, this situation shows signs of improving as the few recent articles and monographs on the subject are beginning to be utilized in the more general literature. Although the general lack of attention to Austria-Hungary clearly indicates that serious analytical work on the economic history of the area is still in a very early stage, the relatively few studies published on the subject have already changed the views of scholars on economic developments in the Habsburg lands.

Information

Type
Economic and Social History
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 11 , January 1975 , pp. 3 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Although brief, the best overall synthesis is that by Gross, Nachum T., “The Habsburg Monarchy 1750–1917.” in Cipolla, Carlo M. (ed.). The Foniana Economic History of Europe. Vol. IV. Pt. I (London: Collins/Fontana Books, 1973), pp. 228–278Google Scholar. The most ambitious work, combining descriptive and analytical essays, is the multi-authored book published under the auspices of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and edited by Wandruszka, Adam and Urbanitsch, Peter: Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, Vol. I: Die wirtschaftliche Eniwicklung, edited by Brusatti, Alois (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1973)Google Scholar. For works falling at the analytical end of the spectrum, see Gross, Nachum T., “Industrialization in Austria in the Nineteenth Century” (unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California at Berkeley, 1966)Google Scholar; Gross, Nachum T., “Austrian Industrial Statistics 1880/85 and 1911/13,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissemchaft, Vol. CXXIV (February, 1968), pp. 35–69Google Scholar; Good, David F., “Stagnation and ‘Take-Off’ in Austria, 1873–1913,” Economic History Review, Vol. XXVII, No. I (February, 1974), pp. 72–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rudolph, Richard L., Banking and Industrialization in Austria-Hungary (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rudolph, Richard L.. “Austrian Industrialization: A Case Study in Leisurely Economic Growth,” in Sozialismus, Geschichte und Wirlschaft (Vienna: Europa Verlag, 1973). pp. 249–262Google Scholar; and Rudolph, Richard L., “Austria, 1800–1913,” in Cameron, Rondo (ed.). Banking and Economic Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972)Google Scholar. For Hungary see Pamlényi, E. (ed.), Social-Economic Researches on the History of East-Central Europe (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970)Google Scholar; and Berend, Iván T. and Ránki, György. Hungary: A Century of Economic Development (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1974)Google Scholar.

2 See Rostow, Walter W., The Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; and Gerschenkron, Alexander, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

3 See my discussion in “Austrian Industrialization: A Case Study in Leisurely Economic Growth,” pp. 249–253.

4 März, Eduard, “Zur Genesis der Schumpeterschen Theorié der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung.” in On Political Economy and Econometrics (Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1956), p. 371Google Scholar.

5 Gross, “Austrian Industrial Statistics 1880/1885 and 1911/13,” p. 67.

6 Gross, Nachum T., “An Estimate of Industrial Product in Austria in 1841,” Journal of Economic History. Vol. XXVIII, No. I (March, 1968), pp. 80–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Good, “Stagnation and ‘Take-Off’ in Austria,” pp. 81 and 83–84.

8 Ibid., p. 81.

9 My own estimate for the later period of 1880–1911 is 2.9 percent per year per capita, as compared with Gross' estimate of 3.4 percent. For both periods the differences in our estimates reflect coverage of different branches of industry.

10 Gerschenkron, Alexander, “Notes on the Rate of Industrial Growth in Italy, 1881–1913,” in Gerschenkron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, pp. 72–89Google Scholar; Alexander Gerschenkron, “Appendix 1: Description of an Index of Italian Industrial Development, 1881–1913,” in ibid., pp. 367–421.

11 See my Banking and Industrialization in Austria-Hungary, Appendix I; and the further discussion of the data in my article on “Quantitative Aspekte der Industrialisierung in Cisleithanien 1848–1914,” in Wandruszka, and Urbanitsch, , Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, Vol. I, pp. 233–249Google Scholar.

12 A detailed discussion of the procedures and sources utilized in constructing the index is given in Rudolph, Banking and Industrialization in Austria-Hungary, Appendix I. A brief explanation of this procedure, particularly as it applies to the new index, is given in the appendix to the present article.

13 The problem was first discussed by Gerschenkron, Alexander in his A Dollar Index of Soviet Machinery Output (Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation, 1951), pp. 46–58et passimGoogle Scholar. The wide variation possible with differing weights is discussed in his Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, pp. 243–253.

14 For the weights given each branch, see the appendix. In the preliminary runs of the data, prices showed relatively little variation. Even though value-added percentages tended to change quite a bit over time, a test using such percentages from the work of Nachum T. Gross showed little difference from our own weighting system. The rate of growth of output for 1830–1913 when using Gross' value-added weights for 1841 was 2.2 per annum. For 1865 it was 2.1, as compared with the present 1911–1913 index weights, which show a rate of 2.5 per annum. see Gross, , “Industrialization in Austria in the Nineteenth Century,” pp. 123 and 158Google Scholar.

15 The same conclusions can be made if a comparison is made on the basis of data fora number of countries given in Gould, John D., Economic Growth in History (London: Methuen & Co., 1972), pp. 22–23Google Scholar.

16 The percentage estimates have been taken from Gross, , “The Industrial Revolution in the Habsburg Monarchy,” p. 274Google Scholar.

17 See Table 7.

18 The estimates for 1841 are based on data given in Gross, , “Industrialization in Austria in the Nineteenth Century,” p. 123Google Scholar, and those for 1911 on the 1911–1913 averages in von Fellner, Friedrich, “Das Volkseinkommen Österreichs und Ungarns,” Statisiische Monalschrift, Vol. XXI (September-October, 1917), pp. 141–144Google Scholar.

19 Gross, , “Industrialization in Austria in the Nineteenth Century,” p. 57Google Scholar.

20 The idea is developed in Mendels, Franklin, “Proto-lndustrialization: The First Phase of the Industrialization Process,” Journal of Economic History, Vol. XXXII, No. I (March, 1972), pp. 241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of its implications, see Charles Tilly and Richard Tilly, “Agenda for European Economic History,” Ibid., Vol. XXXI, No. 1 (March, 1971), pp. 184–198.

21 See Mendels, , “Proto-lndustrialization,” p. 248, n. 26Google Scholar; and de Vries, Jan, The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 1500–1700 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

22 For a general treatment, see Redlich, Fritz, “European Aristocracy and Economic Development,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, Vol. VI, No. 2 (December, 1955), pp. 78–91Google Scholar; and other articles on the topic in the same volume.

23 For further discussion of this backward-looking technique, see Gould, , Economic Growth in History, pp. 35–39Google Scholar.

24 See Mendels, , “Proto-Industrialization,” p. 248Google Scholar; and Petraň, Joseph, “À propos de la formation des régions de la production spécialisée en Europe centrale,” Second International Conference of Economic History, Aix-en-Provence 1962 (Paris: Mouton, 1965), pp. 217–222Google Scholar.

25 On the extent of the development of the Bohemian cloth market by that time, see Florovskij, Antonij V., České sukno na východoevropském trhu v XVI. až XVIII. věku [Bohemian Cloth on the East European Market from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century] (Prague: Archiv pro dějiny prumyslv, obchodu a technícké prace, 1947)Google Scholar.

26 Kárniková, Ludmila, Vývoj obyvaielstva v českých zemích 1754–1914 [The Development of the Population in the Czech Crown Lands, 1754–1914] (Prague: Československá Akademie Věd, 1965), p. 56Google Scholar; Klima, Arnošt, “The Role of Rural Domestic Industry in Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century,” Economic History Review, Vol. XXVII, No. 1 (February, 1974), p. 50Google Scholar.

27 Kárniková, , Vývoj obyvatelstva v českých zemieh 1754–1914, p. 58Google Scholar.

28 Ibid., pp. 47–50.

29 In 1851 the population density per square kilometer was 92 in Bohemia, 85 in Moravia, 91 in Austrian Silesia, and 78 in Lower Austria, but it was only 62 in Upper Austria, 61 in Galicia, and 47 in Hungary. In most of these areas some 53 to 58 percent of the population was engaged in agriculture, but in Galicia and Hungary the percentages were 85 and 90 percent, respectively. In contrast, in 1849 the more highly developed area of Saxony had a population density of 133 persons per square kilometer, while the percentage of population in agriculture was approximately 33 percent. HorskáVrbová, Pavla, Kapitalistická industrializace a siředoevropská spoleěnost [Capitalist Industrialization and Central European Society] (Prague: Academia, 1970), p. 25Google Scholar.

30 See Kárniková, , Vývoj obyvatelstva v českých zemích 1754–1914, pp. 102–103Google Scholar.

31 Estimated on a compound basis from the population data in Ibid., pp. 329–330.

32 Ibid., p. 336; André Armengaud, “Population in Europe 1700–1914,” The Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. Ill, p. 46, et passim. The recent failure of a demographer, Paul Demeny, to find evidence of this demographic transition in Austria indicates that he, too, accepted the idea that industrialization began at a late date. Demeny actually begins his study with the period after 1880. See Paul Demeny, “Early Fertility Decline in Austria-Hungary: A Lesson in Demographic Transition,” Daedalus, Spring, 1968, pp. 502–522.

33 Klima, , “The Role of Rural Domestic Industry in Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century,” p. 49Google Scholar.

34 Klima, Arnošt, Manufaklurni obdobi v Čechách [The Manufactory Period in Bohemia] (Prague: Československá Akademie Věd, 1955), p. 455Google Scholar.

35 Ibid.

36 Klima, , “The Role of Rural Domestic Industry in Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century,” p. 49Google Scholar; Karniková, , Vývoj obyvatelstva v českých zemích 1754–1914, p. 47Google Scholar.

37 Eine Stimme aus Böhmen über die neuesten industriellen und merkantalisiischen Verhältnisse dieses Landes (Leipzig: Philipp Reclam jun., 1846), p. 107.

38 Purš, Jaroslav, “The Industrial Revolution in the Czech Lands,” Historica, Vol. II (1960), p. 216Google Scholar.

39 Ibid., pp. 215–218. The best description of the history of the linen industry in the Bohemian crown lands can be found in Miloň Dohnal, Původní akumulace a vznik manufaklur v severomoravské plátenické oblasti [Primitive Accumulation and the Rise of Manufacture in the North Moravian Linen Region] (Prague: Statni pedagogické Nakladatelství, 1966).

40 Klima, , Manufakturní období v Čechách, pp. 455–457Google Scholar.

41 Kárniková, , Vývoj obyvatelstva v ćeských zemích 1754–1914, p. 80Google Scholar. According to Kárniková, by 1830 there were practically no cotton spinners left in the area. Ibid.

42 Klima, , Manufakturní obdobi v Čechách, pp. 455–457Google Scholar; Purš, , “The Industrial Revolution in the Czech Lands,” p. 207Google Scholar.

43 See especially Mendels, , “Proto-lndustrialization,” pp. 246–247Google Scholar.

44 By 1850, for example, there were some 400,000 workers in the cotton textile industry, of whom some 30,000 were involved in the spinning of cotton, 300,000 in weaving, and another 50,000 or so in the printing, dyeing, and finishing of cloth. (This number does not include family members.) Hain, , Handbuch der Statistik des österreichischcn Kaisersiaates, pp. 304–310Google Scholar.

45 Drage, Geoffrey, Austria-Hungary (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 129Google Scholar.

46 Österreichische Statistik, Vol. LXXV, No. 2 (Vienna, 1907).

46 Bednář, Karel, Rozmístěni průmyslu v českých zemích na počatku 20. stoleti (1902) [The Distribution of Industry in the Czech Crown Lands at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century] (Prague: Academia, 1970), p. 138Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., p. 47.

49 The most extensive work on the history of this branch has been done by Czech and Slovak scholars. An excellent brief summary in English and a good bibliography are provided in Jeníček, Ladislav, Metal Founding through the Ages on Czechoslovak Territory (Prague: Czechoslovak Scientific and Technical Society and National Technical Museum, 1963)Google Scholar.

50 Ibid., pp. 17–20; Arthur Salz, Geschichte der böhmischen Industrie in der Neuzeit (Munich: Duncker & Humblot, 1913), pp. 5–29.

51 See Mitterauer, Michael, “Produktionsweise, Siedlungsstruktur und Sozialformen im österreichischen Montanwesen des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit,” in Mitterauer, Michael (ed.), Österreichisches Momanwesen (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1974), pp. 234–315Google Scholar.

52 Jeníček, , Metal Founding through the Ages on Czechoslovak Territory, pp. 19–20Google Scholar.

53 Ibid., p. 33; Jan Kořan, “Z dějin českého železářství v počatcich kapitalismu” [From the History of Bohemian Metallurgy in the Beginning Stage of Capitalism], Sbornik pro hospodářské a sociální dějiny. Vol. II (1947), pp. 25–28.

54 The production of pig iron in kilograms per capita was as follows:

These estimates are given in Ladislav Jeniček and lvo Kruliš, British Inventions of the Industrial Revolution in the Iron and Steel Industry on Czechoslovak Territory (Prague: National Technical Museum, 1968), p. 6.

55 See Klein, Kurt, “Die Bevolkerung Österreichs vom Beginn des 16. bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts,” in Beitrage zur Bevölkerungs- und Sozialgeschichte Österreichs (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1973), pp. 47–112Google Scholar; and Sandgruber, Roman, “Die Innerberger Eisenproduktion in der frühen Neuzeit,” in Mitterauer, , Österreichisches Montanwesen, pp. 91–92Google Scholar.

56 See, for example, Klima, Arnošt, “Industrial Development in Bohemia, 1648–1781,” Past and Present, Vol. XI, No. 11 (April, 1957), pp. 87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klíma, , Manufakturníobdobiv Čechách, pp. 162–172, 412–442, el passimGoogle Scholar; Klíma, , “The Role of Rural Domestic Industry in Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century,” pp. 48–56Google Scholar; and Freudenberger, Herman, The Waldstein Woolen Mill: Noble Entrepreneurship in Eighteenth Century Bohemia (Boston, Mass.: Baker Library, Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, 1963)Google Scholar.

57 For a discussion of the colligation problem, see Hughes, Jonathan, “Fact and Theory in Economic History,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, 2nd ser., Vol. III, No. 2 (Winter, 1966), pp. 75–100Google Scholar.