Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:16:36.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Estimate of Industrial Product in Austria in 1841

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Nachum T. Gross
Nachum T. Gross
Affiliation:
Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Austria was among the countries that began to develop modern industry at the turn of the eighteenth century and in particular during the Continental Blockade. Cotton spinning was mechanized and construction of textile machinery began. Similarly, when in the late 1820's horse-drawn railroads were constructed on the European Continent, Austria was among the pioneers. This onset of modern economic growth followed a long tradition of handicraft and manu-factories in several regions of the Habsburg domain. Notwithstanding these early beginnings, in 1900 about 58 percent of the economically active population was still engaged in agriculture, as against 22 percent in industry. According to estimates based on Colin Clark's figures Austrian national product per head of the “working population” was in 1913 about 47 percent of the corresponding British product, almost 60 percent of the German, and above 70 percent of the French. Population growth throughout most of the nineteenth century was rather steady, at an average annual rate of below 1 percent. When at the turn of the century the rate increased, Austria became one of the major sources of European emigration.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 1968 , pp. 80 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1968

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 The term “Austria” here refers to the political unit that unofficially went under this name in the period 1867-1918. It includes the non-Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary, or all Habsburg possessions that were not lands of the Hungarian Crown and not included in the Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom. This unit had no official name, which is only one peculiarity of the political and constitutional history of the Habsburg Monarchy. Cf. Zoellner, Erich, “Formen und Wandlungen des Oesterreichbegriffes,” in Hantsch, H.et al., eds., Historica, Studien zum geschichtlichen Denken und Forschen (Vienna: Herder, 1965), esp. pp. 76–78Google Scholar.

2 Basch, Antonin, The Danubian Basin ana the German Economic Sphere (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), pp. 5–6Google Scholar.

3 Blum, Jerome, Noble Landowners and Agriculture in Austria, 1815-1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1947), pp. 251–57Google Scholar.

4 Cf. Tables 1 and 2.

5 Studensld, Paul, The Income of Nations (New York: New York University Press, 1961), ch. ixGoogle Scholar.

6 Cf. the discussion of the Tafeln by Zaninelli, Sergio: “Una fonte per la storia dell'economia del Lombardo-Veneto nella prima meta del secolo XIX,” Archivio Economico dell'Unificazione Italiana, ser. I, vol. XIIGoogle Scholar, paper 5. According to this article, the Austrian administration “enjoyed a high prestige for the precision, competence and prudence” of both its methods and its personnel, “virtues that, at least in the specific sphere of administrative statistics, were not always adequately appreciated” (p. 6). The statistical bureau was developed and from time to time was improved by “men particularly competent and sensitive to the demands for a more rational management of public affairs” and for new and better administrative tools (p. 8). One of these men was Czoernig, whose contribution must undoubtedly be taken into account for a thorough evaluation of the Tafeln (p. 9). I am indebted to Carlo Cippola, director of the Archivio, for sending me this and other relevant papers.

7 Cf. Ficker, Adolf, “Skizze einer Geschichte des k.k. statistischen Bureau's in den Jahren 1829-1853,” Mittheilungen aus dem Gebiete der Statistik, IV: 1 (1855), 8 ffGoogle Scholar.

8 On Czoernig's career and work see Denkschrift der k.k. statistischen Zentralkommission zur Feier ihres fuenfzigjaehrigen Bestandes (Vienna: 1913), pp. 24–42, 83-85Google Scholar;“Carl Freiherr von Czoernig” (obituary and list of his writings), Statistische Monatschrift, XV (1889), pp. 545–54Google Scholar; Scherzer, Karl von, “Le Baron Karl von Czoernig,” Bulletin de I'Institut International de Statistique, IV: 2 (1889/1890), pp. 281–86Google Scholar; also, briefly, in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan, 1931), IV, 688–89Google Scholar.

9 It must be kept in mind that nothing even remotely comparable to the U.S. Census existed in Austria at the time. Furthermore the idea of an industrial census based on mandatory information was considered “absolutely out of the question” (Schiff, Walter, “Die aeltere Gewerbestatistik in Oesterreich und die Entstehung der Betriebszaehlung vom Jahre 1902,” Statistische Monatschrift, XXXIII [1907], p. 621)Google Scholar and had in fact just been rejected by the highest authority—Denkschrift, p. 26. On previous “trade” lists and tax tables see Schiff, pp. 613-21.

10 , Ficker, Mittheilungen, IV: l, p. 12Google Scholar.

11 , Ficker, Mittheilungen, IV: l, p. 13Google Scholar.

12 Preface to “Industrie-Statistik der oesterreichischen Monarchie fuer das Jahr 1856.” Heft, I., Mittheilungen, VI:2 (1857), p. ixGoogle Scholar. The additional information was in part collected “for administrative purposes,” in part submitted by manufacturers when applying for railroad extensions or bank branches. On this occasion Czoernig summarized his procedure in the following way: “Bei der Verfassung der oesterreichischen Industrie-Statistik fand sich der Unterzeichnete genoethigt, den Stoff der Bearbeitung auf anderen Wegen zu ergaenzen und sodann das gesammelte Material einer einlaesslichen Pruefung und Sichtung zu unterziehen. Dies geschah mittels einer in den verschiedensten Richtungen ausgeuebten Controle der vorhandenen Angaben und mittels ihrer Vervollstaendigung durch die Combination.” He then proceeds to describe in detail the so-called Combination as an estimation of output based on input data and on the production functions of the various industries. Ibid., pp. viiviii.

13 Cf. Czoernig's preface, Ibid., p. ix and Schiff, p. 623.

14 Ficker, Adolf, “Die dritte Versammlung des internationalen Congresses fuer Statistik,” Mittheilungen, VI:3 (1857), esp. pp. 34, 119-23Google Scholar. This, of course, is not an impartial report.

15 Monatschrift, XV (1889), p. 548Google Scholar.

16 Schiff, p. 624.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., pp. 621, 623.

19 Most of these data have recently been reproduced in: Austria; Handel, Bundesministerium fuer und , Wiederaufbau, 100 (Hundert) Jahre im Dienste der Wirtschaft (Vienna: 1961), vol. II, pp. 37–39Google Scholar. The figures published in Austria; Zentralkommission, Statistische, Statistisches Handbuechlein, I (1861), p. 64Google Scholar are the very same data, converted from florins CM. into florins oe.W. (The Monarchy and most German states agreed in 1857 to “rationalize” their currencies simultaneously. The silver standard was preserved. The so-called Conventions-Muenze currency had been a Gulden containing 60 Kreuzer of 4 Pfenning each. From November 1, 1858, the oesterreichische Waehruns currency was the only legal tender. Its Gulden contained 100 Kreuzer. The official conversion rate was 1 fl. C.M. = 1.05 fl. oe.W. See, e.g., Austria; Finanz-Ministerium, k.k., Denkschrift ueber das Papiergeldwesen der Oesterreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie, Vienna, 1892, pp. 8–9)Google Scholar.

20 This was equivalent, at current prices, to about $245 million (Blum, p. 247: 1 fl. C.M. = $0.48).

21 To Vienna alone, including the suburbs, 9.0 percent of the total value is ascribed. The following regional breakdown (in percent) gives perhaps a clearer picture: Bohemia-Moravia, 34; Lombardy-Venetia, 27; Lower Austria, 16; Galicia (-Bucovina), 7½ and all other, 15½.

22 Tafeln 1841, Sec. xix. The outstanding instances were Moravia, which imported all the cotton yarn, and Vienna, which imported all the silk yarn they processed.

23 With respect to (a) and (b), the present treatment endeavors to prevent double-counting, since the Tafeln data for agricultural output include an unspecified amount for livestock products and the value of silk-cocoons. In any case, the “processed animal products” estimate includes mainly: cheese and cottage cheese in Lombardy and Venetia, dairy products in Vorarlberg (then classified as part of Tyrol), and supplies to Vienna—valued at 3.5 mill. fl.—consisting of milk, cheese, eggs, ham, an d bacon. Except for certain types of cheese, all these are undoubtedly “primary” products, and so are the cocoons. The (first) reeling of silk is perhaps a borderline case, but its exclusion seems to make the comparison with later data easier. See Tafeln 1841, Table 41: Sees, ix, on linens; xi, on silk; xiii, on cheese, etc.; xiv, on “chemicals;” cf. also Sec. xix, summary.

24 Equivalent, at current prices, to ca. $180 million.

25 Cf. footnote 28. “Value added by manufacturing” customarily refers to the difference between the value of industrial output and the value of materials and intermediate products purchased by industry from the other sectors of the economy, such as mining and agriculture. This value of “true” manufacturing products prevents double-counting in the computation of national product, and is also indispensable for intersectoral comparisons. “Net value added” refers to the additional deduction of depreciation.

26 Kotelmann, Albert, Vergleichende statistische Uebersicht ueber die landwirtschaftlichen und industriellen Verhaeltnisse Oesterreichs und des deutschen Zollvereins so wie seiner einzelnen Staaten (Berlin: Th. Enslin, 1852)Google Scholar.

27 See ibid., p. 6, on dates and sources.

28 Table 41 of the 1841 Tafeln includes, as mentioned, some dispersed information from which value-added proportions can be tentatively inferred; only with respect to the cotton and flax industries does the source itself speak of value-added ratios explicitly. The following is a comparison of these (inferred or mentioned) percentages with those of Kotelmann (cf. Table 5):

29 U.S., Congress, Senate, A Digest of the Statistics of Manufactures According to the Seventh Census, 35th Cong., 2d. Sess., 1859, Exec. Doc. 39; U.S. Census Office, Eighth Census, Manufactures of the United States in 1860 … (Washington: 1865)Google Scholar;U.S., Census Office, Ninth Census, 1870: III. The Statistics of Wealth and Industry of the United States … (Washington: 1872)Google Scholar.

30 Cf. Hungary; kgl. Handelsministerium, Die Fabriksindustrie des Koenigreiches Ungarn, ed. Szterenyi, J. (Budapest: 1901), which is the translation (by Bokor, G.)Google Scholar of excerpts from the first part of the original, that was printed in twenty parts under the name A magyar korona országainak gyáripara as 1898. évben (Die Fabriksindustrie der Laender der ungarischen Krone im Jahre 1898); see introduction to the translation.

31 Fellner, Friedrich von, “Die Schaetzung des Volkseinkommens,” Bulletin de I'Institut International de Statistique, XIV: 3 (1905), pp. 109-51Google Scholar; published also separately in Berlin, 1903. Idem, “Das Volkseinkommen Oesterreichs und Ungarns,” Monatschrift, XLII (1916), pp. 485-625; published also as a reprint in Vienna, 1917, and in Hungarian in Budapest, 1916. In the first article Fellner refers only to the complete work mentioned in the preceding note; in the second article he mentions only the short work, but uses (and reproduces) data that must have been taken from the complete census. On Fellner's contribution to national income measure-ment cf. Studenski, 144 f.

32 , Fellner, Monatschrift, XLII, pp. 551–56, 596-72Google Scholar.

33 Wagenfuehr, Rolf, “Die Industriewirtschaft: Entwicklungstendenzen der deutschen und internationalen Industrieproduktion 1860 bis 1932,” Viertelfahrshefte zur Konjunkturforschung, Sonderheft 31 (Berlin: 1933)Google Scholar. The percentages are shown in a small table on p. 57, where British and American census data and a German EnquSte (published 1930) are cited as sources; but on p. 55 official statistics, industrial associations, occasional estimates by experts, and the EnquSte are referred to as the sources for that table, while the American and British censuses are cited only as confirming the overall 40 percent value-added proportion for total industry.

34 This is the author's impression, and fault for it may well be sought in the limited scope of his experience. The same applies to the fact that he was unsuccessful in his endeavors to find additional nineteenth-century European material from which value-added percentages could be calculated.

35 Until archival research hopefully reveals the detailed data.

36 Tafeln 1841, 41, Sec. xix.

37 Cf. some of the connotations of “trade” in English.

38 It is outside the scope of this article to investigate in detail the trustworthiness of these data. They are to a certain extent discussed by Zaninelli, p. 11, and by Blum, p. 256. It is important.to point out, however, that the reorganization undertaken by Czoernig (cf. sec. I ) included a considerable improvement of the agricultural statistics.

39 Most contemporaries, if they took account of the value-added problem in agriculture, estimated the proportion of specific crops consumed as feed (cf. Studenski, e.g., pp. 104, 111, 130, 132). Mulhall, though, used global coefficients: of 90 percent for agriculture in his Dictionary (4th. ed., 1899, cited also by Studenski, p. 140), but of 60 percent for agriculture in his Industries and Wealth of Nations (London: 1896)Google Scholar.

40 Fellner deducted the value of seeds, feed consumed on farms, and depreciation of farm implements. (He also deducted a value for manure and animal-power consumed on farms, bu t only after having included it in gross output. This item has been eliminated from both gross and net product before calculating the value-added percentage.) (, Fellner, Bulletin, XIV:3, pp. 121–30)Google Scholar. Fellner's estimates for 1911-1913 indicate a value added of 67 percent in Hungarian and of 70 percent in Austrian agriculture: , Fellner, Monatschnft, XLII, pp. 505–09, 524-28Google Scholar.

41 The output data for the mining-smelting sector can be considered one of the more reliable sectors of Austrian statistics at the time. Salt was a state monopoly, about 24 percent of Austrian pig iron in the 1840's was produced by government furnaces, and of the nonferrous metals refined in the Monarchy in 1841 close to 40 percent were state production. Private mining and smelting establishments were under legal obligation to submit output information, and in the “Austrian” half of the Monarchy compliance was satisfactory. The value-added proportions mentioned in the text are based on ratios implied in Fellner's data and in the United States 1850 and 1860 Censuses. They have been checked by two alternative sets of calculation, which are not reproduced here, as the sum total in question is relatively small.

42 Calculated by comparing GNP in current prices from Gallman, Robert E., “Gross National Product in the United States, 1834-1909,” Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States After 1800, NBER, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 30 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), p. 26Google Scholar, with commodity output (Variant A) from , Gallman, “Commodity Output, 1839-1899,” Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century, NBER, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 24 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), p. 43Google Scholar.

43 Calculated from Table 103 in Hoffmann, Walther G.et al., Das Wachstum der Deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: Springer, 1965), p. 454Google Scholar. The values there are at constant (1913) prices; construction included in manufactures (ibid., p. 389).