IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hum/wpaper/sfb649dp2006-048.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Anglo-German Industrial Productivity Paradox, 1895-1938: A Restatement and a Possible Resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Albrecht Ritschl

Abstract

Recent research on international productivity comparisons with historical data has encountered large discrepancies between benchmark comparisons and time series extrapolations from other benchmarks. Broadberry and Burhop (2005) have recently argued that for Hoffmann’s (1965) widely accepted time series for German industrial output, there is no such productivity paradox, while for a revision of that series recently suggested by Ritschl (2004), the discrepancy between the Anglo-German benchmark and the time series projection is considerable. Attempting to reconcile the time series evidence and the productivity benchmarks, they discard the revised series in favor of the original, disregarding mounting evidence on its lacking reliability. The present paper restates this productivity paradox and proposes a possible resolution. We draw on recent archival discoveries by Fremdling and Staeglin (2003) and Fremdling (2005) that confirm the revisions to the Hoffmann series. We also draw on recent advances in the reconstruction of a German industry census of 1936, and argue that the productivity paradox is largely the consequence of mismeasurement in all versions of the German series. Correcting for the omissions, much of the Anglo-German productivity paradox disappears.

Suggested Citation

  • Albrecht Ritschl, 2006. "The Anglo-German Industrial Productivity Paradox, 1895-1938: A Restatement and a Possible Resolution," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2006-048, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2006-048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2006-048.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fremdling Rainer, 2009. "German Machine Building: A New Benchmark before World War I," Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte / Economic History Yearbook, De Gruyter, vol. 50(2), pages 243-246, December.
    2. Ward, Marianne & Devereux, John, 2004. "Relative U.K./U.S. Output Reconsidered: A Reply to Professor Broadberry," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(03), pages 879-891, September.
    3. Broadberry, Stephen, 2003. "Relative Per Capita Income Levels in the United Kingdom and the United States since 1870: Reconciling Time-Series Projections and Direct-Benchmark Estimates," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(03), pages 852-863, September.
    4. 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.
    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. Broadberry, Stephen & Gupta, Bishnupriya, 2010. "The historical roots of India's service-led development: A sectoral analysis of Anglo-Indian productivity differences, 1870-2000," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 264-278, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Peter H. Lindert, 2016. "Purchasing Power Disparity before 1914," NBER Working Papers 22896, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Stephen Broadberry & Carsten Burhop, 2008. "Resolving the Anglo-German Industrial Productivity Puzzle, 1895-1935: A Response to Professor Ritschl," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_27, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. Vincent Geloso & Peter Lindert, 2020. "Relative costs of living, for richer and poorer, 1688–1914," Cliometrica, Springer;Cliometric Society (Association Francaise de Cliométrie), vol. 14(3), pages 417-442, September.
    6. Timmer, Marcel & Ypma, Gerard & van Ark, Bart van, 2007. "PPPs for Industry Output: A New Dataset for International Comparisons," GGDC Research Memorandum GD-82, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen.
    7. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-90 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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).
    9. Marianne Ward & John Devereux, 2021. "New Income Comparisons for the late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 67(1), pages 222-247, March.
    10. Fremdling, Rainer & Jong, Herman de & Timmer, Marcel P., 2007. "Censuses compared. A New Benchmark for British and German Manufacturing 1935/1936," GGDC Research Memorandum GD-90, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen.
    11. 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.
    12. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-113 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. Broadberry, Stephen & Custodis, Johann & Gupta, Bishnupriya, 2015. "India and the great divergence: An Anglo-Indian comparison of GDP per capita, 1600–1871," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 58-75.
    15. Martin Shanahan & Rajabrata Banerjee, 2016. "Aspects of Productivity," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(2), pages 115-124, July.
    16. Giordano, Claire & Giugliano, Ferdinando, 2015. "A tale of two Fascisms: Labour productivity growth and competition policy in Italy, 1911–1951," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 25-38.
    17. Woltjer, P. & Smits, Jan-Pieter & Frankema, Ewout, 2010. "Comparing Productivity in the Netherlands, France, UK and US, ca. 1910:A new PPP benchmark and its implications for changing economic leadership," GGDC Research Memorandum GD-113, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen.
    18. Jan Luiten Zanden & Joerg Baten & Peter Foldvari & Bas Leeuwen, 2014. "The Changing Shape of Global Inequality 1820–2000; Exploring a New Dataset," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(2), pages 279-297, June.
    19. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Klasing, Mariko J. & Milionis, Petros, 2014. "Quantifying the evolution of world trade, 1870–1949," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 185-197.
    21. 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.
    22. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-108 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. 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.
    24. Adomas Klimantas & Aras Zirgulis, 2020. "A new estimate of Lithuanian GDP for 1937: How does interwar Lithuania compare?," Cliometrica, Springer;Cliometric Society (Association Francaise de Cliométrie), vol. 14(2), pages 227-281, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    productivity; benchmark comparisons; Britain; Germany;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • N10 - Economic History - - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations - - - General, International, or Comparative
    • N60 - Economic History - - Manufacturing and Construction - - - General, International, or Comparative

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2006-048. 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: RDC-Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sohubde.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.