IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/exehis/v94y2024ics0014498324000470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporations and partnerships: Factory productivity in late Imperial Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Lychakov, Nikita

Abstract

Using factory-level data from an official manufacturing census, I examine productivity among two forms of enterprise in the Russian Empire from around 1908. I find that despite having 60 times more financial capital, factories owned by corporations did not outperform those owned by ordinary and limited partnerships. Although corporations were more mechanized per worker, both enterprise forms attained equal capital and labor productivity and total factor productivity. Corporations attained higher labor productivity than partnerships only in the metals and machinery industry. These findings suggest that Russian factories used the corporate form's unique advantages in a rather limited way: to build larger factories and undertake larger projects, but not to enhance productivity beyond the level of the partnership form. I also find that there were fewer accidents per worker at partnership-owned factories than at corporations.

Suggested Citation

  • Lychakov, Nikita, 2024. "Corporations and partnerships: Factory productivity in late Imperial Russia," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:exehis:v:94:y:2024:i:c:s0014498324000470
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eeh.2024.101621
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014498324000470
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eeh.2024.101621?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Guinnane, Timothy & Harris, Ron & Lamoreaux, Naomi R. & Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent, 2007. "Putting the Corporation in its Place," Enterprise & Society, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 687-729, September.
    2. Walter Y. Oi & Todd L. Idson, 1999. "Workers Are More Productive in Large Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 104-108, May.
    3. Hilt, Eric, 2008. "The negative trade-off between risk and incentives: Evidence from the american whaling industry," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 424-444, September.
    4. Amanda G. Gregg, 2020. "Factory Productivity and the Concession System of Incorporation in Late Imperial Russia, 1894–1908," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(2), pages 401-427, February.
    5. Anton Cheremukhin & Mikhail Golosov & Sergei Guriev & Aleh Tsyvinski, 2017. "The Industrialization and Economic Development of Russia through the Lens of a Neoclassical Growth Model," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(2), pages 613-649.
    6. Gregg, Amanda & Matiashvili, Tamar, 2022. "Modernization in Progress: Part-Year Operation, Mechanization, and Labor Force Composition in Late Imperial Russia," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(4), pages 1143-1182, December.
    7. Nikita Lychakov & Dmitrii Saprykin & Nadia Vanteeva, 2022. "Comparative labour productivity in British and Russian manufacturing, circa 1908," Economic History of Developing Regions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 170-200, May.
    8. Hannah, Leslie, 2015. "A global corporate census: publicly traded and close companies in 1910," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59414, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Atack, Jeremy & Bateman, Fred & Margo, Robert A., 2003. "Productivity in manufacturing and the length of the working day: evidence from the 1880 census of manufactures," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 170-194, April.
    10. Guinnane, Timothy W. & Schneebacher, Jakob, 2020. "Enterprise form: Theory and history," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    11. Dhawan, Rajeev, 2001. "Firm size and productivity differential: theory and evidence from a panel of US firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 269-293, March.
    12. Hilt, Eric, 2006. "Incentives in Corporations: Evidence from the American Whaling Industry," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 197-227, April.
    13. Miriam Bruhn & David McKenzie, 2014. "Entry Regulation and the Formalization of Microenterprises in Developing Countries," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 29(2), pages 186-201.
    14. Prabal De & Priya Nagaraj, 2014. "Productivity and firm size in India," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 891-907, April.
    15. Amanda Gregg & Steven Nafziger, 2024. "The Births, Lives and Deaths of Corporations in Late Imperial Russia," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(661), pages 2041-2070.
    16. Gregory, Paul R, 1974. "Some Empirical Comments on the Theory of Relative Backwardness: The Russian Case," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(4), pages 654-665, July.
    17. Hopenhayn, Hugo A, 1992. "Entry, Exit, and Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1127-1150, September.
    18. Leslie Hannah, 2015. "A global corporate census: publicly traded and close companies in 1910," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 68(2), pages 548-573, May.
    19. Cihan Artunç & Timothy W Guinnane, 2019. "Partnership as Experimentation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 455-488.
    20. Nicholas, Tom, 2015. "The Organization of Enterprise in Japan," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(2), pages 333-363, June.
    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. Guinnane, Timothy W. & Schneebacher, Jakob, 2020. "Enterprise form: Theory and history," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. Timothy Guinnane & Jakob Schneebacher, 2018. "Capital Structure and the Choice of Enterprise Form: theory and history," Working Papers 1061, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    3. Coyle, Christopher & Musacchio, Aldo & Turner, John D., 2019. "Law and finance in Britain c.1900," Financial History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 267-293, December.
    4. repec:zbw:bofitp:2020_007 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Marvin Suesse & Theocharis Grigoriadis, 2025. "Financing Late Industrialization: Evidence from the State Bank of the Russian Empire," Trinity Economics Papers tep0225, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    6. Gregg, Amanda & Nafziger, Steven, 2020. "Financing nascent industry: Leverage, politics, and performance in Imperial Russia," BOFIT Discussion Papers 7/2020, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    7. Timothy W Guinnane & Susana Mart�nez-Rodr�guez, 2018. "Choice of Enterprise Form: Spain, 1886–1936," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-26.
    8. Alessandra Bonfiglioli & Gino Gancia, 2019. "Heterogeneity, selection and labor market disparities," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 31, pages 305-325, January.
    9. Crafts, Nicholas, 2020. "British Relative Economic Decline in the Aftermath of German Unification," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1295, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    10. Cihan Artunç, 2024. "Legal origins of corporate governance: Choice of law in Egypt, 1887–1914," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 77(1), pages 3-40, February.
    11. Tian, Can, 2011. "Technology choice and endogenous productivity dispersion over the business cycles," MPRA Paper 34480, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 02 Nov 2011.
    12. Miguel Artola Blanco & Luis Estévez Bauluz & Clara Martinez-Toledano, 2018. "Wealth in Spain, 1900-2014: A Country of Two Lands," Working Papers hal-02878216, HAL.
    13. Kufenko, Vadim & Khaustova, Ekaterina & Geloso, Vincent, 2022. "Escape underway: Malthusian pressures in late imperial Moscow," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    14. Amanda Gregg & Steven Nafziger, 2019. "Capital structure and corporate performance in late Imperial Russia," European Review of Economic History, European Historical Economics Society, vol. 23(4), pages 446-481.
    15. Tania Babina & Wenting Ma & Christian Moser & Paige Ouimet & Rebecca Zarutskie, 2019. "Pay, Employment, and Dynamics of Young Firms," Working Papers 19-23, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    16. 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.
    17. Prabal De & Priya Nagaraj, 2014. "Productivity and firm size in India," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 891-907, April.
    18. Schiavone, Ansel, 2023. "Labor market concentration and labor share dynamics for US regional industries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    19. Lopez-Martin, Bernabe, 2019. "Informal Sector Misallocation," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(8), pages 3065-3098, December.
    20. holmes, james, 2019. "Why do firms incorporate and what difference does it make?," MPRA Paper 93313, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Rodrigo Martín-García & Jorge Morán Santor, 2021. "Public guarantees: a countercyclical instrument for SME growth. Evidence from the Spanish Region of Madrid," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 427-449, January.

    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:eee:exehis:v:94:y:2024:i:c:s0014498324000470. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622830 .

    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.