Productivity in the economies of Europe

explains
the
constant
growth
of
V until
1908,
when
restnctive
policies
were
eased
The
next
spurt of
growth
in
V
took
place during
the
First World War
and
was
due
to
real
rather
than
monetary
causes
Spain
remained
neutral
during
the
war,
and
had
an
export
boom which pro-
voked
scarcities
and
steep
pnce
rises
prices running
ahead of
money
brought
about
increases
in
V
The
reverse
process
took
place
in
the
following
years
pnces dechned
faster
than money
and
V
dropped
drastically
between 1918 and 1922,
it
hovered
at
around
its
'normal'
level
(3
00-3
50)
until
the
Spanish
Civil War The
trough
reached
by
V
dunng
the mid-1940's
was
probably
due
to
the low
levels
of
income
which char-
actenzed the first
years
ofthe
Franco
era,
and
the
mcrease in
1946-51
to
the
gradual
economic
recovery
towards
prewar
economic
levels
The
relatively
mild
decline
which
ensued
must
be
attributed
to
the 'normal'
decrease
in
V
which
is
typical
ofthe
early
and middle
stages
of
growth
5
In
the third
place,
the
relative
stability
of
V
over
the
long
run,
and the relative
ease
with
which
we can
explain
shorter-run
fluctuations
are
encoraging signs that the
se¬
nes are
reliable This
is
especially good
news
with
respect
to
the
nineteenth-century
income
figures,
which
are
based
upon Mulhall*s
estimates
The
provisional
accepta-
Bustelo, Francisco,
and
Tortella,
Gabriel, Monetary Inflation
in
Spam
1800-1970
in
Journal
of
European
Economic
History,
5
(1976),
no
1
Doblin, Ernest,
The
Ratio
of
Income
to
Money
Supply
An
Inter-National
Survey
in
Review
of Economics and
Statistics,
33
(1951),
no
1
Anderson,
Paul S
,
Behavior
of Monetary Velocity
in
New
England
Economic Review
(Fed
eral Reserve Bank of
Boston),
March-Apnl
1977
137

bility
of the
Mulhall-Prados6
income
figures
is buttressed
by
a
series of circumstan-
tial facts:
first, they
seem
to
tally
well
with the
monetary series; second,
they
show
continuity
with the
Alcaide7
income series
starting
in
1901;
and
third,
Mulhall's
fig¬
ures
for
other countries
have
been vindicated
by
later
research.
In
the
fourth
place,
while these
figures
and
conclusions
augur well
for
our
ability
to
reach
our
ends for the
period
from
1865,
that
from the end of the
eighteenth
Cen¬
tury
to
1865 appears
more
problematic.
It
is
very
unlikely
that
we
may
obtain
a
yearly
series of
money
supply
for
that time
span. Even
decennial
figures
appear
highly
im¬
probable.
The
best
we
could
realistically hope
for
would
be
a
few scattered
estimates
permitting
reasonable
interpolations.
This
attained,
we
could
make
some
simple
as¬
sumptions
about
velocity.
One of these
assumptions, probably
the
best,
would be
a
li¬
near or
exponential extrapolation
ofthe
trend in
our
1865-1972 series. Other
possible
assumptions
could be
a
fixed
V
with maximum
and
minimum intervals
or
bands,
and
the
adoption
of known velocities
for
other
countries in
comparable
growth
stages.
If
not
even
this spotty series
were
available,
then
a
second
(or
third)
best Solution
would be
just
a
simple
benchmark
figure
which,
in the
Friedman-Leff
manner,
would
give
us an
estimate of the
long-term
growth
rate
of
income.8
For
this,
from
equation
(1)
we
obtain:
y
=
m
+ v,
(2)
where
lower-case,
dotted letters
symbolize
percentage
rates
of
growth
of the
higher-
case
variables.
Our
benchmark
money
figure
combined
with,
say,
our
1865
figure,
would
give
us
rh,
while
v
would
be
estimated
according
to
the
assumptions
mentioned
previously.
In any case,
v
would be either
negative
or
zero,
so
that
y
< m.
This
assumption
of
a
decreasing
or,
at
most,
constant
V
is based
upon
the
experi¬
ence
of
many
other
countries in their
early
stages
of
development,9
and
will
serve us
to
discriminate between different
possible
estimates. For
instance,
Canga Argü-
ellesV0
estimate of
a
gold
and
silver currency stock for
1772
of
4,886
million reales
(accepted by
Sardä11
with little
questioning)
is
a
gross
overestimate,
as our
reasoning
will show.
6. Prados de la
Escosura,
Leandro,
Anälisis economico del Comercio Exterior de
Espana
en
los
siglos
XVIII y
XIX,
Doctoral
Thesis,
Universidad
Complutense
de
Madrid 1981.
7. Alcaide
Inchausti, Julio,
Una revision
urgente
de la serie Renta
Nacional
espanola
en
el
siglo
XX,
in: Datos
bäsicos
para la
Historia Financiera
de
Espafia
(1850-1975),
vol.
I,
Madrid
1976.
8.
Friedman,
Milton,
Money
and
Economic
Development,
New York
1973;
Friedman,
Milton,
Monetary
Data and
National
Income
Estimates,
in: Economic
Development
and
Cultural
Change, (April 1961);
Leff,
Technique.
9. See
Doblin,
Ratio;
Anderson, Behavior; Leff,
Technique;
Cohen,
Jon
S.,
Italy
1861-1914,
in:
Cameron,
Rondo
(ed.),
Banking
and
Economic
Development
Some Lessons
of
History,
New
York
1972.
10,
Canga Argüelles,
Jose,
Diccionario
de
Hacienda,
2
vols.,
Madrid
1833-34.
11.
Sardä, Juan,
La
Politica Monetaria y las
Fluctuaciones
de la
economia
espanola
en
el
siglo
XIX,
Madrid 1948.
138

A
simple interpolation
of
two
estimates of national income
by
Grupo '7512
for
1755 and
by
Ajthur
Young13
for 1792 shows that
Spanish
national income
in 1772
was
around
3,700
million reales
(no
space here
to
give
details about the
problems
in¬
volved in these
calculations;
our
reasoning
admits
very
wide
margins
of
error).
This
would make the
money
supply larger
than national income
and,
consequently,
V
less
than
one
(around
.75
in
fact).
Such
a
small
V
at
such
early
date is unbelievable.
For
Canga's figure
to
be
correct
while
V
standing
at
around
3.5
(a
very low
bound),
na¬
tional income would have had
to
be üwq times
larger
than
our
estimate.
Among
other
things,
this would
imply
that income should
have grown between 1772 and
1865
at
a
rate
below 0.1 percent and therefore that
per
capita
income should
have
decreased
at
a
rate
of
perhaps
—0.3
percent between the
two
dates
(this
is in
current
money; the
decline would be
larger
if
we
allowed for
inflation).
Such
long-term
depression
is
clearly
out
ofthe
question: Canga's
estimate should be
rejected
in
spite
of his
being
a
respected
source
of macroeconomic information from his
writing days
in the
early
nineteenth Century
(I
am
leaving
aside
here
his
highly questionable
estimation
proce¬
dure).
To
sum
up,
our
method
seems
fruitful for
our
research,
both
as a
way
to
check the
trustworthiness of
existing
income and/or money
estimates,
and
to
extrapolate
and
interpolate
a
series.
The
problems, naturaUy,
are
less tractable for
the
first part of
our
period.
Zusammenfassung:
Die
Schätzung
des Volkseinkommens anhand
monetärer
Variablen
am
Beispiel Spaniens,
1772-1972
Hiermit werden
einige
Aspekte
des
Forschungsprojektes
über
"Einkommen,
Output
und Produktivität
in
Spanien
vom
achtzehnten Jahrhundert bis
in die
Gegenwart"
vorgestellt.
Eine
Gruppe
von
Wirtschaftshistorikern arbeitet
an
diesem
Projekt,
das
von
der
spanischen
Zentralbank
gefördert
wird.
In
diesem
Beitrag
wird
versucht,
die
möglichen
wie auch
die bereits
erreichten Re¬
sultate
darzulegen,
die bei der
Aufstellung
einer Zeitreihe über
das
spanische
Volks¬
einkommen auf der
Grundlage
von
monetären
Variablen
zu
erzielen sind.
Monetäre
Angaben
sind
recht
leicht zusammenzustellen
und
liegen jährlich
bereits
seit
1874
vor.
Milton
Friedman hat
dieses Schätzverfahren
erstmals
angewandt.
Es
geht
von
der
grundlegenden
Voraussetzung
aus,
daß die
Geldumlaufgeschwindigkeit
(der
Koeffi¬
zient
von
Volkseinkommen
zu
Geldmenge)
eine
ziemlich
stabile
Größe
ist. Und
tat¬
sächlich
wird
diese Annahme durch
empirische
Angaben
aus
einer
Vielzahl
von
Län-
12.
Grupo
*75,
La
economia
delAntiguo Regimen.
La "Renta
Nacional" de la Corona de
Castilla,
Universidad Autönoma de
Madrid, Departamento
de
Historia
Contemporänea,
Madrid
1977.
13.
Young, Arthur,
Travels
during
the years
1787,
1788 and 1789 in France
for
which is Added the
Register of
a
Tour into
Spain,
Dublin 1793
(cited
in Prados de la
Escosura,
Anälisis,
p.
91).
139

dern
bestätigt:
Bei
nur
geringen Abweichungen
von
Jahr
zu
Jahr
weist die
Umlaufge¬
schwindigkeit
eine
langfristige
Tendenz
zur
Verlangsamung
auf.
In
weit
fortgeschrit¬
tenen
Volkswirtschaften kehrt sich dieser Trend
jedoch
um,
d.h.,
die
Umlaufge¬
schwindigkeit
hat die
Tendenz,
sich
zu
erhöhen,
und auch dieses
nur
mit
geringen
Schwankungen.
Die
Umlaufgeschwindigkeit
in
Spanien
scheint
sich in dieses Muster
einzufügen.
Unsere Zahlen
belegen,
daß die
Umlaufgeschwindigkeit
hier einen Trend
zur
Ver¬
minderung
aufweist.
In
den
Zeitspannen
von
1901 bis
1908,
von
1914 bis
1917 und
von
1946
bis 1951
jedoch
kehrte sich als
Folge
von
Kriegseinflüssen
dieser
allge¬
meine Trend
um:
Der
kubanische
Unabhängigkeitskrieg,
der
Erste
Weltkrieg
sowie
der
spanische Bürgerkrieg
waren
für diese
Trendumschwünge
verantwortlich.
Doch sieht
man von
diesen
Störungen
einmal
ab,
so
erweist die relative Stabilität
der
Umlaufgeschwindigkeit,
daß die
vorgesehene
Schätzmethode
durchaus
anwend¬
bar ist.
Ajn
Ende des Artikels werden
einige
Probleme
umrissen,
die
dabei auf¬
tauchen,
wenn man
die Methode auf das frühe neunzehnte Jahrhundert
anwenden
will;
denn
für diesen Zeitraum sind
Schätzungen
der
Geldmenge
nur
schwer
zu er¬
stellen.
140

Jean
Gadisseur
Output
per Worker and its Evolution
in
Belgian
Industry,
1846-1910
Owing
to
its crucial role in the
process
of
industrialization,—not only
by
its techni¬
cal,
but
also economic and social
implications—the
threefold
relationship capital-
technical
change-labour
is of
extreme
importance
in the
explanation
ofthe economic
development
of
Belgium during
the XIXth
Century.
The
present
study
aims
simply
to
estimate
annual
rates
of increase
in
output
per
worker
in the
main industries and
sectors
of industrial
activity.
It
is
a
preliminary
step for
a
much
larger study,
which
should
embrace
four aspects of
the
evolution of
industrial
productivity:
-
the
technical aspect,
including technological
and
organizational changes
as
well
as
progress in
skills;
-
the micro-level
approach,
focused
on
the
Substitution of
capital
for labour
at
the
level
ofthe
firm;
-
such
macro
elements
as
the evolution of
comparative
costs
and
prices,
the
distribu¬
tion of
returns
between
capital
and
labour;
-
finally
socio-demographic
factors
ranging
from health—the
physical
ability
to
work—to
working
hours.
1.
The available data
1.1.
The
Input of
Manpower
The
numbers of workers and other
employees engaged
in each
sub-division of indus¬
try
has been
derived
and
calculated
from
four
sources:
a)
the Industrial Censuses of
1846, 1880,
1896 and
1910;
b)
Censuses
of
Population
which
classify
the
population
by
occupations
and
profes¬
sions
;
c)
official
mining
statistics which contain annual estimates for
the
extractive,
metals
and
glass
industries;
d)
other
sources,
including
reports of Chambers of
Commerce,
official
estimates and
studies of
particular
industries.
The
figures
available
for
some
branches of
industry
look
sometimes
very different.
But
differences
can
usually
be accounted for
by
a
reference
to
the
definitions and
rules utilized
by
any
given
source
to
deal with seasonal
employment,
unemployment
and home workers. The Industrial
Census
of
1880 has
often
been
criticized because
its coverage is
not
exhaustive
and it
is
clear that
for
several
branches
of industrial
ac¬
tivity
this
census
does underestimate the work
force.
Population
censuses
must
also
141

be used
carefully
because it is
difficult
to
find
a
corresponding
industrial division
to
their
classifications of the work force into
occupations
and
professions. Mining
sta¬
tistics
are
reasonably satisfactory. Although
the
categories
used in this
source
do
not
correspond exactly
with
such
integrated
industries
as
iron and steel. A detailed dis¬
cussion of the
problems
encountered
and
Solutions
adopted
would be
out
of
place
in
a
short
articie.1
The
choices of
particular figures
or
new
estimates
were
made
according
to
a
Statis¬
tical
criticism of the
data,
including
tests
for
coherence
across
sectors
and
through
time. Final estimates
are
those
presented
in Table
1.
Table
1:
The
Allocation of Labour
by
Branches of
Industry
1846
1880
1896
1910
Coal
Metal
Mines
Quarries
Milling
Rice
Sugar
Sugar Refining
Glucose
Cocoa
Coffee
Chicory
Margarine
Beer
Alcohol
Tobacco
Wool-Preparation
Wool-Spinning
Wool-Weaving
Linen-Preparation
Linen-Spinning
Linen-Weaving
Jute
Hemp
Cotton-Spinning
Cotton-Weaving
Saw Mills
Woodwork
43,488
102,930
119,246
143,701
8,203
3,810
2,163
.
455
26,007
38,624
39,873
11,384
11,900
11,374
13,134
278
145
102
1,785
11,870
11,237
8,420
696
1,237
1,349
1,786
105
176
267
45
335
1,099
2,577
234
340
360
601
128
1,720
1,640
1,964
360
522
9,558
15,130
20,074
24,397
2,205
2,460
2,077
2,406
7,805
14,530
12,034
15,471
4,800
3,302
2,325
2,688
5,100
11,023
12,942
13,625
20,100
28,158
17,982
10,849
7,000
7,173
10,000
14,000
25,600
14,204
17,668
20,062
25,000
26,500
21,389
12,886
2,321
5,741
1,910
2,765
4,044
3,811
6,984
7,153
8,073
14,736
15,267
18,935
11,929
25,012
7,160
7,582
8,443
10,400
25,702
28,401
39,557
44,260
1.
For
further details
on
these
estimates
readers
should
consult the
author
and
the reference
un¬
der
footnote
2.
142

Table
1
(Fortsetzung)
1846
1880
1896
1910
Cabinet
Making
3,705
12,629
17,812
23,573
Paper
and
Cardboard
2,262
7,130
9,575
12,434
Printing
3,591
6,645
14,810
21,308
Leather and Skins
3,113
5,173
5,047
6,774
Leather-Working
12,273
26,861
26,519
29,643
Rubber
15
245
1,235
2,146
Soda and Derivatives
132
987
903
1,639
Vegetable
Oils
2,293
2,500
2,879
2,800
Wax
and
Polish
288
539
852
788
Coke
2,358
2,415
3,737
Coal
Briquettes
1,334
1,999
Glass and
Crystal
3,729
11,131
23,333
26,182
Pig
Iron
(Blast Furnaces)
3,288
3,452
3,305
4,214
Crude
Iron
(Puddled
or
Converted)
1,646
8,180
4,455
1,064
Finished
Iron
1,547
7,689
4,512
2,087
Crude Steel
26
2,156
6,018
13,186
Finished
Steel
26
1,678
5,218
10,694
Iron
Foundries
1,596
6,693
7,785
9,937
Zinc
Manufacture
1,205
3,277
4,970
7,745
Zinc
Laminating
704
509
734
Lead
Manufacture
134
278
527
727
Desilvering
Lead
72
200
1,090
Copper
585
1,355
2,252
3,817
Machinery