Expansion and Transformation of theExport-Oriented Silk Weaving District: The Case of
Fukui in Japan from 1890 to 1919

Tomoko Hashino
Keijiro Otsuka
February 2013
Discussion Paper No.1303

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
KOBE UNIVERSITYROKKO, KOBE, JAPANExpansion and Transformation of theExport-Oriented Silk Weaving District: The Caseof Fukui in Japan from 1890 to 1919*
Tomoko Hashino† and Keijiro Otsuka‡
14 February 2013
Abstract
The development of the Fukui silk weaving district was curious because it became thelargest industrial district of habutae, or plain silk, fabric production in Japan within adecade after it began operations in the late 1880s. Initially, the production of habutae
rapidly spread geographically from the capital city to surrounding areas in the same
prefecture. Fukui introduced power looms beginning in the mid-1900s, which was theearliest among Japan’s silk weaving districts. Production was first dominated by smallfamily firms, but later by factories employing 10 or more workers. Interestingly, Fukui’semphasis on weaving habutae gradually shifted, and a range of more sophisticatedproducts emerged during the later stages of the silk industry’s development in the district.
This study attempts to explore the causes of the rapid expansion and transformation of
the Fukui silk weaving district and the effects on the size, location, structure, and labour
productivity of weaving firms.
*This research is a part of 'Program for Promoting Social Science Research Aimed at Solutions of
Near-Future Problems' supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. We would like tothank Takeshi Abe for valuable and insightful comments on the earlier version of this article. We arealso grateful to Tetsuji Okazaki, Taro Hisamatsu, Yukichi Mano, Yuji Matsuoka, Masaki Nakabayashi,
Kentaro Nakajima, Yasuo Takatsuki, and other participants at seminars in Kobe University and Osaka
University for helpful comments. First author also thanks Masami Harada for valuable discussion in
the earlier stage of this study. The financial support from Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A)22243022 and (A) 23243055 is gratefully acknowledged.
†
Kobe University; hashino@econ.kobe-u.ac.jp‡
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies; otsuka@grips.ac.jp

1. Introduction
The issue of the Great Divergence between the West and the East has received increasing
attention among economic historians, which has led to a proliferation of studies on Asian
economic history with a view to establishing a fuller picture of global economic history(Van der Eng 2004; Broadberry and Van der Eng 2010; Broadberry and Hindle 2011). In
spite of this growing body of research, however, the actual catch-up process of the East
after the Great Divergence has not been fully explored because of a lack of micro-level
data necessary to investigate how specific industries or regions within Eastern countries
learned from the West and adapted accordingly.
It is well known that the textile industry has played an important role in theprocess of early industrialization in developed countries as well as in contemporary
developing countries. This industry is unique, as it consists of diverse industrial
sectors—from the production of raw materials to distribution—some of which use
traditional or indigenous technologies, while others use modern technologies. While thespinning industry in 19th century Japan typified a capital-intensive modern industry
characterized by large-scale production and imported mechanized technologies (see, forexample, Otsuka et al. 1988), the weaving industry involved a mixture of traditional andmodern technologies and production organizations. According to the literature review
conducted by Hashino and Saito (2004), Japanese economic historians had generally
believed until recently that the rise of modern sectors contributed to economic growthmore than the modernization of traditional sectors.
Nakamura (1983), however, argues that traditional sectors employed a larger
1

share of workers and contributed more significantly to GDP growth in Japan from thelate 19th through early 20th centuries. His argument strongly suggests that themodernization of traditional industries depended on the successful introduction of newtechnologies from the West. In fact, not only local and central governments, but also local
people themselves, developed various institutions and organizations to introduce andabsorb such technologies (Hashino 2012). Based on a large number of case studies andfollowing Nakamura’s argument, Tanimoto (2006) suggests a new perspective on thesignificant role of small-scale and indigenous industries in Japan’s industrialization:‘another path to the industrialization’, so to speak. Tanimoto’s argument emphasizes thecontinuity of industrial development that accompanied the transformation of traditional
industries. After all, the latter had a long history of operation before Japanese ports wereopened in the middle of the 19th century. If his argument is correct, the success of theEast in catching up with the West hinged on the existence of traditional sectors.
The aim of this study is to explore the development of the Fukui weaving
district by analysing production data from Fukui city and seven surrounding counties.
Fukui became the top exporter of habutae, or plain silk, fabric in late 19th century
Japan—shortly after the introduction of weaving technologies from more advanced
districts such as Kyoto and Kiryu. The striking feature of the development of the Fukui
district was its rapid growth and the geographic expansion of production from the capital
city to surrounding rural areas. In this respect, Fukui’s development recalls that of the silk
fabric industry in Lyon, France, in which production spread from urban to rural areas in
the 18th century (Matsubara 2003). It is worth emphasizing that this industry was newly2‘transplanted’ to Fukui in the modern era, suggesting that an established, traditional
weaving industry was not necessarily a pre-requisite for a modernized equivalent.
The case of Fukui’s development also offers a good example of a traditional
industry which was successful in export-led growth. Saito (2012) argues that Meiji
growth was largely export-led with traditional manufacturing which was rural settingwith some interactions with the emerging modern sector (Saito 2012, pp. 11-12, 18).
Almost all habutae was exported to the United States and European countries such as
France and the United Kingdom. Fukui’s development can be regarded as a typical caseof labour-intensive industrialization consistent with the endowment of cheap labour per
Sugihara (2007). However, labour-saving technologies, such as power looms, wererapidly introduced in response to the rise in wage rate in the mid-1900s. In this study, we
argue that importing Western technologies—in accordance with dynamically changing
comparative advantage—was the key to the successful modernization of traditional
industry in Japan.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section provides an
overview of the growth of habutae export and the accompanying development of the
Fukui weaving district by observing indicators of changes in production, the number offirms, firm size in terms of the number of workers per ferm, and labour productivity.
Section III examines the conditions which facilitated the geographical expansion of
habutae production from Fukui city to surrounding rural areas. In Section IV, threehypotheses regarding the geographical expansion of production, the introduction of
power looms, and a shift from habutae to other products are tested. We conclude by3

summarizing the main findings of the paper and drawing implications for future researchin the last section.

2. A Brief History of Rapid Industrial Development
2-1. The rise of habutae production in Fukui prefecture
Because of the lack of a major manufacturing sector within Fukui prefecture, theprefectural government made various attempts to promote new industries, particularly forthe sake of ex-samurais who found themselves without employment. For example, thegovernment first tried to stimulate the production of hosho-tsumugi, traditional plain silk
fabrics for the domestic market, according to the newest production techniques. To thisend, the prefectural government sent a few people to Kyoto to be trained in advanced
methods of weaving and dyeing. Hosho-tsumugi had long been produced mainly in Fukui
city; however, it was not so promising a growth industry because demand was limited.
Local people wanted to start producing fabrics which had large market and export
potential. A small group of ex-samurais established the weaving workshop‘Shokko-gaisha’, which was equipped with ten hand looms with flying shuttles, toproduce silk handkerchiefs and umbrella material for export. This was the first weaving
workshop in Fukui prefecture (Fukuiken Silk Fabric Association 1921, pp. 182-189), but
its success was by no means guaranteed. The workshop faced a number of problems
regarding management and struggled to stay open. New industries with market
opportunities were continually sought by trial-and-error.
It was habutae production which started in Fukui city in 1887 that seemed to4

afford the most promise. Local people learned the basic production methods from
Naohiro Koriki, an engineer in the Kiryu silk weaving district located 500 km away, who
was invited by the Fukui prefectural government to conduct a three-week training session
in the capital, Fukui city (Harada 2006, pp. 25-26). 1 An estimated 100 people
participated. Kiryu had been the first exporter of habutae, beginning around 1877, andseveral prefectures including Fukui had directly introduced Kiryu’s habutae production
methods. The Kiryu district, however, contracted habuae production and concentrated on
the production of more sophisticated products, such as kimono, rather than just simple
habutae (Hashino and Otsuka 2013).
After the introduction of the flying shuttle from Kyoto and following thethree-week training program, production of habutae grew rapidly in Fukui city. It is said
that in 1892, shortly after foreign merchants from Yokohama opened local branch offices,more than fifty new hand looms entered into operation every day in Fukui city (Mikami
and Debuchi 1900, p. 7). Although there is no specific evidence to this effect, it mightwell be that many foreign merchants identified Fukui as promising new centre of habutae
production in Japan. The production of habutae quickly spread from Fukui city tosurrounding rural areas. Export of habutae produced in Fukui prefecture increased
sharply and surpassed Kiryu’s habutae export a mere several years after production had
first commenced
1

Unfortunately, the content of the training and participant demographics are not well reported. It is
known that prefectural officials and workshop owners decided to pay 0.15 yen per person (per handloom) to Koriki for his training services, and that he received 15 yen in total. This suggests that 100
people received training (Fukuiken Silk Fabric Association 1921, pp. 188-89). It is interesting to notethat the development of the garment industry in Bangladesh also started with a training program(Mottaleb and Sonobe 2011).
5

Figure 1 shows the map of the Fukui weaving district, with its centre in Fukuicity. Habutae production geographically expanded first to nearby counties: Imadate
county started production in 1887, Yoshida county in 1888, Sakai county in 1889, andOhno and Nanjo counties in 1890 (Fukuiken Yushutsu Orimono Kensajo 1911, pp. 5-9).2
As will be shown later, the history of the export-led growth of the Fukui weaving district
accompanied the geographic—and thus net—expansion of production.3

2-2. The rapid growth of habutae export
Figure 2 shows the growth in real value of Japanese habutae exports, habutae production
in Fukui prefecture, and habutae as a share of total exports. The real value of habutae
exports rose sharply in the 1890s. After stagnant growth during the first decade of the20th century, export again took off in the 1910s. The share of habutae as a fraction of
total Japanese exports increased to more than 10 percent in 1904, which indicates theimportance of this commodity at the early stage of Japan’s modern economic
development. At the same time, habutae production in Fukui prefecture occupied asignificant place in the Japanese export, especially in the 1890s and 1910s.4
As intermediate goods, habutae fabrics had to be very light, even, and uniform(Hashino 2010, p. 488). Most of the habutae was shipped in its grey state and thenprinted or dyed in European countries to be used for ladies’ dresses, blouses, linings,

2

Starting years of production in Asuwa and Nyu counties are unknown, but production probably
began later than in more northern counties.
3
As the weaving industry did not become popular in the southern part of Fukui prefecture, consistingof Mikata, Oi, Tsuruga, and Onyu counties, we focus only on Fukui city and seven northern counties.
4
Almost all of the habutae produced in Fukui was exported.
6

trimmings, and various ornamental purposes (Crowe 1909, p. 33). Japanese habutae thatsent to France to be dyed or printed was supplied not only to the French domestic market,
but also beyond. Japanese habutae became popular throughout Western countries, where
demand had increased for silk fabrics made more cheaply thanks to modern production
techniques. This was the so-called great ‘democratization of silk’ (Matsubara 2003, p. 54).
Cheap silk fabrics, in solid colours and piece-dyed prints, became much morefashionable than expensive figured or pre-dyed fabrics. They had to be light and thin so
as to save material costs (Tamura 2009, p. 191). The production of such fabrics is highly
labour-intensive, and Fukui was suitable for producing them because cheap labour wasavailable for weaving habutae on hand looms outfitted with flying shuttles. In addition,
thin raw silk for producing light fabric was available from Yokohama. The raw silk was
too thin to be used for power loom production in those days.
According to survey data from the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (1911,
pp. 8-9), in 1895, more than 60 percent of Japanese habutae was exported to the UnitedStates, 20 percent to France, and 6 percent to the United Kingdom.5 Habutae export to
the United States, however, decreased sharply beginning in the late 1890s due to tariffs
protecting their nascent silk weaving industry. In the United States, the introduction of
power looms and the import of cheap and uniform Japanese raw silk, rather than habutae,
enabled the domestic silk weaving industry to grow rapidly. Thus, the European market
became more important for Japanese habutae in the early 20th century. In 1910, around30 percent of Japanese habutae was exported to France, 20 percent to the United
5

Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (1911), pp. 8-9. The figures were reported on a value basis.
7

Kingdom, and only 13 percent to the United States.
Yet, the above figures do not necessarily mean that Japanese habutae wasalways competitive in the European market. In 1896, a Japanese inspector pointed outthat no product could compete with Japanese habutae except Chinese pongee in the
major silk markets such as Patterson, Manchester, Geneva, Zurich, and Lyon. However,when he visited the European market again in 1900, the inspector found a number ofworthy competitors: pongee, mixed goods with silk and cotton produced in Lyon,
American light silk, Chinese pongee, and English satin with silk and cotton (Tamura
2009, p. 192).
In fact, habutae export as well as its production in Fukui prefecture drasticallydeclined in the 1920s (see Figure 2). It appears that the silk weaving industry inEuropean countries gradually developed technologies which enabled the use of powerlooms to produce silk fabrics, as well as mixed fabrics with silk and cotton, which werecheap enough to compete with Japanese habutae. It is also important to consider thesignificant turn to rayon, which was much cheaper than silk; rayon fabric production
soon outpaced that of habutae.

2-3. Production growth in Fukui prefecture
How did production grow in Fukui prefecture, leading it to become the top exporter of
habutae in Japan soon after the industry first developed? Table 1 shows fabric production,
the number of firms, workers, and looms in 1902, 1910, and 1918 by location. Several
important findings can be made. First, Fukui city was by far the most important centre of8

production, accounting for 50 percent of the district’s production in 1902. Its production
share, however, decreased significantly over time. Second, production totals in Yoshida
and Imadate counties were the largest next to Fukui city in 1902. Taking advantage of
their geographic proximity to Fukui city (Figure 1), these counties seem to have begun
habutae production relatively early on. Thus, we call these counties ‘early followers’ or
EF1 and EF2. Third, Sakai and Ohno counties caught up with and surpassed EF1 andEF2 in production totals later, thanks to a higher adoption rate of power looms. It appears
that these counties can be called ‘late followers’ or LF1 and LF2. Fourth, in general, thepercentage of habutae out of total silk fabric production was high in 1902 and 1910, butbecame much smaller in 1918, indicating that production shifted towards non-habutae
fabrics. Fifth, Nanjo, Asuwa, and Nyu counties are characteristically different from Fukuicity and other counties in that they evidence low production levels, low shares of habutae
production, specifically, a large number of firms and workers, and low adoption rates ofpower looms. We call these counties “remaining areas” or R1, R2, and R3.
It is the purpose of this study to explore why such unique patterns ofdevelopment emerged in the Fukui silk weaving district by using the available
county-level data from 1890 to 1919. We cover this period because reliable data are
available from 1890 and because the slowdown of habutae production began around1920.6

6

The large-scale production of rayon fabrics became common in the 1920s (Hashino 2007, pp.
31-32), an analysis of which requires a separate approach focusing on how new products’ production
techniques were mastered.
93. Descriptive Analyses
3-1. An overview of development
In order to identify the major components of growth in industrial production, we
decompose the value of production (Q) into the number of firms (N), firm size in termsof the number of workers per firm (L/N), and labour productivity (Q/L) according to thefollowing:
Q = N x (L/N) x (Q/L).
Taking the logarithm, the above equation can be rewritten as:
Ln (Q) = Ln (N) + Ln (L/N) + Ln (Q/L).
Using this relationship, changes in logarithms of the indices of Q, N, L/N, and Q/L are
shown in Figure 3.7 It should be noted that indices in this figure are set to be unity in1890 and pertain to the production of not only habutae, but also other fabrics including
silk, cotton, and linen.
It is interesting to observe that the development patterns of this industrial district
are markedly different in at least three periods. It was primarily an increase in the numberof firms that brought about a rapid growth in production from 1890 to 1908. All of asudden, however, the number of firms began declining after 1908. On the other hand,labour productivity did not increase appreciably, or even declined, until 1908, though it
would increase steadily from 1908 up to 1915. The average firm size increased from1903 to 1907 but decreased or stagnated thereafter. Based on these observations, we may

7‘Firms’ include (1) workshops employing more than 10 workers, (2) workshops employing less than
9 workers, (3) weaving manufactures-cum-contractors, and (4) out-weavers.
10

be able to divide the entire study period into three phases: (1) Phase I (1890-1908), in
which the increasing number of firms was a major source of growth; (2) Phase II(1909-14), in which the number of firms declined but the labour productivity increased;and (3) Phase III (1915-19), in which average firm size and labour productivity remainedlargely unchanged, but total production increased due to the increase in the number offirms. Why such characteristically different phases of development emerged is a major
question to be addressed in the rest of this paper.

3-2. Regional expansion of production
Figure 4 shows changing shares of silk fabric production in the Fukui silk weaving
district by region. It is clear that the production centre shifted from Fukui city to otherareas, particularly to nearby counties of early followers in Phase I. Considering that it
was an increase in the number of firms, neither higher employment rates per firm nor
labour productivity growth, that was the main source of production growth in Phase I,
and that the decentralization of the production base took place, it seems reasonable tohypothesize that there were not strong Marshallian agglomeration economies. In fact, inthe case of strong agglomeration economies, production expansion takes place inlocations where the total size of production was large from the beginning.8 Similararguments can be made for the number of weaving firms. Although we do not haveconcrete evidence, the most important reason for the industry’s geographical expansion
8

Usually, industrial districts or clusters are geographically concentrated in small areas. Thus, the caseof the Fukui silk weaving district is exceptional. See Sonobe and Otsuka (2006) and Hashino andKurosawa (2013) for a discussion of the expansion of industrial clusters and Marshallian
agglomeration economies in contemporary East Asia and modern Japan, respectively.
11was the lower wage rate outside Fukui city, which may correspond to the predictions of
product cycle theory (Vernon 1966).
It also seems sensible to conjecture that scale economies at the workshop or
factory level were weak. If they are strong, the firm size tends to increase in areas where
the firm size was large from the beginning. According to Figure 3, however, the firm size
expansion was not pronounced except for several years during the middle of the first
decade of the 20th century. If scale economies were strong in the case of the Fukui
district, the initial capital requirement would have been large, which, in turn, may havediscouraged the entry of new firms into the silk weaving business.
It is also interesting to observe from Figure 4 that production shares of the latefollowers, located to the far north and east, respectively, gradually increased in thesecond and third phases. Why this happened is another interesting question. It may also
be noteworthy that the remaining areas increased their production shares in the late 1910s.
As was pointed out earlier, these areas were characterized by the persistent use of handlooms.
The production generally increases either by an increase in the total number offirms or by firm’s increased scale of operations. Patterns of changes in the number offirms, shown in Figure 5, and the average firm size, shown in Figure 6, are markedly
different among the four regions. According to Figure 5, the number of firms in Phase I(1902-08) increased except in Fukui city, which is consistent with the geographicalexpansion of habutae production. Yet, the number of firms declined—not only in Fukui
city, but also among the early and late followers in Phase II. An exception was in the12remaining areas, in which the number of firms reached 3,000 in the early 1910s. Also
intriguing is the increasing number of firms primarily in these remaining areas in Phase
III.
Overall, there appears to be a negative correlation between the number of firms
and firm size. In Phase I, the firm size was the largest in Fukui city, averaging 10 to 20
workers per firm, whereas it was very small outside Fukui city, ranging from 3 to 6
workers per firm. In some areas, such as EFs and the remaining areas, there were
out-weavers, who were members of farming households and accepted the putting-out
contract with the merchants. 9 Subsequently, firm size remained at roughly 10 workers
per firm in Fukui city, whereas it increased from 4 to 14 workers in the LF region fromthe early 1900s to the late 1910s. There might have been weak, but growing, advantagesof larger-scale operations associated with the use of power looms. In contrast, the firm
size somewhat decreased in the remaining areas of the district and shrunk to an averageas low as 2 workers in the 1910s. Such differences in the number of firms and their firm
size across regions are intimately related with the overall structural transformation of thissilk weaving district to be discussed below.

3-3. Structural transformation of industrial districts
Figure 7 compares different rates of power loom adoption by region with changes in thereal wage rate in Fukui city. It is clear that the use of hand looms completely dominated9Out-weavers were commonly observed in Kiryu, which was a more advanced industrial district, andthey produced a small number of diverse and complicated kimono primarily for domestic markets(Hashino and Otsuka 2013; Hashino and Kurosawa 2013).
13

in Phase I. Responding to the increasing wage rate after 1907, the adoption of powerlooms almost seems to have increased sharply, first in Fukui city, followed by the latefollowers and subsequently by the early followers, but not by the remaining areas even in
1919. The differences in the adoption rate of power looms in Phases II and III are largely
consistent with changes over time and differences across regions in terms of the numberof firms, shown in Figure 5, and the average firm size, observed in Figure 6; the numberof firms tended to be large in areas where the hand looms were used, while the firm size
tended to be larger in areas where the adoption rate of power loom was higher. In fact,
the number of firms decreased in Fukui city, and the early and late followers’ regions,whereas firm size generally increased. In contrast, the number of firms increased, but the
average firm size decreased, in the remaining areas, where the introduction of powerlooms was delayed. In Phase II, a structural transformation took place along with theintroduction of power looms—first in Fukui city and followed by the early and latefollowers—which destroyed a large number of small firms and increased labour
productivity. In contrast, no such major change took place in the remaining areas of the
district.
Such differences and changes are also consistent with the regional differences in
the labour productivity growth shown in Figure 8. It is clear that labour productivity
increased sharply first in Fukui city, second among the late followers, and third among
the early followers, whereas it did not increase much in the remaining areas of the district.
These observations clearly indicate that the introduction of power looms triggered thestructural transformation of the Fukui silk weaving district.
14

While the major silk product in the Fukui silk weaving district had been habutae
from 1892 to the mid-1910s (see Figure 9), production shifted towards non-habutae
products beginning in the mid-1910s. It is important to observe that in the remaining
areas of the district where the use of hand looms was common, the production of habutae
decreased abruptly, but its regional share of silk production increased (see Figure 4); thissuggests that high-value silk products were increasingly produced by hand loom in thisregion.
Such a change in the composition of silk products was primarily in response to
the relative decrease in habutae prices (see Figure 10).10 Several important observations
can be made from this figure. First, there were no clear differences in habutae prices
across regions and realo habutae prices were largely constant until 1910. Second,regional differences in habutae prices appeared after 1910, at which point prices werehighest in Fukui city, second highest in the late followers’ region, third highest in theearly followers’ region, and lowest in the remaining areas. Given the difference in the
adoption rates of power looms, these observations suggest that power looms became
better suited for the production of high-quality habutae products in the 1910s.11 Fourth,and most importantly, habutae prices abruptly began decreasing after the mid-1910s. It
seems clear that this general drop in habutae prices was another driver for the structural

10

It must be pointed out that different units were used for the habutae price; tan (1889-93 and
1901-10), hiki (1894-1900), and hon (1911-19). Since one hiki is equivalent to two tan, weconstructed a consistent price series using this conversion rate from 1889 to 1910. However, so far, wehave failed to match price data before 1910 and after 1911.
11
Our hypothesis is that unlike earlier period, the improvement of technology made it possible toproduce high-quality habutae by power looms.
15

transformation of the Fukui industrial district in the early 20th century.12

4. Hypotheses and Empirical Methodology
4-1. Hypotheses
We have found that the whole development process of the Fukui silk weaving district canbe divided into three phases: (1) one of geographical expansion (1894-1908); (2) one ofstructural transformation (1909-14); and (3) one of product diversification (1915-19). For
each phase, we would like to postulate the following hypotheses based on the descriptive
analyses carried out in the last section:
Hypothesis 1: The growth in the production of silk products accompanied thegeographic expansion of the industry in Phase I because agglomeration economies were
weak, scale economies at the workshop level were weak, and the imitation of existing
technology was easy.
Hypothesis 2: The introduction of power looms in Phase II, which would havebeen induced by increasing wage rates, brought about a structural transformation inwhich the number of small firms decreased and the production and labour productivity
increased in areas where power looms were actively introduced.
Hypothesis 3: The diversification of products away from such a simple productas habutae to more sophisticated products took place in Phase III—when the relative
price of habutae declined—which favoured production by hand loom.

12

A major reason why habutae prices began declining so sharply could have been the rapid growth in
the consumption of rayon fabrics.
16

4-2. Empirical methodology

In order to test the validity of the above hypotheses, we estimate the following function
by growth phase using OLS:
Zit =  + iDi + iDjT + tYt + 
where Zit refers to the logarithm of the value of production, the number of firms, thenumber of workers per firm (which is called ‘firm size’ for short), labour productivity, theadoption rate of power looms, habutae price, or the proportional share of habutae
production in i-th county in year t; Di is a county dummy in which Fukui city is the basisof comparison; T is the time trend beginning with zero in each phase (i.e. 1902, 1909,
and 1915); Yt is a year dummy; ssand s are regression parameters; and  is an error
term. Note that i shows the difference in Zit between the i-th county and Fukui city inthe initial year of each phase. Growth in Fukui city is captured by t, whereas i shows
the average growth in the i-th county relative to Fukui city during a specific phase. Thus,if i is not significantly different from zero, the hypothesis that Z grows at the same rate
in Fukui city and i-th county cannot be rejected.
If agglomeration economies were strong in the geographical expansion phase,the larger the production (i.e. i), the larger would be growth rate (i.e. i). Thus,
Hypothesis 1 can be tested by examining whether larger i values are associated withlarger i values in the regression function of the value of production. The same tendency
may be observed in the regression analysis for the number of firms. On the other hand, if
17economies of scale were strong, the larger the average firm size, the larger theemployment growth of the firm size, implying a positive association between i and i in
the regression estimates of the firm size function. Finally, the ease of imitation can be
confirmed by the non-significance of i in the labour productivity and habutae pricefunctions, given the fact that Fukui city was always the leading centre of habutae
production. We expect that habutae prices should be similar within the Fukui weaving
district to the extent that product qualities were similar, even though the differences intransport cost would also affect local habutae prices.
Hypothesis 2 on the structural transformation can be tested by examining
whether a positive association exists between the adoption rate of power looms andlabour productivity, and whether a negative relationship exists between power loom
adoption and the number of weaving firms. Testing Hypothesis 3 is a more subtle
exercise, because the share of habutae production decreased everywhere. Assuming that
hand looms were suitable for high-value non-habutae products, we may test whether the
production increased faster in the remaining of the areas (where the use of hand looms
was more common) in Phase III.

4-3.

Regression results

Now let us examine the results of regression analyses by phase. Table 2 deals with thelast part of Phase I, for which detailed county-level data are available, that is, 1902-08. A
glance establishes that all the coefficients of regional dummies are negative, large inabsolute value, and highly significant for the value of production regression, indicating18

that Fukui city was by far the leader in habutae production as of 1902. It is remarkable toobserve that, while the coefficients of LF2 and R2 are negative and large, theirinteraction terms with the time trend variable are positive and significant, implying that
production growth was faster in those areas where the amount of production was smallerin 1902. Similar observations can be made from the analysis of the number of firms: thecoefficients of LF1, R1, and R2 are negative and large, but their interaction terms withtime trends are positive and significant. These results strongly suggest the absence ofstrong agglomeration economies in Phase I.
Firm size was generally greater in Fukui city than in surrounding counties,
judging from the generally negative and significant coefficients of county dummies in thefirm size regression. There is, however, no indication that firm size increased in areas
where firm size was relatively large from the beginning. This supports the hypothesis
regarding the absence of scale economies. This is also consistent with the fact that the
average number of workers per firm was consistently very small throughout the Fukui
silk weaving district.
In contrast to the significant difference in the value of production, the number ofweaving firms, firm size, and labour productivity are shown to generally not have beensignificantly different between Fukui city and the counties. This finding suggests that
production technologies were relatively easily imitated. According to Table 3,13 whichshows the estimation results of the habutae price function, prices were not significantly

13

Since the units of habutae prices are different before 1910 and after 1911, we estimated the habutae
price functions separately for 1902-10 and 1911-18.
19different across locations, indicating that the quality of habutae was quite uniform in theearly years due to the easy imitation. All these findings lend support for Hypothesis 1.
Column 1 of Table 4 shows that the magnitude of the coefficients of county
dummies in the regression of the value of production in Phase II are similar to those in
Phase I shown in Table 2, signifying the continued dominance of Fukui city in the
production of silk fabrics in 1909. It is, however, remarkable to observe that while thecoefficients of LF1 and LF2 are negative and comparatively large, the coefficients of
their interaction terms with the time trend are positive and significant, which again points
to the absence of agglomeration economies. This rapid growth of production in LF1 and
LF2 can be attributed to the rapid adoption of power looms in these counties.
Unlike the Phase I results, only the LF2 dummy and EF2 have significant
coefficients in the number of firms’ regression for Phase II: the former is negative and thelatter positively signed. This suggests that the number of firms in Fukui city was notmuch larger than in most counties around 1909. The coefficients of the year dummies are
all negative and significant and their magnitudes become larger over time, whereasinteraction terms between time trend and early and late follower dummies are
non-significant. These results imply that the number of firms in these counties declined
as fast as in Fukui city in Phase II. In contrast, the number of firms increased
significantly in R2 and R3 in this phase, judging from the significant coefficients ofinteraction terms between county dummies and time trend variable.
These results are consistent with the estimation result of the power loom
adoption ratio function in Phase II, reported in the first column in Table 5, which shows
20

the following: (1) a general increase in the adoption of power looms as indicated by the
positive coefficients of year dummies; and (2) low adoption rates in R1, R2, and R3,
which are indicated by the negative coefficients of these three county dummies and thenegative coefficients of their interaction terms with the time trend. Since the firm size
was small and the number of firms tended to increase in R1, R2, and R3 according toTable 4, we may say that the number of small firms using hand looms proliferated inthese counties.
The coefficients of EF1, EF2, LF1, and LF2 dummies are negative and three ofthem are significant in the firm size regression, suggesting that there were fewer workers
per firm in these surrounding counties than in Fukui city in the early stage of power loom
diffusion. Unlike the results presented in Table 2, the coefficients of the county dummies
are all negative and significant in the labour productivity function regression, indicating
the large and significant impact of early power loom adoption in Fukui city on theregional gap in labour productivity. It is, however, important to observe that theinteraction terms of the LF1 and LF2 dummies with the time trend are positive andsignificant, whereas those of the R2 and R3 dummies with the time trend are negativeand significant. The former findings can be explained by the fact that the adoption rate of
power looms in LF1 was not significantly lower than in Fukui city and that the rate in LF
2 was significantly higher (see Table 5). The latter findings can be explained by the low
adoption rate of power looms, particularly in R2 and R3.
These results support Hypothesis 2 that the structural transformation took place
due to the adoption of power looms, which reduced the number of small firms and21increased labour productivity significantly. This finding is consistent with Minami’s
argument that the transition from hand looms to power looms raised productivity(Minami 1977, p. 952). Such a transformation, however, did not take place in R1, R2,
and R3. It seems to us that these counties specialized in silk fabrics, which were moresophisticated than habutae, by using hand looms rather than power looms.
According to Table 6 concerning Phase III, the production gap between Fukuicity and the early and late followers became somewhat smaller in 1915, whereas the gap
between Fukui city and the remaining areas widened. The firm size of R1 to R3 is foundto be significantly lower, whereas the number of firms in R2 and R3 was not significantly
smaller than in Fukui city at the time. According to the second column in Table 5, there
was no significant difference in the adoption rate of power looms between Fukui city andearly followers, adoption rates were significantly higher among the late followers than in
Fukui city, and adoption was significantly lower in the remaining areas than in Fukui city.
Note that the coefficient of the interaction term between R2 and the time trend is positiveand significant in the regressions of both the value of production and labour productivity
in Phase III. Thus, R2 increased its production by increasing labour productivity, despite
the use of hand looms.
It is interesting to observe from Table 3 that the coefficient of the R1 dummy(corresponding to a county where hand looms were mainly used) is negative andsignificant for the 1910s, whereas the coefficient of LF1 is positive and significant. Thesefindings indicate that power looms were capable of producing higher quality habutae, orat least not inferior quality habutae, compared with hand looms in this period. This tells
22

us something significant about habutae production in the Fukui silk weaving district,because the production of habutae by cheap unskilled labour using hand looms would
have no longer been district’s comparative advantage.
The somewhat puzzling surge in labour productivity in R2 cannot be understoodunless differences in product composition are taken into account. According to Table 7,
which analyses the determinants of the production share of habutae out of the total fabricproduction, the interaction terms between R2 and the time trend are negative andsignificant in both Phases I and II. As a result, the coefficient of R2, as well as that of R3,
becomes negative and significant in Phase III, suggesting that R2 had particularly
specialized in the production of non-habutae products by this time. It is also noteworthy
that three year dummy coefficients are negative and significant and most coefficients of
the interaction terms are non-significant, indicating that a shift away from habutae to
non-habutae fabrics took place widely in the Fukui silk weaving district.
It is important to emphasize that a sharp reduction in habutae production was
not synonymous with an overall reduction in the silk fabric production in the Fukui
weaving district. On the contrary, the real value of total fabric production increased in thelate 1910s (see Figures 2 and 3). It may well be that producers in the Fukui district had
acquired the skill of silk weaving while producing habutae, so that they could shift
production away from such a simple product as habutae to a variety of moresophisticated silk products, as well as rayon, in the late 1910s and thereafter.

5. Conclusion
23

This study attempted to explore the development of the Fukui silk weaving district,which became the top exporter of habutae in Japan shortly after it had introduced
production technology from more advanced Japanese weaving districts in the late 1890s.
Major factors underlying the successful development of this district were found to be
distinctly different in three phases: (1) initially the geographical expansion of the industry
took place with an increasing number of firms and a reliance on hand loom technology;(2) subsequently a structural transformation occurred, marked by a declining number offirms, but increased labour productivity through the introduction of power looms; and (3)finally a product diversification away from habutae took place with accompanying
increases in labour productivity.
Before habutae was introduced, even though people in Fukui city had attempted
to establish a weaving industry, it was not successful and, hence, skilled workers werequite scarce. Thus, the finding that habutae production rapidly expanded from Fukui city
to rural area without reducing labour productivity and product quality strongly indicatesthat its production was easy and, hence, unskilled-labour intensive. Since unskilled
labour was abundantly available, the Fukui silk weaving district must have had acomparative advantage in producing habutae. 14 Indeed, the Kyoto and Kiryu silk
weaving districts, which had long traditions of producing complicated silk products, suchas kimono, by using skilled workers, did not undertake habutae production on a large
scale. Also, power looms were most rapidly introduced to Fukui among the three silk
14

Since there were other areas in which there was not a strong weaving tradition, the question of why
Fukui particularly developed a silk weaving industry is difficult to answer. It must be pointed out that
other districts undertook habutae production without much success.
24

weaving districts (Hashino 2007), presumably because machineries could be easily
substituted for simple tasks carried out by unskilled labour in the habutae production
process. Thus, following its comparative advantage seems to be the key to the successful
development of this weaving district.
When wage rates increased, the comparative advantage of habutae production
using hand looms and unskilled labour must have weakened. It is also true that thequality of domestically produced power looms improved and their prices declined
significantly (Minami and Makino 1983, p. 3; Suzuki 1996, Chapter 9). As a result,power looms were rapidly introduced in the Fukui weaving district beginning in the early
1900s. Such shift in technology—from hand looms to power looms—is consistent withthe argument of both Broadberry and Guputa (2006; 2009) and Allen (2012), whichindicates the significance of factor prices in explaining the large divergence intechnology choice and productivity growth between Europe and Asia.
The dominant use of power looms, and higher or comparable prices of habutae
produced by power looms, implies that this silk weaving industry was no longer
unskilled-labour intensive by the 1910s; it became more capital-intensive. This suggeststhat Fukui lost its comparative advantage in producing habutae, so far as the basis for its
comparative advantage lay in the availability of cheap unskilled labour. The sharp
decrease in habutae prices in the mid-1910s may be a manifestation of such afundamental change in the comparative advantage environment.
Moreover, given that the number of looms in Lyon increased from 10,362 in
1880 to 42,500 in 1914 (Matsubara 2003, p. 116), Japanese habutae production became25obliged to compete with its French counterpart by using power looms. Also importantmust have been the substitution of rayon for silk, which must have had devastating
impacts on habutae production in the Fukui silk weaving district. The adoption of rayon
as raw material in Japanese weaving districts was more successful than the Western
nations (Singleton 1997, p. 88-89). On the other hand, the skill of the workers in the
Fukui weaving district must have improved over the years spent producing habutae. As aresult, producers in Fukui shifted production quickly away from habutae to other moresophisticated silk products or rayon products; they thereby succeeded in increasing
labour productivity in the late 1910s. Though our study focused on the production growthof habutae and the development of the Fukui weaving district, further analysis will beneeded to investigate the structural changes and competition effects in weaving
production on the world market from the perspective of a dynamic shift in raw materials
from the 1910s to 1920s.15
In short, the key to the success in the development of the Fukui silk weaving
district seems to be the choice of products and production methods consistent with theindustry’s dynamically changing comparative advantage.

15

See Yamazaki (1975) for the detailed study on the development of Japanese rayon industry and its
impact on weaving districts in Japan.
26

References
Allen, R. C., ‘Technology and the great divergence: global economic development since1820’, Explorations in Economic History, 49 (2012), pp. 1-16.
Broadberry, S., and Van der Eng, P., ‘Historical perspectives on Asian economic growthand development’, Exploration in Economic History, 47 (2010), pp. 260-263.
Broadberry, S. and Gupta, B., ‘The early modern great divergence: wages, prices, andeconomic development in Europe and Asia, 1500-1800’, Economic History
Review, 59 (2006), pp. 2-31.
Broadberry, S. and Gupta, B., ‘Lancashire, India, and shifting competitive advantage incotton textiles, 1700-1850: the neglected role of factor prices’, Economic History
Review, 62 (2009), pp. 279-305.
Broadberry, S., and Hindle, S., ‘Asia in the Great Divergence: editor’s introduction’,
Economic History Review, New Series, 64 (2011), pp. 1-7.
Crowe, E. F., ‘Report on habutae (Japanese manufacture silk)’, in Foreign Office and
Board of Trade ed., The raw silk industry of Japan and on habutae (Japanesemanufactured silk), Diplomatic and consular reports No.672, (London, 1909),
pp. 33-55.
Fukui Prefecture Silk Fabric Association, 35 nenshi [Thirty-five year history], (Fukui,1921).
Fukui Prefecture, Fukuiken kangyo nenpo [Annual report on the promotion of industry of
Fukui prefecture], (Fukui Prefectural Government, 1901)
Fukui Prefecture, Fukuiken noshoko nenpo [Annual report on the agriculture and27

commerce of Fukui prefecture], (Fukui Prefectural Government, 1889-1900)
Fukui Prefecture, Fukuiken tôkeisho [Statistical survey of Fukui prefecture], (Fukui
Prefectural Government, 1902-1920).
Fukui Prefecture, Fukui kenshi [History of Fukui Prefecture], 3-3 (Fukui prefectural
government, 1922).
Fukuiken Yushutsu Orimono Kensajo, Fukuiken yushutsu orimono kensa ichiran [List ofexported fabrics in Fukui prefecture], (Fukui Prefectural Government, 1911).
Harada, M., ‘Meiji-Taishoki habutae no ryutsu’ [Distribution of habutae in the Meiji andTaisho Period], Public Policy in Local Governments, 6 (2002), pp. 25-36.
Hashino, T., Keizai hatten to sanchi, shijô, seido: Meijiki kinu orimonogyo no shinka todainamizumu [Economic development, industrial districts, markets, andinstitutions: evolution and dynamism in the silk-weaving industry in the Meiji
period], (Kyoto, 2007).
Hashino, T., ‘The importance of consular reports for the export growth of Japanese silk
fabric habutae in the late 19th century’, in J. Ulbert and L. Prijac, eds.,
Consulship in the 19th century (Hamburg, 2010), pp. 485-501.
Hashino, T. ‘Institutionalising technical education: the case of weaving districts in Meiji
Japan’, Australian Economic History Review, 52 (2012), pp. 25-42.
Hashino, T., and Kurosawa, T., ‘Beyond Marshallian agglomeration economies: the roles of
the trade association in a weaving district’, Business History Review, (2013,
forthcoming).
Hashino, T., and Otsuka, K., ‘Hand looms, power looms, and changing production
28

organizations: the case of Kiryu weaving district in early twentieth-century
Japan’, Economic History Review, (2013, forthcoming).
Hashino, T., and Saito, O., ‘Tradition and interaction: research trends in modern Japaneseindustrial history’, Australian Economic History Review, 44 (2004), pp.
241-258.
Matsubara, T., Furansu kindai kinukogyoshiron [The modern silk industry in France],(Kyoto, 2003).
Mikami, K., and Debuchi, K., ‘Meiji 33 nen Fukui Ishikawa ryokenka kigyo
chousahokoku’ [A report on the weaving industry in Fukui and Ishikawa
prefectures in 1900], (Tokyo, 1900).
Minami, R., ‘Mechanical power in the industrialization of Japan’, Journal of Economic
History, 37 (1977), pp. 935-958.
Minami, R., and Makino, F., ‘Conditions for technological diffusion: the case of powerlooms’, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 23 (1983), pp. 1-20.
Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, Noshomu tokeihyo [Statistical report of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce], (Tokyo, various years).
Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, Yushutsu kinuorimono chosa shiryo [Report onexported silk fabrics], (Tokyo, 1911).
Mottaleb, K. A., and Sonobe, T., ‘An inquiry into the rapid growth of the garment
industry in Bangladesh’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 60(2011), pp. 67-89.
Nakamura, T., Economic Growth in Prewar Japan, (New Haven, 1983).
29

Ohkawa, K., et al., Chôki keizai tôkei 8: bukka [Estimates of long-term economic statistics
of Japan since 1868: prices], (Tokyo, 1967).
Otsuka, K., Ranis, G., and Saxonhouse, G., Comparative technology choice indevelopment, (Basingstoke, 1988).
Saito, O., ‘Was modern Japan a developmental state?’, (mimeo, 2012).
Singleton, J., The world textile industry, (London and New York, 1997).
Sonobe, T., and Otsuka, K., Cluster-based industrial development: an East Asian model(Basingstoke, 2006).
Sugihara, K., ‘The second Noel Butlin lecture: labour-intensive industrialization in global
history’, Australian Economic History Review, 47 (2007), pp. 121-54.
Suzuki, J., Meiji no kikai kogyo [The machine industry in Meiji Japan], (Kyoto, 1996).
Tamura, H., ‘Ohbei shijo niokeru nihon habutae no doko to kyogohin: 19 seikimatsu kara
20 seiki shoto’ [Competitive position of the Japanese silk fabric habutae in
the international market from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of
the 20th century], Journal of Saitama University, Faculty of Education, 58(2009), pp. 191-207.
Tanimoto, M. ed., The role of tradition in Japan’s industrialization: another path to theindustrialization, Japanese Studies in Economic and Social History vol. 2(New York, 2006).
Toyo Keizai Shinposha, Foreign trade of Japan: a statistical survey, (Tokyo, 1935).
Van der Eng, P., ‘Economic history of Asia: comparative perspectives’, Australian
Economic History Review, 44 (2004), pp. 215-220.
30

Vernon, R., ‘International investment and international trade in the product cycle’,
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80 (1966), pp. 190-207.
Yamazaki, H., Nihon kasen sangyo hattatsushiron [Studies on the development of thesynthetic fiber industry in Japan], (Tokyo, 1975).

31

Table 1. An Overview of Production and Employment in the Fukui Weaving District
by Location
Total fabric
Number of
production in

City/County

1000 yen (% ofNumber of firms

Number of workers

looms (% ofpower looms)

habutae)
1902

Fukui

7,680 (78.4)

1,004

10,596

10,596 (0.0)

Yoshida (EF1)2,717 (97.5)

399

3,609

3,409 (0.0)

Imadate (EF2)

1,780 (91.0)

848

2,126

1,925 (0.0)

Sakai (LF1)

1,114 (87.6)

208

2,107

1,971 (0.0)

Ohno (LF2)

341 (80.9)

169

1,034

913 (0.0)

Nanjo (R1)

443 (72.6)

178

1,280

529 (0.0)

Asuwa (R2)520 (97.7)

428

1,618

1,270 (0.0)

Nyu (R3)

578 (49.4)

1,025

1,036

1,036 (0.0)

Fukui

11,376 (90.0)

720

2,514

6,836 (27.3)

Yoshida (EF1)3,369 (90.2)

695

3,276

3,254 (13.7)

Imadate (EF2)2,424 (91.0)

1,125

2,280

3,412 (13.3)

Sakai (LF1)

2,480 (77.4)

796

3,049

3,352 (19.8)

Ohno (LF2)

1,453 (74.3)

180

1,679

1,876 (42.0)

Nanjo (R1)949 (81.6)

612

1,606

1,593 (6.5)

Asuwa (R2)

1,550 (66.7)

1,035

2,823

2,901 (2.4)

Nyu (R3)

662 (77.1)

1,359

2,080

2,066 (1.5)

Fukui

16,498 (69.9)

522

3,293

6,129 (84.5)

Yoshida (EF1)3,597 (35.1)

380

2,822

3,145 (81.6)

Imadate (EF2)7,681 (95.4)

982

4,281

4,281 (77.4)

Sakai (LF1)

10,350 (41.3)

263

3,834

4,516 (88.2)

Ohno (LF2)

6,054 (79.7)

187

2,552

2,830 (97.5)

Nanjo (R1)

2,325 (82.9)

291

680

600 (60.3)

Asuwa (R2)2,637 (33.5)

2,925

4,457

4,928 (19.3)

Nyu (R3)

858 (72.1)

685

1,410

1,339 (20.9)

1910

1918

Source: Fukui Prefecture (1902, 1910, and 1918).
Notes: For deflator, we used price index for textile products in Ohkawa et al. (1967), pp. 192-3.
32

Table 2. Determinants of the production structures in the Fukui silk-weaving district
during phase I (1902-08)
Ln (firm size)

Ln (labourLn (value ofLn (number of

production)

firms)

Early follower 1 (EF1)-1.03 (-6.10)**-1.12 (-3.05)**-.00 (-.00).08 (.36)

Early follower 2 (EF2)-1.39 (-8.20)**-0.19 (-.51)-1.43 (-4.50)**.23 (.98)

Late follower 1 (LF1)-1.78 (-1.048)**-1.53 (-4.19)**-.21 (-.65)-.04 (-.17)

Late follower 2 (LF2)-2.68 (-15.79)**-1.13 (-3.08)**-1.36 (-4.28)**-.35 (-1.50)

Rest 1 (R1)

-2.56 (-15.09)**-.96 (-2.63)**-.37 (-1.15)-.66 (-2.83)**

Rest 2 (R2)

-2.60 (-15.35)**-1.53 (-4.18)**-1.02 (-3.19)**-.46 (-1.97)

Rest 3 (R3)

-2.82 (-16.64)**-.21 (-.58)-2.52 (-7.92)**-0.9 (-.38)

EF1 x Time trend-.01 (-.27).13 (1.27)-.09 (-1.02)-.05 (-.79)

EF2 x Time trend.04 (.77).10 (1.06).05 (.57)-.12 (-1.87)

LF1 x Time trend.07 (1.59).36 (3.55)**-.18 (-2.02)-.11 (-1.65)

LF2 x Time trend.18 (3.81)**.02 (.24).13 (1.45).03 (.42)

R1 x Time trend.04 (.94).23 (2.26)*-.14 (-1.63)-.04 (-.62)

R2 x Time trend.16 (3.44)**.23 (2.30)*-.01 (-.16)-.06 (-.88)

R3 x Time trend.01 (.27).03 (.27).18 (2.07)*-.20 (-3.04)**

1903 dummy.14 (1.51)-.16 (-.82).10 (.54)..21 (1.63)

1904 dummy.55 (5.10)**-.16 (-.70).29 (1.42).43 (2.86)**

1905 dummy.12 (.95)-.05 (-.19)-.13 (-.54).31 (1.72)

1906 dummy.26 (1.72)-.08 (-.24)-.10 (-.35).44 (2.10)*

1907 dummy-.71 (-.40)-.64 (-1.65).12 (.37).44 (1.78)

1908 dummy.14 (.68)-.12 (-.27)-.22 (-.58).49 (1.70)

15.75 (122.8)**

6.87 (24.8)**

2.48 (10.3)**

6.41 (36.1)**

.975

.741

.856

.738

56

56

56

56

InterceptR

2

No. of observations

productivity)

Notes: t-statistics are in parentheses. Coefficients marked * and ** are significant at the
5% and 1% level.

33

Table 3. Determinants of real habutae price in the Fukui silk-weaving district
1902-10

1911-19

Early follower 1 (EF1)-.29 (-.08).12 (.82)

Early follower 2 (EF2)

3.20 (.88)-.16 (-1.09)

Late follower 1 (LF1).93 (.26).39 (2.63)**

Late follower 2 (LF2)

2.35 (.65)-.08 (-.59)

Rest 1 (R1)

1.14 (.31)-.42 (-2.82)**

Rest 2 (R2)

-1.10 (-.30)-.04 (-.32)

Rest 3 (R3)

6.30 (1.71)-.06 (-.43)

EF1 x Time trend-.05 (-.07)-.01 (-.55)

EF2 x Time trend-.54 (-.73)-.02 (-.85)

LF1 x Time trend-.25 (-.34)-.03 (-1.16)

LF2 x Time trend-.46 (-.62)-.05 (-1.84)

R1 x Time trend-.10 (-14)-.05 (-1.80)

R2 x Time trend-.06 (-.77)-.04 (-1.47)

R3 x Time trend-.74 (-.96)-.06 (-1.99)

nd

1.28 (.59).08 (.97)rd

3 year dummy-.10 (-.05).09 (1.00)

4th year dummy

2 year dummy

4.03 (1.56).41 (3.89)**th.82 (.28).57 (4.80)**th

6 year dummy.06 (.02).56 (4.20)**

7th year dummy

5 year dummy

1.06 (.29).34 (2.25)*th

1.86 (.46).52 (3.11)**th

9 year dummy

1.23 (.26).42 (2.29)*

Intercept

5.17 (2.83)*

3.06 (26.32)**

.23

.82

72

72

8 year dummyR

2

No. of observations

Notes: t-statistics are in parentheses. Coefficients marked * and ** are significant at the
5% and 1% level.

34

Table 4. Determinants of the production structures in the Fukui silk-weaving district
during phase II (1909-14)
Ln (firm size)

Ln (labourLn (value ofLn (number of

production)

firms)

Early follower 1 (EF1)-1.16 (-8.9)**-.17 (-.89)-.59 (-3.15)**-.40 (-3.09)**

Early follower 2 (EF2)-1.35 (-10.31)**.53 (2.70)*-1.20 (-6.41)**-.68 (-5.24)**

Late follower 1 (LF1)-1.51 (-11.54)**.04 (.18)-.83 (-4.44)**-.72 (-5.52)**

Late follower 2 (LF2)-2.00 (-15.30)**-1.05 (-5.40)**-.18 (-.95)-.77 (-5.94)**

Rest 1 (R1)

-2.40 (-18.31)**-.19 (-.98)-1.00 (-5.36)**-1.20 (-9.28)**

Rest 2 (R2)

-1.76 (-13.47)**-.07 (-.35)-.84 (-4.50)**-.85 (-6.58)**

Rest 3 (R3)

-2.63 (-20.08)**.37 (1.90)-1.49 (-8.00)**-1.51 (-11.62)**

EF1 x Time trend-.01 (-.31).03 (.53).03 (.42)-.07 (-1.72)

EF2 x Time trend.03 (.74).04 (.69)-.02 (-.29).01 (.12)

LF1 x Time trend.18 (4.20)**-.03 (-.43).11 (1.79).10 (2.31)*

LF2 x Time trend.15 (3.36)**-.04 (-.64).09 (1.48).10 (2.23)*

R1 x Time trend.10 (2.25)*.04 (.67).00 (.08).05 (1.15)

R2 x Time trend-.06 (-1.45).23 (3.59)**-.09 (-1.52)-.20 (-4.68)**

R3 x Time trend-.12 (-2.87)**.13 (2.01)*-.10 (-1.62)-.15 (-3.59)**

1910 dummy-.06 (-.87)-.22 (-2.12)*-.02 (-.20).18 (2.60)*

1911 dummy-.09 (-1.01)-.35 (-2.72)*.06 (.45).21 (2.43)*

1912 dummy-.11 (-.99)-.59 (-3.67)**.09 (.58).39 (3.69)**

1913 dummy

0.5 (.40)-.61 (-3.12)**-.03 (-.17).69 (5.35)**

1914 dummy-.06 (-.35)-.88 (-3.78)**.04 (.16).79 (5.11)**

16.17 (165.5)**

6.84 (46.9)**

2.10 (15.1)**

7.23 (74.7)**

R2

.986

.946

.948

.977

No. of observations

48

48

48

48

Intercept

productivity)

Notes: t-statistics are in parentheses. Coefficients marked * and ** are significant at the
5% and 1% level.

35

Table 5. Determinants of the adoption rate of power looms in the Fukui silk-weaving
district
Phase II (1909-14)

Phase III (1915-19)

Early follower 1 (EF1)-.10 (-2.84)**-.02 (-.46)

Early follower 2 (EF2)-.09 (-2.65)*-.09 (-1.73)

Late follower 1 (LF1)-.06 (-1.66).10 (2.03)*

Late follower 2 (LF2).09 (2.67)*.17 (3.34)**

Rest 1 (R1)-.08 (-2.42)*-.18 (-3.53)**

Rest 2 (R2)-.11 (-3.29)**-.55 (-11.00)**

Rest 3 (R3)-.15 (-3.81)**-.56 (-11.23)**

EF1 x Time trend-.03 (-2.57)*.01 (.45)

EF2 x Time trend-.01 (-.84).03 (1.26)

LF1 x Time trend-.01 (-1.10)-.00 (-.23)

LF2 x Time trend-.00 (-.10).00 (.12)

R1 x Time trend-.10 (-9.00)**.00 (.10)

R2 x Time trend-.09 (-8.34)**-.01 (-.64)

R3 x Time trend-.09 (-7.51)**-.02 (-1.16)

2 year dummy.16 (8.86)**-.01 (-.39)

3rd year dummynd.27 (12.30)**.03 (.89)th.39 (14.11)**.08 (1.67)th

5 year dummy.49 (14.58)**.09 (1.59)

6th year dummy.64 (16.00)**

n.a.

Intercept.10 (3.93)**.73 (19.66)**

n.a.

.986

Log likelihood

93.93

n.a.

No. of observations

48

40

4 year dummyR

2

Notes: t-statistics are in parentheses. Coefficients marked * and ** are significant at the
5% and 1% level. Year dummies cover 1910-14 in the first column and 1916-19 in thesecond column. “n.a.” means not applicable.

36

Table 6. Determinants of the production structures in the Fukui silk-weaving district
during phase III (1915-19)
Ln (firm size)

Ln (labourLn (value ofLn (number of

production)

firms)

Early follower 1 (EF1)-.71 (-6.49)**-.34 (-2.19)*.02 (.16)-.38 (-2.91)**.

Early follower 2 (EF2)-.44 (-4.01)**.16 (1.03)-.35 (-2.90)**-.25 (-1.87)

Late follower 1 (LF1)-.38 (-3.45)**-.40 (-2.55)*.16 (1.34)-.14 (-1.06)

Late follower 2 (LF2)-.63 (-5.81)**-.69 (-4.41)**.28 (2.32)*-.23 (-1.71)

Rest 1 (R1)-.93 (-8.53)**-.43 (-2.74)*-.36 (-2.97)**-.14 (-1.09)

Rest 2 (R2)

-1.19 (-10.95)**.33 (2.14)*-.56 (-4.65)**-.96 (-7.30)**

Rest 3 (R3)

-1.51 (-14.07)**.10 (.63)-.64 (-5.31)**-.99 (-7.50)**

EF1 x Time trend.03 (.73).07 (1.03)-.03 (-.60)-.00 (-.06)

EF2 x Time trend.03 (.69)-.00 (-.06).03 (.59).01 (.10)

LF1 x Time trend.05 (1.23).03 (.42).03 (.54).00 (.03)

LF2 x Time trend.08 (1.76).05 (.77).00 (.04).03 (.51)

R1 x Time trend.02 (.54).02 (.35)-.02 (-.47).02 (.46)

R2 x Time trend.20 (4.42)**.06 (1.00)-.02 (-.39).15 (2.82)**

R3 x Time trend.05 (1.18).03 (.47).00 (.08).02 (.35)

1916 dummy-.09 (-1.62).01 (.16)-.00 (-.01)-.11 (-1.52)

1917 dummy-.15 (-1.95).01 (.13).01 (.15)-.18 (-1.89)

1918 dummy-.01 (-.06).05 (.36).01 (.10)-.07 (-.56)

1919 dummy.02 (.17).11 (.58)-.00 (-.03)-.08 (-.51)

7.20 (89.9)**

2.73 (23.8)**.87 (9.85)**

3.60 (37.0)**

.973

.914

.945

.929

40

40

40

40

InterceptR

2

No. of observations

productivity)

Notes: t-statistics are in parentheses. Coefficients marked * and ** are significant at the
5% and 1% level.

37

Table 7. Determinants of the production share of habutae in the Fukui silk-weaving
district
Phase I (1902-08)

Phase II (1909-14)

Phase III (1915-19)

Early follower 1 (EF1).17 (1.99)-17 (-1.26)-.06 (-.75)

Early follower 2 (EF2).09 (1.05).04 (.29)-.01 (-.08)

Late follower 1 (LF1).04 (.53)-.10 (-.74)-.01 (-.13)

Late follower 2 (LF2).04 (.44)-.15 (-1.17).06 (.69)

Rest 1 (R1)-.03 (-.39)-.01 (-.09)-.02 (-.23)

Rest 2 (R2)

.12 (1.41)-.11 (-.86)-.38 (-4.80)**

Rest 3 (R3)-.24 (-2.80)**-.13 (-.97)-.34 (-4.25)**

EF1 x Time trend-.02 (-1.05)-.02 (-.41)-.04 (-1.25)

EF2 x Time trend.02 (.70).00 (.08).08 (2.60)*

LF1 x Time trend-.00 (-.01).02 (.46)-.06 (-1.89)

LF2 x Time trend.00 (.07).04 (.83).01 (.29)

R1 x Time trend.04 (1.84)-.08 (-1.92)*.05 (1.42)

R2 x Time trend-.05 (-2.21)*-.00 (-.02)-.00 (-.08)

R3 x Time trend.04 (1.62)-.04 (-.95).09 (2.86)**

2 year dummy.06 (1.20).00 (.07)-.05 (-1.22)

3rd year dummynd.10 (1.92)-.09 (-.99)-.16 (-2.81)**th.02 (.32)-.03 (-.24)-.21 (-2.77)*

th

5 year dummy-.04 (-.54)-.01 (-.04)-.38 (-4.10)**

6th year dummy-.04 (-.50)-.06 (-.35)

n.a.

.01 (.13)

n.a.

n.a.

.80 (12.29)**.90 (9.11)**.89 (15.13)**

R2

.708

.681

.942

No. of observations

56

48

40

4 year dummyth

7 year dummyIntercept

Notes: t-statistics are in parentheses. Coefficients marked * and ** are significant at the
5% and 1% level. Year dummies cover 1903-08 in the first column, 1910-14 in thesecond column, and 1916-19 in the third column. “n.a.” means not applicable.

38

Figure 1. The map of Fukui weaving district in 1920

Late Followers

Sakai

Fukui City

Yoshida
Asuwa

Rest

Nyu
Imadate

Ohno

Nanjo
Early Followers
20km

Source: Fukui Prefecture (1922).

39Figure 2. Growth of real value of habutae export, habutae production in Fukui,
and share of habutae in all export, three-year averages

Source: Toyo Keizai Shinposha (1935), p. 2, pp. 73-74, for total value of all export goods
and value of habutae export; Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (from 1891 to 1923)
and Ministry of Commerce and Industry (from 1923 to 1930) for value of habutae
production in Fukui (Fukui prefecture).
Notes: For deflator, we used price index of export products in Ohkawa et al. (1967), p.
212.

40

Figure 3. Changes in production, the number of firms, average firm size,and labor productivity, 1890-1919

Source: Fukui Prefecture (1889-1900) for data from 1890-1900; Fukui Prefecture (1901)
for data in 1901; Fukui Prefecture (1902-1919) for data from 1902 to 1919.
Notes: For deflator, we used price index for textile products in Ohkawa et al. (1967), pp.
192-3.

41

Figure 4. Changes in regional shares of silk fabric production, 1890-1919

Source: Same as Figure 3.
Notes: We categorized capital city and seven counties into following fourgroups. Fukui; Fukui city, Early followers; EF1 (Yoshida) and EF2 (Imadate), Latefollowers; LF1 (Sakai) and LF2 (Ohno), and Remaining areas; R1 (Nanjo), R2 (Asuwa),
and R3 (Nyu). We use the same classification in following figures.

42

Figure 5. Changes in the number of weaving firms by region, 1902-1919

Source: Fukui Prefecture (1902-19).

43

Figure 6. Changes in size of weaving firms by region

Remaining areas

Source: The same as Figure 5.

44

Figure 7. Changes in real wage rate and adoption rate of power looms by region

Source: The same as Figure 5.

45

Figure 8. Changes in labour productivity by region

Source: The same as Figure 5.

46

Figure 9. Percentage of habutae production in fabric production by region

Source: The same as Figure 5.
Notes: The figures are on a value basis.

47

Figure 10. Changes in real habutae price by region(per tan, 1889-1910; per hon, 1911-1919)

Source: The same as Figure 3.
Notes: In the original data surveyed by Fukui Prefecture, different units were used for the
habutae price, see footnote 10. For deflator, we used price index for textile products in
Ohkawa et al. (1967), pp. 192-3.

48