Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series 305

Research Unit for Statisticaland Empirical Analysis in Social Sciences (Hi-Stat)

Revisiting Domestic Philippine Industries in the First Half of the 20th Century:
The Genesis and Development of the Embroidery and Shoemaking Industries

Hi-Stat Discussion Paper

Nobutaka Suzuki

September 2023

Preliminary; not for quotation
This discussion paper is prepared for “A Study Workshop on the Quantitative Macro Economic History of thePhilippines, 1900-2010”. This international workshop is supported by the 2022 research grant from the Japan
Center for Economic Research (JCER).

Hi-Stat

Institute of Economic Research
Hitotsubashi University
2-1 Naka, Kunitatchi Tokyo, 186-8603 Japan
https://gcoe.ier.hit-u.ac.jp

Revisiting Domestic Philippine Industries in the First Half of the 20th Century:
The Genesis and Development of the Embroidery and Shoemaking Industries
Nobutaka Suzuki
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba

1. Introduction
The Philippine economy in the first half of the 20th century was shaped by thebenefits of free trade with the United States. In the Philippines, where agriculture is themainstay of economic activities, a monocultural economy had been established since the
Spanish colonial era, producing raw materials such as sugar, coconuts, abaca (a form ofhemp), and tobacco, but the emergence of a new market, the United States, dramaticallyincreased the country’s export production (Doeppers 1984:9)i. The influence was farreaching and decisive. It led not only to an export boom in commerce, transportation,
warehousing, and stevedoring, but also gave further momentum to the importing of
consumer goods from the United States, contributing significantly to the growth of retailingand wholesaling (Hartendorp 1953: 45; Hayase 2012). However, the export-oriented
economy aimed at the U.S. market also brought new challenges. One of these was that no
new manufacturing industries had developed that could absorb the available labor supply,
due to the importation of high-quality consumer goods. The benefits of increased
exportation of raw materials, such as sugar and coconuts, certainly led to the development of
the transportation and public works sectors, such as the construction of ports and roads.
However, wealth made from such exports by the local Filipino elite, who mainly settled in
the capital city, Manila, flowed into real estate investments, leading to a construction boom,
but did not foster new manufacturing industries (Doeppers 1984:16-17,43–44, 51).
The Philippine colonial government was not unaware of the need to industrialize
its economy. In 1919, the National Development Company was established to promote thedomestic manufacturing industry, and took the lead in industrializationii. In 1922, the Cebu
Portland Cement Company started operations as a subsidy (Brown 1989: 206-209;
Hartendorp 1953:45-47). These efforts aimed to bring about a structural transformation of
the colonial economy, but they were highly dependent on U.S. imports and failed to produce
any notable results. Within the framework of free trade with the U.S., the chances fordiversifying the Philippine economy were limited. Faced with stiff competition fromJapanese imports, the Philippines was also fueled by the sugar and gold booms, so the1economy relying on free trade with the U.S. was the most realistic option for making money
quickly.
Under these circumstances, it is worth noting that two new types of manufacturingindustries emerged, one with domestic and the other with overseas markets: shoemaking
and embroidery. Both were not productive due to the lack of mechanization, but rather
required skilled labor. The embroidery industry grew rapidly to an export position second
only to cash crops, such as sugar and coconuts, by importing cotton cloth from the U.S. andthen reexporting the finished goods to the U.S. market. The shoemaking industry, bycontrast, experienced tremendous growth after World War II and became the driving forceof economic growth through the import-substitution industries of 1950s. The study of how
these two industries emerged and developed is of great use for understanding thecharacteristics of the Philippine economy in the first half of the 20th century. The purposeof this paper is to provide a historical account of the genesis and growth of the Philippine
embroidery and shoemaking industries.
2. Craftsman–entrepreneurs as pillars of the manufacturing industry
It is well known that, in the post-World War II environment, the Philippine
economy achieved a certain degree of industrialization through a government-led importsubstitution policy (Yoshihara 1985). John Carroll, who examined the origins andcharacteristics of the industrial entrepreneurship that led to the industrialization in thePhilippines from the historical and sociological perspectives, wrote The Filipino

Manufacturing Entrepreneur (Cornell University Press 1964), in which he made thefollowing points (1964:116–124): some entrepreneurs who succeeded during the postwar
industrialization period had been operating since before World War II, and unlike thoseentrepreneurs who benefited from the preferential government incentives such as tax
exemptions and dollar allocations in the 1950s, they can be described as “craftsman–entrepreneurs” who achieved social and occupational mobility from their particular craft
skills. Not growing up in a privileged environment or inheriting a going industrial
concern from their parents, these entrepreneurs rose to prominence based solely on theirpersonal talents and/or abilities. Although they were generally poorly educated, most hadentered the manufacturing industry at a relatively early age after acquiring their technicalskills.
Carroll (1964:122) also pointed out that the industries in which such craftsman–entrepreneurs emerged included shoemaking, furniture-making, drug manufacturing, radio
manufacturing, baking, printing, battery manufacturing, leather tanning, and electricalmachinery manufacturing. All of these industries required specific skills. For wealthy2Filipinos, land and houses were where they invested their surplus wealth during the Spanish
and American colonial periods; they had limited experience with manufacturing and little orno interest in developing new industries, especially for the domestic market (Carroll 1964:
29–38). By contrast, for those from lower class backgrounds, who worked as skilled laborers
or wage earners, the challenge of building a new manufacturing business was one they
pursued for upward social mobility.iii Interestingly, there were several entrepreneurs who ran
small repair shops before starting larger manufacturing firms (Carroll 1964:117). Repair
shops could be opened without capital, but they did require a certain level of skill. Thissuggests that, for those from the lower classes, the mastery of a craft was the gateway tostarting a business in manufacturing.
Embroidery, which has become an important export industry in the Philippines,
does not seem to fit into this entrepreneurial category. In addition to the unique division oflabor within the Philippines, the export of Philippine embroidery was mediated by the global
network of the Syrian-American diaspora, between the New York market in the UnitedStates and the Philippines. The potential demand in the United States for Philippine
embroidery was discovered by American military servicemen stationed in the Philippines,
and its export share rose rapidly by being shipped to the U.S. as a new commodity. The
combination of Philippine embroidery with the new market of the United States led to thedevelopment of a new domestic manufacturing industry.
3. The embroidery and shoemaking industries in the first half of the 20th century
We can identify the major characteristics of the embroidery and shoemaking
industries using data from the 1903 (United States Bureau of the Census 1905) and 1918
censuses (The Government of the Philippines, Census Office of the Philippine Islands
1921) and the Directory of Industrial Establishments 1940–1941 (Commonwealth of thePhilippines 1940). In the 1903 census, embroidery was not classified as an industry. It isreasonable to assume that shoes were included in two categories: boots and shoes, slippers
and boots and shoes. Weaving and clothmaking had been practiced before the Spanish
colonial period and were considered the principal household industry in which women were
engaged (United States Bureau of the Census 1905, Vol. IV, 464).iv Although embroidery
was applied to women’s handkerchiefs and scarves, it is highly likely that it was also
recognized as a design element that enhanced textiles’ aesthetic value. According to
the 1903 census, there were seven manufacturers (in two provinces) of garments madefrom piña (fibers from pineapple leaves) and abaca, as well as 34 firms (in three provinces)that manufactured women's clothing from jusi (from abaca fibers). In 1903, shoemaking was
divided into two categories, “boots and footwear” and “boots, footwear, and slippers,” and3there were, respectively, 98 firms (in 17 provinces) and 80 firms (in two provinces) engaged
in this work. At that time, shoemaking was the third-fastest growing manufacturing industry
in the Philippines (United States Bureau of the Census 1905, Vol. IV, 486).
The 1918 census included new entries for shoemaking and embroidery (TheGovernment of the Philippines, Census Office of the Philippine Islands 1921, Vol. IV, PartI, 197–211). It listed 115 embroidery firms, whereas the number of shoemaking industries,
with boots and footwear classified as “shoe manufacturers and dealers,” and boots, footwear,
and slippers as “slipper manufacturers and dealers,” had nearly doubled, to 138 and 198,
respectively (Table 1). These figures indicate that, since the beginning of the American
period, the embroidery and shoemaking industries had vigorously developed theirproduction to satisfy market demands both at home and abroad. To grasp the reality of such
quantitative expansions more accurately, it is necessary to understand their relationships
with other, related industries. In the case of embroidery, the firms for garment production
using traditional textiles and materials, such as piña and jusi, went from 7 to 3 andfrom 34 to 24, respectively. Further, textile factories were added, bringing the total numberof enterprises to 96. This suggests the gradual decline of the traditional textile industry andthe rapid shift to mass factory production.
The background for the separation of embroidery classifications was related to its
recognition as a new overseas market commodity for export. Embroidery was just not adesign that enhanced the aesthetics of clothing; rather, it was viewed as a totally
independent consumer commodity such as children’s underwear and frocks as well as ladies’
nightgown, chemise (Yearbook of the Philippine Islands 1920:176-182). At that time, thePhilippines had only one British-owned spinning mill, Tondo and Malabon Cotton Mills,
operating in the Tondo district of Manila. It was difficult for the country to obtain cotton
yarn (cotton fabric) domestically (Doeppers 1984:17); hence, embroidery was done on
cotton cloth and/or linen imported and then reexported back to the U.S. In addition to
manufacturers, the 1918 census included the classification of “household industry” (TheGovernment of the Philippines, Census Office of the Philippine Islands 1921, Vol. IV, Part1, 577–599). There were four categories: embroidery-making, lace-making, shoe-making,and slipper-making (Table 2). The number of households engaged in embroidery- and lacemaking were 2,360 and 56 respectively, while the totals for shoe- and slipper-making were
93 and 265, respectively. The total number of reported households engaged in industry was
15,791, with embroidery second to tailoring, accounting for 15% of the total (TheGovernment of the Philippines, Census Office of the Philippine Islands 1921, Vol. IV, Part1, 624–756). This clearly shows that the growing demand for embroidery in the U.S. market
had a heavy influence on household industry.

4

Next, we can confirm the subsequent changes from the Directory of Industrial

Establishments 1940–1941 (Commonwealth of the Philippines 1940). While there were
94 embroidery companies, none were listed as lace producers or lace-makers. The numbersof piña, jusi, and sinamay (abaca fiber) enterprises were listed as 22, 15, and 11, respectively(Table 3). There were 53 shoe manufacturers and 69 slipper-makers. There was one
reported new rubber shoe company and 22 firms producing slippers made of abaca.
Although the Directory does not provide a picture of household industries, it is reasonable
to assume that embroidery, garment-making using traditional textile materials, shoemaking,and slipper-making had developed even in provincial areas to meet domestic demand and asside businesses to sustain the manufacturing industry.
4. The embroidery industry
4-1.

The U.S. market, Syrian Americans, and the new commodity of embroidery
Traditionally, in the Philippines, textile production using natural fibers such as

palms, plants, and trees has been carried out by women. Pineapple fiber, or piña, was wellknown for its silky texture and beauty and was often used for women's clothing. Fascinatedby the art of producing piña's embroidered textiles, the Spanish colonizers sought to takeadvantage of them to augment the colonial economy. From the mid-to-late 19th century,
fabrics such as piña, jusi, and sinamay were exported from the Philippines (United States,
Bureau of the Census 1905, IV, 467). At the same time, embroidery was taught to theirpupils by Catholic nuns from Spain, France, and even Belgium, who brought European-styleembroidery design and techniques to help orphaned Spanish and Filipino girls become
financially independent (Ramos 2016:25; McReynolds 1980:128; Waddington 1920:177).
Women who mastered the art of embroidery were called bordadoras (Camagay 1995,39-44).
The historical origins of this embroidery help us to understand why embroidery was notrecognized as a separate industry in the 1903 census (Ramos 2016:1–29; March 1899:203).
It was not until the American colonial period that embroidery began to find its
value as a commodity and to be customized for the U.S. market (Garrett 2016:281–295;
Waddington 1920:178). From the earliest days of U.S. colonial rule, Americans were
overwhelmed by the Filipinos’ weaving skills, especially their embroidery techniques anddesigns. The 1903 census noted that “some of the women have developed considerable skillsin this special pattern weaving, which is really a kind of embroidery, and produce designs
and figures of decided artistic merit" (United States Bureau of the Census 1905, IV, 466).
U.S. military servicemen stationed in the Philippines, fascinated by its high level of artistic
quality, introduced Filipino embroidery to the mainland U.S. Their purchases of souvenirs
for their wives, sisters, and girlfriends at home made Philippine-produced embroidery5popular in the United States (March 1899:203). However, the supply of fabric itself waslimited and far from commercialized, so they recommended that cotton, silk, linen, andother fabrics be imported from abroad (United States Bureau of the Census 1905, IV,466). It is noteworthy that the import of cotton made Philippine embroidery into an
important major export commodity, after sugar, coconut, abaca, and tobacco, after the 1910s(Clarence-Smith n.d. 17; Porter 1941:74). Embroidered cotton cloth shipped to the U.S.
market succeeded in creating a new industrial sector within the Philippine manufacturingsector: embroidery.
The beginning of World War I marked a new era of Philippine embroidery as anexport commodity. Until then, the United States had mainly imported embroidery from
European countries, such as Germany and France. However, the disrupted shipping
operations caused by the war and other factors made it possible for the Philippines to fill themarket shortage. The value of Philippine exports, which had been 352,338 pesos in 1913,
before the outbreak of the war, jumped almost 20 times, to as high as 6,913,004 pesos, five
years later, in 1919 (Table 4). Right after the end of World War I, the exports marked ashigh as 15,623,567 pesos in 1920. In 1940, embroidery became also the fifth-largest export
item, after sugar, coconuts, abaca, and tobacco (Porter 1941: 74). However, following WorldWar I, exports declined due to increased levels of embroidery imports from France andPuerto Rico (The Philippines Herald Year Book, September 23, 1933). Despite high tariffs
on imported embroidery products from all countries, Philippine embroidery faceddifficulties in expanding its U.S. market.
The above explanation only partially explains why Philippine-made embroidery
penetrated the U.S. market. This is because the U.S. garment market was deeply infiltrated
by Syrian-American merchants and traders, and Philippine imports would not have beenpossible without their global network (Garrett 2016:281–295). Clarence-Smith points outthat the Philippine embroidery business was dominated at the time by these SyrianAmerican merchants in Manila (Clarence-Smith n.d.:32-33). In particular, they had close
ties to the Syrian diaspora, who dominated the New York garment marketv. In other words,
the expansion of the Philippine embroidery industry in the U.S. was a product mediated by
Syrians’ immigration to the Philippines.
One of those who worked in both New York and the Philippines was Elias Mallouk,
a trader of Syrian descent. He and his brothers operated an embroidery business in thePhilippines (Clarence-Smith 2004:450). Their embroidery business entry in Rosenstock's

Directory of China and Manila 1920 lists "Elias Mallouk & Brothers" (Figure 1). The Syrian
Americans, whose compatriots and headquarters were in New York, re-exported to thePhilippines the embroidery business model they had used on the island of Madeira, a6

Portuguese territory (Garrett 2016:285; Fahrenthold, May 10, 2023). In addition, the 1920

Yearbook of the Philippine Islands (1920:176, 179, 180, 181) includes an advertisement fora Syrian merchant, Bardwill Brothers, the headquarter of which was located at New York
City. Everett Heaney & Co. had also a factory in Manila called Ehco Embroidery while its
head office was located on Broadway in New York City. Furthermore, there were somecompanies such as Geo Borgfeledt & Co. that had a branch even in Paris, France, all ofwhich were common in establishing the extensive global network for embroidery business.
In this way, the Philippines came to be incorporated as a production factory in the global
embroidery business dominated by Syrian Americans (Clarence-Smith 2004:449-451;
Fahrenthold, May 10, 2023; Garrett 2016:277, 283-285).

Figure 1: Advertisement by Elisa Mallouk & Brothers, Inc., a Syrian-American-owned
business (Rosenstock 1920: 616)
4-2. The response from the Philippines as a supplier country: The establishment of the
School of Household Industry
The Philippine embroidery industry, which expanded its exports to make up for
shortages in the U.S. market caused by World War I, was supported by a unique division oflabor system involving Manila and neighboring provinces. In 1912, before the outbreak of
the war, some representatives of U.S. embroidery exporters visited the Philippines to
explore the possibility of mass production (The School of Household Industries 1912:61).
They must have thought that the possibility of producing and exporting embroidery in the

7Philippines, where there were no tariffs, would give them a strong market advantage overtheir previous exporters, Switzerland, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Seeing a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand its exports, the Philippine colonial government,
led by the Bureau of Education, established the School of Household Industries, in Manila,
to promote embroidery and lace production for export (The School of Household Industries
1912:61).vi Once a student had completed her studies, she was expected to return to herhometown and/or the countryside to pass on her acquired skills and expand embroidery
production. This was not simply to boost exports, but also to improve the earning capacity
essential for supporting a family (Ramos 2016:43). This was in line with the Philippine
colonial government’s major emphasis on industrial education to nurture craftsmanship.
The Bureau of Education lauded the challenge by the School of Household Industries as a"new movement" (The School of Household Industries 1912:60).
Fully aware that the production volume of embroidery could not keep up withoverseas demand, the Philippine colonial government’s response was swift. On January 29,
1912, the Philippine Legislature by Act No. 2110 appropriated 100,000 pesos to establish
the aforementioned industrial school in Manila (The Government of the Philippine Islands
1912:20). Another bill soon followed, in February of the same year, allocating an
additional 50,000 pesos. The school aimed to recruit nearly 300 primary school-aged girls(Grades 1–4) from around the country to teach them basic skills such as embroidery, lacemaking, and sewing in an intensive, six-month program. It is noteworthy that the ultimate
goal was not only to help them acquire and then transmit their skills, but also to allow a
student to "set up herself up in the embroidery or lace-making business (The School ofHouse Industries 1912:62);" that is, to nurture and develop new entrepreneurs in local
crafting businesses.
Little is known about whether the industrial school served its intended purpose.
The school closed in December 1916, having turned out 800 graduates (The Government of
the Philippine Islands 1917:27). Regardless of its success or failure, it is worth noting that
school education in the Philippines was a major contributor to the emergence of Philippinemade embroidery as U.S. overseas market commodity. According to Garrett (2016:289290), a scholar of the Syrian diaspora, compulsory elementary education began in 1910, andvocational/industrial training was to be included in the curriculum. This suggests that theschool was not only a place to learn embroidery and lace-making skills, but in fact became afactory where embroidery and lace pieces created by the students were made into finishedproducts for export. The Bureau of Education itself was contracted to produce embroidereditems, and to fulfill its quotas, the girls were forced to work without pay (Garrett 2016:289). In short, the Philippine government was trying to create a system for export-oriented

8

embroidery and lace-making by involving not only the legislature and the Bureau of
Education, but also the schools, in order to increase its advantage in the U.S. marketvii.
4-3.

Relationships among embroidery firms, agents, and workers in Manila
Now let us examine the peculiar division of labor behind the dramatic expansion ofPhilippine-made embroidery after World War I. Since the 1918 census does not distinguishbetween the types of embroidery and lace-making firms, we will rely on the Manila City

Directory 1937–1938 (Philippine Education Company 1938:493). It lists 27 manufacturing
factories and 41 import–export companies. Among the factories, 17 were also engaged in theimport–export business, which means that more than half of the manufacturers were also
serving as importer-exporters. It is important to note that these factories were not engaged
in embroidery or lace production; they were only responsible for embroidery design, cotton
cutting, sewing, finishing, ribboning, ironing, and packaging. They did not manage theembroidery production. The number of workers employed as embroiderers in thesemanufacturing factories varied from 5 to 100, but there were only about 1,700 workers in
Manila as a whole (Rama 1920:73, Monthly Labor Review, February 1941:454-455).
The Manila-based factories or import–export firms were called Casa Sucursal, orbranches (Figure 2). Their parent companies, located in the United States, were called theCasa Central, or headquarters. The embroiderers and lace-makers were women engaged indomestic labor in the neighboring provinces of Manila, and the intermediaries or agents
between them and the branch were called cabecillas (masters) (Valdepeñas and Bautista
1977:103-104).viii A cabecilla was usually a woman. They received cotton and linen fabrics
from the branch office, hired and supervised the embroiderers and were responsible forthem, and delivered the finished products to the branch. Depending on the size of thecompany, branches employed between 10 and 100 agents. They covered the districts ofManila (Paco, Tondo, Ermita, Malate, and Santa Anna), Rizal (Marikina, Parañaque),Batangas (Taar), Bulacan (Calumpit, Hagonoy), some parts of Pampanga and Tarlac, and as
far away as the Visayas region (Rama 1920:72–73). Embroiderers, by contrast, werecalled bordadoras (Gabriel 1926). The number of bordadoras at the end of the embroidery
industry has been estimated to have reached 60,000 in Manila and its vicinity (Rama
1929:73) and 500,000 throughout the Philippines (Gabriel 1926: 4). Among them werechildren mobilized to make embroidery
What is characteristic here is the relationship between the Casa Sucrusal and her
cabecilla agents (Gabriel 1926:11-17). The structure was quite simple: the former would pay
the latter a labor wage per finished embroidered product piece. Between 1920 and 1921,
when embroidery was booming, the labor wage paid by a branch office for each finished9embroidered piece was four pesos. How much of that was paid to the bordadora was up to
the cabecilla. In other words, in principle, who bore responsibility for the product, wasassumed by the cabecilla. They were also held responsible for any losses or damage and wererequired to cope free of charge if goods were judged as defective. The Casa Sucrusal was
required to pledge real estate equal to or greater than the value of the fabric, in order to givethe cotton fabric to the cabecilla, provided that it was completed by the due date. Given
these responsibilities, to become a cabecilla, one needed at least 500 pesos in cash or realestate worth about 1,500 pesos. The cash was working capital for the purchase of materials
and loans to bordadoras (Gabriel 1926:19–22).
The most high-volume cabecillas earned between 500 and 800 pesos per month attheir peak, while smaller cabecillas earned roughly half that amount. There were two types
of wages for bordadoras: piecework and hourly. The former meant working in a bordadora’s
home, while hourly wages meant working in the cabecilla’s home. In the latter case, the work
was done from 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., a nine-hour workday, for a daily
wage of only 50 centavos. The bordadora’s hourly wage was reduced so that she could takemore money for herself. In Parañaque, Rizal, it was not uncommon for a cabecilla to live in amagnificent house with expensive furniture and to own a car and a salt bet; these women
were often considered wealthy by the locals (Gabriel 1926:19-22).

Casa Central (head Office) - New York, US|
Casa Sucrusal (branch) - Manila, the Philippines|
Cabecilla (local agent) - Manila, the Philippines|
Bordadora (embroiderer) – Manila and Local Provinces
Fig. 2Global division of labor in the embroidery industry

5. The shoemaking industry
5-1.

Shoes as a daily necessity
It was known that the Chinese engaged in shoe-making during the Spanish period,

but shoes were a luxury item and a privilege of the wealthy at that time (Mallat 1983:110). It
was not until the American colonial period that shoes began to gain popularity among

10Filipinos. At that time, the Philippines was rapidly transforming into a mass consumer
society, with the influx of consumer goods such as cars, furniture, clothing, drinking water,and stationery. The Philippines could now obtain high-quality imported goods without theneed to manufacture goods themselves. In addition, consumer goods from Japan and China,
which were tariffed but still inexpensive, also flowed into the Philippine market in large
quantities (Hayase 2012). Leather shoes, among many other consumer goods, symbolized
American material culture (Tribune, January 25, 1931). Shoes were a necessity not only forchildren in the barrios, but also for civil servants engaged in office work, students, and evenfactory and port facility workers.
A major challenge for the Philippine economy was that leather shoe manufacturing
was either imported or highly dependent on imported raw materials, but it is noteworthy
that there were already numerous companies manufacturing leather shoes in the country
during the first half of the 20th century. According to the 1903 and 1918 censuses, not only
did the number of shoemaking companies nationwide increase from 98 to 138, the industry
also penetrated several new provinces (The Government of the Philippine Islands 1921, IV,
Part 1: 209). As noted above, the shoemaking industry was originally run for the wealthy by
the Chinese, but it expanded rapidly in the American period because many Filipinos started
to dominate these jobs. In the 1903 census, Filipinos accounted for only one-quarter of theshoe-making industry, but by the 1939 census, they almost completely controlled it(Doeppers 1984: 54). Shoemaking was the most rapidly Filipinized segment of theindutrial sector.
It is interesting to note that John Carroll, who conducted a survey of entrepreneursin the manufacturing industry of the Philippines, noted that the shoe industry, and therelated leather industry, gave rise to craftsman–entrepreneurs (Carroll 1964:117–124).
What they had in common was that the assets that allowed their businesses to grow were thecraft skills they had acquired prior to starting their firms. In this sense, owning a repair shop
was a valuable career path to later success in manufacturing (Carroll 1964:117). Looking at
the shoe industry, as Carroll pointed out, the common thread was that its participantsacquired their specific skills by working in repair shops or other related industries.
Let us consider three examples representing companies led by craftsman–entrepreneurs. The Hale Shoe Company, known by the brand name ESCO, was founded byAmerican Frank H. Hale, who entered the market after repairing boots for the U.S. Army
(American Historical Collection n.d.; Tribune, November 15, 1935). In the 1930s, heestablished a factory in Paco, Manila that was equipped with state-of-the-art machinery andsaid to be the largest in the East (Tribune, November 13, 1937). In the Philippines, Toribio
Teodoro became known as the “footwear king of the Philippines.” He was a Filipino who

11founded the Ang Tibay shoe brand with a friend, relying on initial capital of 200 pesos. In
1937, he started production in Grace Park, an industrial area in Caloocan, Rizal, just northof Manila (Tribune, November 13, 1937)ix. In 1933, Tomas Geronimo started thePhilippines’ first rubber shoe manufacturing plant (El Porvenir Rubber Products), known
by the brand name Elpo, in Santa Ana, Manila (Carroll 1964:167; Esquire Philippines
October 13, 2017).x In Geronimo’s case, the company had originally manufactured
automobile tires, but switched to shoemaking. For these entrepreneurs, participating in
manufacturing without protections against products imported from the U.S. was a greatchallenge. Moreover, the Chinese controlled an overwhelming share of commerce, including
distribution and retail, on the strength of their own networks. Considering that the U.S. andJapan each also had a significant presence, the new areas for possible entry were limited toconstruction, transportation, and communications, in addition to manufacturing (Doeppers
1984:58).
5-2.

Elimination of Japanese rubber-soled shoes from the market
ESCO, Ang Tibay, and Elpo operated large, modern factories based in Manila, but

at the same time, around 250 handmade shoe shops were clustered in Marikina, Rizal. These
small businesses were responsible for nearly half of the shoes produced in the country(Tribune, Jan 25, 1931). Despite the expansion of the shoemaking industry, shoe shortages
remained and had to be addressed by imports because the locally produced supply was
insufficient for meeting domestic demand. In the 1920s, the potential shoemaking market
was estimated at 1.2 million for every 7 million adults in the Philippines (Tribune, January
25, 1931). Most of the factories in Manila manufactured leather shoes using imported raw
materials such as leather for shoe uppers and rubber for soles. In 1919, for example, thecountry exported 2,368 pairs of leather shoes and 674 pairs of canvas shoes, worth 20,695
pesos and 3,351 pesos respectively, while in contrast, foreign shoe imports were valued
at 5,000,000 pesos (The Chamber of Commerce of the Philippine Islands 1920:202).
There were other reasons why shoe production could not keep up with domestic
demand. The biggest problems were the meager supply of leather and the country’s
immature processing techniques (Boomer 1916:88-91). In 1916, there were 167 tanneries in
the Philippines, handling $900,000 worth of leather, which paled in comparison to the valueof leather imports ($1,274,802). Since most of the beef consumed in the Philippines wasimported, it was necessary to walk the streets in search of hides when they were needed. In
addition, in many districts, raw hides were useless, and dry hides were only occasionally
exported to Hong Kong and India for glue production. Because of the immaturity of hidepreservation techniques, the quality of leather from Philippine tanneries was inferior to that12

of imported products (Boomer 1916:88; Santiago 1923:1)xi. For these reasons, the Hale
Shoe Company used top-quality tanned leather imported from the United States, Italy,
Argentina, and Australia (American Historical Collection n.d.).
Under these circumstances, Japanese-made shoes achieved rapid growth in thePhilippine market. In particular, the imports of Japanese rubber-soled shoes expanded
rapidly, especially around 1930. Not only did the depreciation of the yen make the shoes
affordable for Filipinos, they were also sold at a discount of 20 centavos per pair, whichallowed them, in 1932, to overtake the United States, which had previously boasted an
overwhelming import volume, as the main shoe importer to the Philippines. Inexpensive
Japanese goods posed such a threat to the Philippine market that a bill was debated in thenational legislature to raise import duties (Tribune, October 14, 1931). The tariff was raised
from 1932 to 1933, in part because Japanese products were encroaching on the market for
American imports, and to protect domestic Philippine industries (Rodriguez 1934: 3, 4,
7). This measure resulted in a tariff of 50 centavos per pair of rubber-soled shoes, double
the previous rate, and the share of shoes made in Japan declined rapidly from around 1938
(Hayase 2012:147).
The tariff hike did more than keep Japanese rubber-soled shoes out of thePhilippine market; by 1934, the number of factories manufacturing rubber-soled shoes in
the Philippines had increased to four, including Elpo. Of these, two were Filipino-owned,
and the other two were Japanese-owned. As a result, 1.5 million pairs of rubber-soled shoes
could be produced in the country each year. This production volume was equivalent toalmost half the amount of rubber-soled shoes imported as of 1933. In short, the increase intariffs accelerated the production of rubber-soled shoes in the country (Rodriguez 1934:3).
5-3.

Development of the Marikina shoe industry
Besides the large, modern shoemaking factories and rubber-soled shoe factories

represented by ESCO, Elpo, and even Ang Tibay, the Philippine shoemaking industry was
led by small firms that accounted for half of all production. Most were concentrated in
Marikina, Rizal. It is difficult to know their exact number, but by 1916 there were about 100
shops, and by 1930, nearly 250 stores were engaged in shoemaking (Estrella 1916:4;

Tribune, January 25, 1931). How did these shops come to be concentrated in thisarea? Aurelio Estrela's 1916 report, "The Shoe-making Industry of Marikina" provides aclue. During the American period, Marikina was part of the province of Rizal, which lies
around the city of Manila, and was drained by the Marikina River, a branch of the Pasig
River. Since the Spanish period, it had served as an important transportation route, but thearea was frequently plagued by floods. As a new means of regional development and job

13creation that did not depend on agriculture, Manuel Guevera, then mayor of Marikina,
turned to shoemaking. It was not until 1887 that he succeeded in actually making leather
shoes, after dismantling the shoes he had purchased in Escolta, Manila and making shoe
patterns from them. When his shoes were sold in Manila, he found that the price wasprofitable enough, and shoemaking became widespread among Marikina’s residents.
There were two main reasons for the spread of shoemaking in Marikina: first, theincome from shoemaking was greater than that of farming, and second, there was a great
demand for shoes. In 1916, one factory employed about 20 workers, and the monthly
income for each worker was around 70 pesos. For workers, the average weekly incomes ofmen and women were as high as 10 and 8 pesos, respectively. Factory owners were expected
to go to Manila City and Binondo, a Chinese town, every Saturday to sell their goods. Some
Marikina residents traveled around the Philippines as peddlers. In the course of thesetravels, some started shoemaking factories in Rizal, Albay, Tayabas, Pangasinan, Laguna,Bulacan, and Batangas (Estrella 1916: 6). The unique origin and development of the
shoemaking industry in Marikina is very different from that of craftsman–entrepreneurs
such as Frank Hale and Toribio Teodoro and illustrates the diverse paths of development of
the Philippine shoe industry.
Despite the varying paths to success outlined above, there was a commonality
among them in that skill acquisition was the key to business success. In the case of
Marikina's handmade shoemaking industry, participation in the world of craftsmanship isthought to have led to the acquisition of skills applicable to shoemaking. It is remarkablethat these small Marikina shoemaking shops continued to develop after World War II.
According to the Directory of Business Establishments (Republic of the Philippines, Bureauof Commerce 1958:230-237), there were 754 shoe factories in the Philippines, of which 358,or almost half, were concentrated in Marikina. What does this mean? Since the American
period, imported products had been targeted at the wealthy, yet Philippine-made shoes were
aimed at the Filipino masses. It was Marikina's shoemaking industry that was able to provide
these essential goods to the Filipino people at affordable prices. This is considered oneof the major factors that supported the sustainable growth of the industry from the prewar
to the postwar periods.
6Comparing the two industries
Both embroidery and shoemaking were new manufacturing industries thatemerged to meet the growing demand at home and abroad. Unlike traditional piña and jusi,
embroidery entered the U.S. market as a new, non-traditional commodity. As a result of a
new lifestyle changes stimulated by imported American material culture, shoes gained

14

widespread acceptance in the domestic Philippine market as a necessity of life. In the firsthalf of the 20th century, many manufacturing industries depended on demand for overseas
exports, such as sugar factories, alcohol refining plants, and coconut oil processing
plants. Embroidery and shoemaking, however, depended on the importation of raw
materials such as cotton (as cloth) and leather and were largely dependent on craftspeople.
In the case of embroidery, the techniques of weaving and clothmaking were handed downfrom the pre-Spanish colonial period. Later, the fusion of European-style designs andtechniques introduced by the Catholic Church transformed embroidery into a product forthe overseas markets. Craft skills were the key to the demand for embroidery in both thedomestic and international markets. In the case of shoemaking, securing an apprenticeshipthrough “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave and Wenger 1991) in a repair shop was
a career path to later enter the manufacturing industry, because it was a place to acquire
craft skills.
Anthropological findings on Filipino craftsmanship provide invaluable insights into
the acquisition and transmission of craft skills. Ushijima (1996) and Ushijima and de laPeña (2000), who investigated the wares of and trading by potters in the Visayas Inland Seaof the Philippines, as well as blacksmithing, pointed out that these skills were usually passed
on from the older to the younger members of a family. The important point Ushijima madewas that the techniques handed down were not limited to just how to make things; they also
included practical knowledge about conducting business, such as when, where, and to whom
to sell. Such practical information was applicable to the case of Marikina's shoemaking
industry, as it included knowledge about shoe shop owners’ trips to the Chinese district ofManila every Saturday and information about hide-peddling around the country. This typeof knowledge was required of small manufacturers because they were responsible not only
for manufacturing but also for sales.
In light of the above, it is appropriate to define the small-scale shoemaking storesin Marikina that also engaged in manufacturing as family-based enterprises. It is notdifficult to imagine that craftspeople who were able to accumulate a certain amount of
capital under these circumstances had the potential to grow into entrepreneurs (Carroll
1964:192–193). At the time, one major challenge in the Philippines concerned how to
consolidate Marikina's small shoe stores into mechanized modern shoe factories (ThePhilippines Herald Year Book, September 23, 1933). However, the strong sense of
independence in each household related to economic activities made it difficult to maintainand larger and more permanent organizations or business enterprises than those operated at
the family and household levels.

15

In the case of the embroidery industry, the passing on of techniques within thefamily, often from mother to daughter, was valuable. However, the embroidery industry
differed from shoemaking in that it was heavily influenced by U.S. colonial rule, whichplaced an emphasis on the spread of modern public education. At that time, handicraft skills
such as basket-, hat-, pottery-, and slipper-making were introduced in the lower grades of
elementary school education as “industrial education” to cultivate the awareness of
independent citizens and to boost their earning capacity (May 1980:116)xii. Hugo Miller, an
American educator who worked for the Bureau of Education during the American colonial
period, appreciated the role played by industrial education in the Philippines (1913:300). In
some provinces, what students learned in industrial education led to the birth of the slipper
and shoemaking industries. Training of up to four years during primary education by thePhilippine colonial government, specialized in embroidery and lace-making, contributed tothe acquisition of specific craft skills (Jones 1921: 409). The result was an increase inexports from the Philippines (Miller 1913:300). In other words, in the Philippines during
the first half of the 20th century, skills that could be used in the manufacturing industry
could be learned not only in the workplace and family settings, but also through formal
schooling. This expansion of educational opportunities was one of the factors that continued
to sustain embroidery exports.
What made the embroidery industry so different from the shoemaking industry wasthat the embroiderers only dealt with local agents. They did not have the opportunity to takea bird's-eye view of the industry as a whole. Specifically, they neither had a network with themarket and the outside world beyond production, nor could they have known how theirembroidery was distributed, because this information was not needed in the Philippines.
This meant that they lacked the opportunity to develop the "industrial and commercial idea"(Miller 1913:298). As Miller pointed out, such ideas were necessary to start an industry.
Since workers had no opportunity to learn how to sell their work in the market, their labor
was little more than piecework (1913:295). Moreover, only women and children were
engaged in this field, and even if they had skills to pass on, so it was difficult for them todevelop it into a family business like shoemaking. No matter how profitable the embroidery
industry for overseas export was, the purchase of cotton and/or linen cloth and the absenceof a domestic market made it difficult for embroiderers to develop economic activities
beyond the level of a side business.
7.

Conclusion
We have discussed the embroidery and shoemaking industries in the Philippines

during the first half of the 20th century to highlight their manufacturing characteristics. The

16

two industries grew rapidly, due to increasing demand at home and abroad. The shoemaking
industry succeeded in expanding production for the domestic market by shutting out
Japanese imports, thus laying the foundation for the post-World War II era and leading to
the industrialization of the Philippines. The embroidery industry, by contrast, became an
important provider of export products, and the industry largely developed to meet overseas
demand alongside cash crops. Both industries were shaped by craftsmanship; however, theirtrajectories were very different. Shoemaking, which had previously been monopolized by the
Chinese, became a growth industry during the American period, with Filipinos ultimately
dominating. In addition, the Filipino elite had little interest in entering manufacturing forthe domestic market, which competed with imports from the U.S. The market opened up by
the increased demand for shoes was an arena open to the lower classes. They, in turn,sought to coexist with the upper classes by providing the public with shoes at an affordable
price point that did not compete with U.S. imports. Embroidery, however, had great
potential as an export commodity to the U.S. For this reason, the industry grew, and thecolonial government and the Bureau of Education were poised to support it collectively, inhopes that it would become a major export. However, the work did little more than provide asideline for women and girls engaged in wage labor.
Structurally, it is interesting to examine the different responses of Philippine
manufacturing to free trade with the United States. The creation of a shoe-making industry
for the domestic market, although less productive, laid the groundwork for theindustrialization of the Philippines in the postwar period. The embroidery industry, bycontrast, ended up being similar to sugar and coconuts, in that it produced commodities forexport, thus reinforcing the existing colonial economic structure, although it did provide
employment opportunities for rural women. The embroidery industry contributed toeconomic development to a great extent, but failed to foster new industries or to absorb thechronic labor surpluses of urban areas. In the first half of the 20th century, the Philippines
promoted policies to extract more benefits from free trade with the United States, but it also
increased productivity to add value to exported goods and to create jobs, but it was reluctant
to build a new industrial base that would do the same.

Notes
i

The bus transportation companies established in the 1910s and 1920s are the following: A.

L. Ammen Transportation, Co., (ALATCO), 1914; Pangasinan Transportation Co.,
(PANTRANCO), 1917; Batangas Transportation Co., (BTCO), 1918; Bohol land
Transportation, 1923; Cebu Auto Bus, 1926; Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co., 1928; Pampanga

17

Bus Co., 1928 (Hartendorp 1953: 45-47).
See more details (Caoili 1987:101-102). It was not until 1936 that industrialization byii

government-owned corporations in the Philippines started to accelerate, and prior to that,its pace had been inactive.
Carroll introduces an example of how a son whose father was a shoemaker as a side job

iii

while working as a sharecropper became a shoemaker himself and then established his own
shoe company after the war. For this son, the capital needed to start his business consistedof the craft skills he had acquired in pre-war shoe factories and the money he had
accumulated during the war (Carroll 1964: 77–78).
In 1846, Frenchman Jean Mallat, who wrote The Philippines: History, Geography,

iv

Customs, Agriculture, Industry and Commerce of the Spanish Colonies in Oceania (1983),
observed that, in Manila, Chinese people made a living making shoes (Mallat 1983: 108,110).
v

According to the report "Laces and Lace Articles" published by the Unites States Tariff

Commission in 1934, the imports of hand-made lace and lace articles were largely throughNew York (United States Tariff Commission 1934:272). From 1912 to 1933, China
accounted for approximately 70% of total imports of hand-made lace and lace articles,
indicating that the U.S. market for Philippine embroidery products had not expanded.
vi

The idea of establishing the school was inspired by the remarkable achievements inindustrial education in European countries such as The Netherlands (The School ofHousehold Industries 1912:60). During the Spanish period, textiles exported from Britain to
the Philippines were handled by the Chinese through cabecilla. A “cabecilla” refers to a large
wholesaler dealing with the import and export trade, and to agents stationed in eachprovince to sell goods and purchase the crops there (Valdepeñas and Bautista 1977:103–
104).
vii

Interestingly enough, during World War II, Miss Trinidad Tobias was sent from thePhilippines to US so as to investigate the requirements of Filipino embroidery products
compatible with the U.S. market and to explore the possibility of establishing branches ofManila embroidery enterprises in various American cities. However, this attempt nevermaterialized (Gage 1918:57).
viii

The reference to cabecilla is found in Valdepeñas and Bautista (1977:103–104). They

noted that there were agents in the countryside who oversaw the workers in the provinces. It
is unlikely that the Manila-based cabecilla would have directly controlled the embroiderers
in rural areas. In the case of the embroidery industry, it is appropriate to assume that there
must have been a local agent or intermediary between the cabecilla and the embroiderers.
ix

Caoli analyzed that Teodoro’s success in shoemaking business before World War II waslargely attributed to getting a contract to supply the newly-established Philippine Army with18

his shoes (1987:86).
x

According to Carroll (1964:167), the first rubber shoe manufacturing plant in thePhilippines was able to expand with the help of Japanese engineers.
xi

It should be noted that unlike the figure provided Boomer (1916:88), the 1918 census lists

only 59 tanneries, 28 of which were concentrated in Bulacan. For more details of tanningindustry of Bulacan, see Santiago (1923).
xii

The shift from literacy education to industrial education started from December 1909,

when the head of the Bureau of Education was changed to David Barrows to Frank R. White(May 1980:116-124). This policy aimed to make the Filipino reproductive labor. To thisend, the Bureau organized the department to promote and supervise all industrial
instruction to the subjects such as bamboo and rattan work, basketry, embroidery,gardening, hat-making, lace-making, loom weaving, pottery, and wood working. It alsobegan to publish a monthly journal, The Philippine Craftsman, to disseminate the progress
and achievement of Philippine industrial. Consequently, the ratio who engaged in theindustrial work at the primary school level (Grade 1-4), in 1911, 1912, and 1912, surged to90%, 92% and 94% respectively, out of the total enrolled primary school students (May1980:118). For more details on the Philippine Craftsman, see Lo (2022:241-257).

References
American Historical Collection, Rizal Library. n.d. Frank H. Hale: Old Timer, Industrialist,
andFriend ofthe Filipino

People.

Retrieved

September 30, 2023, fromhttp://rizal.lib.admu.edu.ph/ahc/exhibit/FrankHale.pdf
Boomer, F. 1916. Tanning Methods Employed in Philippines. Commerce Reports 159:88-91.
Brown, I. 1989. Some Comments on Industrialisation in the Philippines during the 1930s. In

The Economics of Africa and Asia in the Inter-War Depression. edited by Ian Brown,
pp.203-220. London and New York: Routledge.
Camagay, M. 1995. Working Women of Manila in the 19th Century. Quezon City: Universityof the Philippine Press and the University Center for Women Studies.
Caoli, M. 1987. Quezon and His Business Friends: Notes on the Origins of Philippine
National Capitalism. Philippine Journal of Public Administration 31(1): 65-106.
Carroll, J. 1964. The Filipino Manufacturing Entrepreneur: Agent and Product of Change.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Miscellaneous Industries. 1920. Yearbook of the Philippines. pp.202-203. Manila: The
Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines.
Clarence-Smith, W. 2004. Middle Eastern Migrants in the Philippines: Entrepreneurs andCultural Brokers. Asian Journal of Social Science 32(2): 425-457.
19

Clarence-Smith, W. n.d. The Cotton Textile Industries of Southeast Asia and “Bantu” Africa
1840s to 1950s. Retrieved September 30, 2023, from https://www.lse.ac.uk/EconomicHistory/Assets/Documents/Research/GEHN/GEHNConferences/conf5/ClarenceSmithGEHN5.pdf
Commonwealth Ideas Observed at Esco Factory. Tribune, November 15, 1935.
Commonwealth of the Philippines, Department of Agriculture and Commerce 1940.

Directory of Industrial Establishments of the Philippines 1940-1941. Manila: Bureau of
Printing.
Esquire Philippines. Vintage Filipino Shoe Brands That We Miss. October 13, 2017.
Retrieved

September

30,

2023,

from

https://www.esquiremag.ph/culture/lifestyle/vintage-filipino-shoe-brands-that-wemiss-a00203-20171013
Estrella, A. 1916. The Shoe-making Industry of Marikina. H. Otley Beyer Ethnographic
Collections. Manila: National Library of the Philippines. Retrieved September 30, 2023,
from https://nlpdl.nlp.gov.ph/OB01/home.htm
Doeppers, D. 1984. Manila 1900-1941: Social Change in a Late Colonial Metropolis. Quezon
City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Embroidery Industry in the Philippine Islands. 1926. Monthly Labor Review 22(5):58-59.
Fahrenthold, S. Syrian Merchants in Madeira. Retrieved September 30, 2023, fromhttps://thelausanneproject.com/2022/10/14/fahrenthold/Gabriel, A. 1926. Embroidery Industry in Parañaque. Tagalog Paper No. 701. H. Otley Beyer
Ethnographic Collection. Manila: National Library of the Philippines. Retrieved
September 30, 2023, from https://nlpdl.nlp.gov.ph/OB01/home.htm
Garret, B. 2016. Otherness and Belonging in “Democratic Empires”: The Syrian Diaspora

and Transatlantic Discourses Identity, 1890s-1930s. Ph.D dissertation submitted to the
University of Texas at Arlington. Arlington.
Gage, E. 1918. Lace Making in the Philippine Islands. Dry Goods 18(12):57.
The Government of the Philippine Islands, Census Office of the Philippine Islands 1921.

Census of the Philippine Islands. Volume IV, Part 1. Manila: Bureau of Printing.
The Government of the Philippine Islands, Department of Public Instruction 1912. Twelfth

Annual Report of the Director of Education. Manila: Bureau of Printing.
The Government of the Philippine Islands. Department of Public Instruction 1917.

Seventeenth Annual Report of the Director of Education. Manila: Bureau of Printing.
Hartendrop, A. 1953. Short History of Industry and Trade of the Philippines: From Pre-

Spanish Times to the End of the Roxas Administration. Manila: American Chamber ofCommerce of the Philippines, Inc.
20

Hayase, S. 2012. Japanese in the Philippine Modern History: Immigrants and Imported Goods

in a Colonial Society [in Japanese] Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Inaugurate New “Ang Tibay” Factory Tomorrow. Tribune, November 13, 1937.
Jones, O. 1921. Education and the Future of the Filipinos. The American Review of Reviews
64: 405-414.
Kurihara, K. 1945. Labor in the Philippine Economy. California: Stanford University Press.
Lave, J. and E. Wenger 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lo, M. 2022. The Philippine Craftsman: Empire, Education, and the 1915 Panama-PacificInternational Exposition. The Journal of Modern Crafts 15(2):241-257.
Mallat, J. 1983. The Philippines: History, Geography, Customs, Agriculture, Industry andCommerce of the Spanish Colonies in Oceania. Manila: National Historical Institute.
March, A. 1899. The History and Conquest of the Philippines: Our Other Island Possessions.
Philadelphia: World Bible House.
May, G. 1980. Social Engineering in the Philippines: The Aims, Execution, and Impact ofAmerican Colonial Policy, 1900-1913. Westport: Greenwood Press.
McReynolds, P. 1980. The Embroidery of Luzon and the Visayas. Arts of Asia 10(1): 128-133.
Miller, H. 1913. Economic Conditions in the Philippines. Boston: Ginn and Company.
Porter, C. 1941. Philippine Emergency: The Impact of War on the Philippine Commonwealthand Its Relations with United States. New York: American Council, Institute of Pacific
Relations.
The Progress of Embroidery Business: Analysis of Trade Reveals How Present Defects ofHousehold Industry May be Corrected. 1933. In The Philippines Herald Year Book.
pp.68, 72, 73. Manila: The Philippines Herald
Rama, M. 1920. The Philippine Embroidery Industry. In Economic Resources andDevelopment of the Philippine Islands. pp.72-75. New York City: Philippine Commercial
Agencies.
Ramos, M. 2016 The Filipina Bordadoras and the Emergence of Fine European-style

Embroidery Tradition in Colonial Philippines, 19th to Early-20th Centuries. Master’s
Paper submitted to Mount Saint Vincent University.
Republic of the Philippines, Bureau of Commerce

1958. Directory of Industrial

Establishments in the Philippines. Manila: Department of Commerce and Industry.
Rodriguez, E. 1934. The Shoemaking Industry in the Philippines. The Philippine Journal ofCommerce 11(7): 3,4,7.
Rosenstock, W. 1920. The Rosenstock’s Directory of China and Manila. Manila: The
Rosenstock’s Publishing Co.,
21

Santiago, S. 1923. The Tanning Industry in Bulacan. Tagalog Paper No. 417. H. Otley Beyer
Ethnographic Collection. Manila: National Library of the Philippines. Retrieved
September 30, 2023, from https://nlpdl.nlp.gov.ph/OB01/home.htm
The School of Household Industries. 1912. The Philippine Craftsman 1(1):60-21.
Shoe Makers of Marikina, Tribune, January 25, 1931.
Tariff on Shoes and Slippers Planned by Members of House Headed by De Leon. Tribune,
October 14, 1931.
United States Bureau of the Census 1905. Census of the Philippine Islands, Volume IV.
Washington: Bureau of Printing.
United States Tariff Commission 1934. Laces and Lace Articles, Report No. 33. Washington:
Government Printing Press.
Ushijima, I. and L. de la Peña 1996. The Pottery Traders of Maripipi, Biliran, Leyte: Past andPresent. In Binisaya nga Kinabuhi, Visayan Life, Visayan Maritime AnthropologicalStudies II, 1993-1995. edited by I. Ushijima and C. Zayas. pp.139-164. Quezon City:
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines.
Ushijima, I and L. de la Peña 2000. Blacksmithing in Carigara, Leyte. In Bisayan Knowledge,

Movement & Identity. edited I. Ushijima and C. Zayas. pp.77-100. Quezon City: Third
World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of thePhilippines.
Valdepeñas, V. and G. Bautista. 1977. The Emergence of the Philippine Economy. Manila:
Papyrus.
Waddington, S. 1920. The Embroidery Industry of the Philippine Islands. In Yearbook of thePhilippines, pp. 177-178. Manila: The Chamber of Commerce of the Philippine Islands.
Yoshihara, K. 1985. Philippine Industrialization: Foreign and Domestic Capital. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University.

22

Table 1 Number of embroidery and shoemaking enterprises (as of 1918）
Embroidery
Total number of firms

Piña

Jusi

TextileShoemaking

Slipper-making

Tannery

production

production

factories

115（―）

3(7)

24（34）

96（―）

138（98）198(80)59(30)

2,057

30 (0/30)

572

790 (123/667)

1,079 (924/155)

1,368

284 (244/40)(number in 1903)
Number of workers(male/female)(132/1,925)

Distribution of firms by

Rizal (58)

province (number)(408/164)
Capiz (3)Iloilo (24)

(1,135/233)
Ilocos Sur (66)Manila (41)

Manila (92)

Bulacan (28)

Cebu (19)Batangas (3)Rizal (28)

Rizal (20)

Ilocos Sur (10)Manila (11)Bulacan (17)Pampanga (14)Bulacan (17)Manila (9)Laguna (10)Cebu (6)

Ilocos Sur (10)Laguna (17)Iloilo (4)Abra (3)Other provinces

Pangasinan(7)Batangas (8)Cebu (3)Batangas (3)(4)

Abra (6)

Albay (7)Other provinces (5)Lepanto-Iloilo (6)Ambos-

Ambulayan

Capiz (3)Camarines (6)sub-province

Ilocos Norte (3)Iloilo (5)(3)

Tayabas (3)Pangasinan (3)Other

Other provinces (17)Sorsogon (3)provinces (8)Cavite (3)Tayabas (3)Cebu (3)Other provinces(17)

Source: The Government of the Philippine Islands (1921:199–419)

23

Table 2. Number of workers engaged in embroidery, lace-making, shoemaking, and slipper-making as a household industry (as of 1918）
Embroidery-making

Lace-making

Shoemaking

Slipper making

2,360

56

93

265

2,925(25/2,900)

76(0/76)

154(136/18)

604(418/186)

Distribution by province

Rizal (507)

Batangas (36)

Cagayan (3)Pangasinan (29)(number)

Cebu (163)

Abra (3)Cebu (10)Pampanga (28)Batangas (143)

Bohol (3)Ilocos Norte (6)Cebu (27)

Laguna (125)Romblon (3)Ilocos Sur (4)Ilocos Norte (21)

Albay (104)Other provinces (11)Iloilo (4)Bulacan (25)

Leyte (77)

Laguna (4)Nueva Ecija (25)

Ambos Camarines (52)

Leyte (4)Batanagas (19)

Ilocos Norte (42)

Masbate sub-province (18)

Rizal (13)Ilocos Sur (19)Negros Occidental (4)Ambro Camarines (10)Nueva Ecija (19)Pangasinan (4)Manila (10)Bohol (39)

Tayabas (4)Laguna (8)Tayabas (37)Other provinces (21)

Tayabas (7)Number of households
engagedNumber of people(male/female）

Samar (36)

Sorsogon (5)Negros Occidental (35)

Cagayan (5)Pangasinan (29)Abra (4)Sorsogon (15)Capiz (4)Abra 814)

Iloilo (4)Zambales (14)

Ilocos Sur (3)24Tarlac (13)Catanduanes

Other provinces (18)sub-province(12)
Bataan (8)Iloilo (8)Isabela (7)Siquijor (7)Capiz (7)Cavite (6)Antique (6)Pampanga (4)La Union (3)Zamboanga (3)Surigao (3)Misamis (3)Other provinces (7)Source: The Government of the Philippine Islands（1921:577–733）

25

Table 3. Number of firms engaged in embroidery, shoemaking, and slipper making (as of 1940)
Embroidery

Piña

Jusi

Sinamay

production

production

production

Shoemaking

RubberSlipper-

Abaca

soled

makingslippershoemaking
Numberofmaking

94

22

15

11

53

1

69

22

Distribution

Manila (39)

Camarines

Manila (6)Manila (5)Manila (30)

Manila (1)ManilaManila (8)of firms by

Bulacan (15)Sur (22)

Rizal (4)

Albay (2)Cebu (9)(54)

Albay (5)province

Cebu (9)ManilaIloilo (4)Rizal (2)Pangasinan

Cebu (6)Camarines(number)

Iloilo (7)(12)

Capiz (1)Sorsogon(4)

Rizal (3)Sur (3)

Ilocos Sur (7)Iloilo (4)(1)

Rizal (3)Iloilo (2)Iloilo (3)Tayabas (5)Capiz (2)Iloilo (1)Laguna (2)Cavite (1)Capiz (2)Pampanga (4)Rizal (1)Tayabas (2)Bulacan

Sorsogon

Batangas (4)Camarines

(1)

(1)

Albay (3)Sur (2)

Pangasinan

firms

Laguna (1)(1)
Pampanga(1)

Source: Commonwealth of the Philippines（1940）

26

Table 4. Exports of embroidered cotton and linen from the Philippines (1913–1932)
Year

Export value (pesos)

1913

352,338

1914

176,912

1915

735,301

1916

2,328,014

1917

3,929,318

1918

4,319,501

1919

6,913,004

1920

15,623,567

1921

10,696,207

1922

6,514,597

1923

12,746,529

1924

9,377,943

1925

9,122,961

1926

11,984,778

1927

8,006,952

1928

9,047,936

1929

12,023,065

1930

7,183,473

1931

5,314,259

1932

6,699,649

Source: Waddington（1920:178), The Philippine Herald Year Book (1933:72)

27