Discussion Papers In Economics
And Business

Catching up and falling behind in technological progress: the experience of the textile
and chemical industries in Italy between 1904 and 1937

Makiko HINO and Mototsugu FUKUSHIGE

Discussion Paper 14-14

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANCatching up and falling behind in technological progress: the experience of the textile
and chemical industries in Italy between 1904 and 1937

Makiko HINO and Mototsugu FUKUSHIGE

Discussion Paper 14-14

April 2014

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANCatching up and falling behind in technological progress: the experience of the textile
and chemical industries in Italy between 1904 and 1937*

Makiko HINO†

andMototsugu FUKUSHIGE‡

Abstract
We estimate the stocks of patents and their growth rates in the Italian textile and chemicalindustries between 1904 and 1937. The stocks and growth rates by nationality are estimatedfor Italy, France, Germany, the UK, Switzerland, and the USA. The Italian patent stock inthe textile industry followed and attempted to catch up with the stock of the leading countries;
by contrast, that in the chemical industry fell behind during that period. Although growth
rates were similar, Italy’s growth rates fell into the lower group before and after World War
I. Our results indicate that not all Italian industries succeeded in catching up with the leading
countries.
Keywords: technological progress, patent, textile, chemical, Italy
JEL Classification: N62, N63, O31*

Fukushige is grateful to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research A 23243038) for their financial support.
†

Faculty of Commerce, Doshisha University,
Karasuma Higashi-iru, Imadegawa-dori, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto 602-8580, Japan
E-mail address: mahino@doshisha.ac.jp‡
Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University,
1-7, Machikaneyama-cho, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan
E-mail address: mfuku@econ.osaka-u.ac.jp
Phone & Fax: +81-6-6850-5248 (M. Fukushige).
11 Introduction
The Kingdom of Italy was a state founded in 1861 as a result of the unificationof states previously fragmented across the Italian peninsula. Compared with Germany
and the UK, Italy had been a less technically developed country up until World War I(WWI). 1 However, according to Zamagni (1993), Italy’s technical development had
caught up with Germany and the UK in the textile industry by the late 1920s, and in thechemical industry by the early 1930s; thereafter, it started to industrialize intensively.
Figure 1 indicates that the amount of silk yarn and cotton yarn production—the main
products of the textile industry—were stagnant or flat. Nevertheless, the view of Zamagni(1993) that rayon production developed rapidly in the 1930s (Figure 1) and that nitric acidas a flagship product in the chemical industry increased dramatically (Figure 2) ispersuasive to a certain extent.2
However, the increase of production volume does not mean simultaneoustechnical development in the abovementioned industries. For example, Young (1994,
1995) pointed out that total factor productivity (TFP) growth rates of Asian newly1

According to Maddison (1995), there are major differences in GDP between Italy andfive countries: Italian per capita GDP in 1990 evaluated by the 1990 price index was 1746
compared with Germany at 3134, France at 2849, UK at 4593, Switzerland at 3531, andthe USA at 4096 (all in $US). As well as the estimate by Maddison (1995), there are new
estimates by Fenoaltea (2005, 2006) and comparisons by Cohen and Federico (2001) andPrados De La Ecosura (2000) that merely modify Maddison (1995). Therefore, noestimate denies Italy’s backwardness.
2
Data source for rayon yarn is obtained from Annuario statistico italiano (Ministerod'agricoltura, industria e commercio) in each year and data sources for other products arefrom Confederazione fascista degli industriali,annuario staitistico per le industriechimiche 1938 (Confederazione fascista degli industriali, 1939) in Figure 1 and 2.

1

industrialized countries were not particularly high compared with Japan in its highgrowth era.
When considering the pathway from developing country to advanced country,
we usually focus on the level of per capita GDP. However, because in our study period(1904–1937) transportation systems had not developed adequately, there are many studies
showing regional gaps in economic growth within a country. These regional growth gaps
could be attributed to regional differences in industrial growth, which also suggest thepresence of differences in interindustry growth. In this study, we deal with the textile andchemical industries as representative Italian industries and discuss the growth difference
for each industry.3 Regrettably, because there are no specific data regarding labor input
and capital input for the respective industries, it is not easy to analyze TFP growth foreach industry in this period. Therefore, we study the number of patents issued as a variable
that is barely affected by TFP change at a country and industry level. This approach isinspired by Madsen (2008) who shows that patent stock contributes to TFP growth foreach country. 4 We selected the textile and chemical industries partly because of theirimportance in the period, but mainly because of the number of patents applied for andissued, which appears to be related to the international diffusion of technology.
In an analysis of the number of patents issued and the stock in the first half ofthe twentieth century, it should be recalled that the Paris Convention for the Protection ofIndustrial Property was signed in 1883 by 11 countries. This was one of the first3

Von Tunzelmann (2000) shows the difference between technological change andproductivity change in the USA, the UK, and Germany, but we focus only ontechnological change.
4
According to Madsen (2008), international patent stock contributes to TFP growth ofrespective OECD countries.
2

intellectual property treaties and is still in force in 2014 (Lerner, 2000).5 We must lookcarefully to distinguish patents in Italy not lodged by Italian inventors and Italiancompanies. In other words, patentees include many economic agents in the USA and other
European countries; therefore, we cannot measure the level of technology at the time bysimply analyzing the number of patents issued and their stock. We therefore look at thenationality of the patentees of patents issued in Italy, along with our comparison ofcountries’ issuance and stocks of patents. 6 We consider the following six countries:
Germany, France, the UK, Switzerland, the US, and Italy.7
Taking into account that Italy had by 1930’s caught up economically withGermany and the UK, the acquisition of Italian patent rights by foreign companies andindividuals can be explained as preventing losses from imitation by Italian companies.
Analyzing the nationality of the patentee in Italy may account for the capacity fortechnological development of each country in an indirect way. In other words, paying
attention to the nationality of the Italian patentee makes it possible to compare thecapacity of industrial technological development of the six countries included in thisstudy.
The aim of this paper is to compare the quality of industrial development in Italy
with five countries by analyzing the nationality of patentees in the representative Italian
textile and chemical industries between 1904 and 1937. The paper is structured as follows.
5

Nevertheless, even today, the intellectual property protection system of any specificcountry does not provide automatic protection for intellectual property internationally(Lerner, 2000).
6
Nicholas (2011) points out the importance of domestic patents for technologicalmodernization in Japan.
7
We are not concerned here with Austria, because it is difficult to make a comparison ofchanges before and after WWI.
3

Section 2 surveys the relevant literature on the relationship between the Italian economy
and patent rights in the period. Section 3 describes our data and explains the method of
calculating the patent stock. Section 4 calculates the growth rate of the patent stock in two
periods: before and after WWI, and finds a proxy variable for the technologicaldevelopment of each country, based on the estimated patent stock in Section 3. The
technological level and growth of Italy compared with the other five countries in thisstudy are examined in Section 5. Section 6 concludes and identifies remaining issues for
future study.

2 Literature survey
Aftalion (2001) provides a historical explanation of the general technology of
the chemical industry examined in this paper. According to Streb, Baten and Yin (2006),
technological transfer to Italy and other countries in the textile and chemical industries
occurred in the first half of the twentieth century, with dyes from 1887 to 1896 andchemicals more generally from 1897 to 1902 to Germany. Richter and Streb (2011)
analyzed the presence of a patent lag for machine toolmaking in Germany compared with
the USA, the leading country for international technological transfer in this period. Thisis a helpful reference for our study on the relationship between Italy and more developed
countries. Streb, Wallusch and Yin (2007) also examined knowledge spillovers in the
textile and chemical industries in Germany.
For Italy’s economic history at the time we refer to Zamagni (1993), Cohen andFederico (2001) and Fenoaltea (2011). For the first half of the twentieth century,
Maddison (1995) presents historical GDP statistics for Italy, as well as other European

4

countries and the USA. Following Gerschenkron’s (1962) view, several researchers
analyzed Maddison’s data or others’ to study economic backwardness.
Some previous studies analyzed the effect of the unification of Italy in 1861 on
Italy’s process of catching up with developed countries. Esposto (1992) examined thedifferences between regions’ speeds of catching up. Ciccarelli, Fenoaltea and Proietti(2010) analyzed the effect of the unification of Italy on regional convergence. Bardini(1997) points out that the process of catching up in this period was delayed by a lack ofenergy sources, in particular, a dependence on imports of coal. Furthermore, according toTortella (1994), levels of education and literacy rates were important factors. Mattesiniand Quintieri (1997) examined the cause of the Great Depression in the interwar period,
concluding that in Italy it was due to the increase of real wages rather than the financial
system.
For studies of TFP, Rossi and Toniolo (1992) analyzed TFP from 1895 to 1947
using national data for capital and labor input. Broadberry, Giordano and Zollino (2011)
examined TFP between 1861 and 2010; however, their analysis was limited tomacroeconomics by their Banca d’Italia data. Amidei, Cantwell and Spadavecchia (2011)used patent data to study the relationship between foreign technology and thedevelopment of domestic technology in Italian industries, including patents issued abroad
by Italian applicants. In this study, they analyzed technology importation, foreign direct
investment and research or development as a general analysis of technologicaldevelopment and technology importation from foreign countries. 8 However, because
their study covers a much longer period than the first half of the twentieth century, there

8

In this study, they examined industrial designs and trademarks as well as patenting
activity.
5

is insufficient emphasis on the period of our study. A further difference is that Amidei,
Cantwell and Spadavecchia (2011) analyzed the technological level, based on a revealed
technological advantage index calculating the share of patents issued to Italian applicantsby the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); by contrast, we examine thepatent stock and its growth rate. Their index allows comparison of the growth rate oftechnology of different countries with respect to the growth rate of technology in US.
Sella and Marchionatti (2012) show that the Italian economy before WWI
suffered large economic fluctuations. Giannetti, Federico and Toninelli (1994) analyzed
industry-level growth rates, showing that these differences related closely totechnological development. Further, Fenoaltea (2003) explains that the textile industry
was seven times as large as the chemical industry in 1861, but only about twice as large
in 1961; thus, the difference between the textile and chemical industries lessened as aresult of the rapid growth of the chemical industry. According to Felice and Carreras(2012), the textile industry’s output increased from 8.6% of Italy’s total productions in1911 to 10.9% in 1938; by contrast, the chemical industry (including rubber) grew rapidly
from 3.4% to 12.9% of GDP.

3 Data and imputation
We use the number of patents issued and the nationality of applicants obtained
from XIX Filature, tessile e industria complementare and XXIV Industrie chimiche
diverse in the Bollettino della proprietà industriale (Ministero d'agricoltura, industria ecommercio) in each year. This provides data on the number of patent applications in Italy
by applicant nationality. The years 1909 and 1910 are absent, as are data for German
nationals between 1917 and 1919.
6

We can first assume that patent applications were not made by Germans for thethree years (1917–1919) during WWI and its aftermath, because Germany was abelligerent country. Second, we interpolate the number of patents issued to foreigners ofeach country for 1909 and 1910, based on the share of foreign-filed patents in Italy in1908 and 1911, as follows. Let 𝑦(𝑖)𝑗 be the number of patents issued of the ith nationality
in j year for a specific industry, and let 𝑌𝑗 be the total number of patents issued for thisindustry in Italy; then the number of such patents in 1909 isy(Italy)1909 = Y1909 ×y(Italy)1908 +y(Italy)1911
Y1908 +Y1911.

Figures 3 and 4 show the number of patents issued in the textile and chemicalindustries, respectively, including the interpolated data for 1904–1937. They clearly showa spike in the number of patents issued in 1923 and 1924, after WWI. We believe that thisspike derives from a concentration of applications from ex-belligerent countries and fromthe postwar changes in the region, including newly independent countries. For this reason,
we do not examine the change in the number of patents issued each year, but the stock ofpatents based on the number issued to foreign applicants. One reason is that temporary
delays or retarding of issuance has little effect on the growth rate of the stock. It is possiblethat this would result in the period following this concentration being underestimated. We
will refer to this point again in Section 4.
The stock of patents issued to each country’s applicants up to 1904 must be
estimated to analyze the patent stock and its growth rate. These data are not available forthe textile and chemical industries before 1903. Therefore, we estimate pre-1903 patents
by the ratio of patents issued by each country for the abovementioned industries to the7number of patents issued in Italy between 1904 and 1908 from the Bollettino della
proprietà industriale each year. Let Zj be the number of patents issued in Italy to Italianapplicants for all industries; for example, the number of patents issued to Italianapplicants in 1900 isy(Italy)1900 =Z1908 ×∑1908
t=1904 y(Italy)t∑1908
t=1904 Zt.

Because Zj is available from 1886, we examine the number of patents issued in eachcountry from 1886 to 1903.
The patent depreciation rate is required to estimate the patent stock. Because
patent duration at this time was no longer than 15 years, we assume a 10% residual after
15 years, while the annual depreciation rate is 14.23%. We assume the patent stock to be
zero at 1885 and the patent stock in i country in t year is s(i)t , so the stock of patents to
Italian applicants in t year iss(Italy)t = y(Italy)t + s(Italy)t−1 × (1 − 0.1423), t = 1986 to 1937.

This may be an underestimate given that the patent life is at most 15 years. However, thedepreciation rate may be overestimated in the few years after the Italian patent system
was instituted, when no patents were depreciating. We tested some alternative values forthe depreciation rate, but the results were little changed. Furthermore, because the 18
years from 1886 to 1904 are longer than the patent life, the post-1904 stock will be little
affected by the 1886 stock of patents. Figures 5 and 6 show the available patent stocks inthe textile and chemical industries, respectively, from 1904 to 1937 based on our
8estimates. We have used a logarithmic transformation for the ordinate axis to show
growth rates. Our estimation method for the patent stock is the same as that of Hall, Jaffe
and Trajtenberg (2005); however, they use a depreciation rate of 15% as is conventional.
When we select the 15% rate, our results in the following sections are hardly affected.

4 Growth rate estimation
Before we analyze Figures 5 and 6 using the patent stock estimates in Section 3,
we first examine the average growth rate of the stock. As shown in these figures, thepatent stock fell drastically from 1914 to 1920 because of WWI. We believe that this fall
was temporary. We divide our period into two: the 11 years from 1904 to 1914, and the
14 years from 1924 to 1937. We ignore the intervening period as too disrupted by WWI.
Figures 5 and 6 show these two periods clearly and illustrate our reason for excluding the
middle period. We transform the time trend logarithmically to analyze growth rates of thepatent capital stock. The time variable, TRENDt, takes the value of the year, that is, ittakes the value 1904 in the year 1904. The average Italian growth rate is thens(Italia)t = +*TRENDt +εt , t = 1904, … ,1914 & 𝑡 = 1924, … ,1937.

The average growth rate of the first period and the second period, (), is analyzed; theerror term is 𝜀𝑡 . The results are shown in Tables 1 and 2 and we discuss these growth rates
in the next section. Most results are statistically significant; however, the Durbin–Watson
ratio (DW) suggests the presence of serial correlation in the error term. To obtain the
average growth rate in this period, it is not important to have an efficient estimator of theregression coefficient.
95 Comparisons of technological growth
We compare technological progress using the above graphs (Figure 5 and 6) andour estimates of patent stocks. First, the number of patents issued to Italian applicants inthe textile industry is not far short of the number issued to German applicants before WWI
as shown in Figure 3. This appears to continue after WWI. When we compare patent
stocks, we can see that the number issued to Italian applicants caught up with the number
issued to German applicants in 1917 and remained higher until 1937 (Figure 5). However,
because Germany has the higher growth rate, it is implied that the stock issued to German
applicants caught up with that of Italian applicants by 1937. It is easy to assume that thegrowth rate issues to German applicants maintained a high level of about 8.0% in the first
period and about 6.3% in the second period. On the other hand, the growth rate issues to
Italian applicants were about 6.1% in the first period, but decreased drastically to 3.0%
in the second period. The growth rates in the number of patents issued and stock issues
to German applicants maintained a high level, while those to applicants from the USA,
Switzerland, and the UK also maintained a high level in the second period; in particular,
the growth rate issues to UK applicants exceeded the growth rate of those to US, Swiss,and Italian applicants (Figure 5, Table 1). The growth rate of issues to French applicants
was much lower than that to Italian applicants, resulting in an almost zero growth rate in
the second period (Table 1). Our conjecture is that these results show stagnant
technological progress.
On the other hand, it is clear that the number of patents issued to Italianapplicants in the chemical industry was much lower than that to German applicants in1910 (Figure 4), and the difference between these countries disappeared after 1929. In
the case of the stock of patents issued, we find that the stock issued to Italian applicants10caught up with the stock issued to German applicants because of the disruption of WWI;
however, after 1925, the level of the stock issued to Italian applicants stagnated andGermany overtook Italy. We can see that the growth rate of German applicants was ashigh as 8.8% in the first period and about 8.4% in the second period (Table 2), while thegrowth rate of Italian applicants stagnated, at about 3.5% in the first period and at about–0.5% in the second period.
When we examine the growth rate of issues to Italian applicants, only the numberof patents issued and their stock remained high. While the growth rates of applicants fromcountries such as the USA, Switzerland, and the UK were slow, they maintained growth
rates from 2.1% to 5.7%. This result represents the steady development of the chemicalindustry in the abovementioned countries in contrast to stagnation in Italy. For the otherstagnating country, France, the growth rate is estimated at –1.0% in the second period, as
is the case for Italy.
When the number of patents issued in the textile and chemical industries in Italyis examined, the large number by Italian applicants might be expected. Nevertheless, weshould not overlook the share of patents issued to German applicants who had the latest
technologies and knowledge. Based on the growth rate, Italy ranked fifth or sixth of thesix countries in both the textile and chemical industries, in both our first and second
periods. These results indicate that the textile industry in Italy followed the German trend
in the number of patents issued and the stock issued to Italian applicants; however, in thechemical industry, Germany extended its strong lead on Italy. In particular, after WWI,
technological stagnation in the chemical industry is evident, while the growth rate of the
textile industry is much the same as in the UK, Switzerland, and the USA. These results
clearly contrast with each other. The level of the growth rate depends on the depreciation11

rate used for estimating the patent stock, but when each country has a nearly identicaldepreciation rate, the ranking of the growth rates and level trends are largely similar.

6 Conclusion
We examined the technological development of the textile and chemicalindustries in six countries including Italy, based on the number of patents issued in Italy
to applicants from six developed countries. For the six countries in this study, ourestimated growth rates show a low ranking of technological development of the textile
and chemical industries in Italy before and after WWI. It is clear that Italy was inferior toGermany in the growth rates of both industries. Furthermore, while the textile industry
maintained a certain growth and level even after WWI, in the chemical industry, only
France failed to prevail against Italy. Germany exercised a preponderant influence on
Italy, one that was far greater than the other five countries.
Thus, we can confirm that Italy was not a high-growth country among the target
six counties in terms of technological development. We can conclude from our resultsthat Italy was a less developed country at that time. In particular, the stagnation of thechemical industry was quite serious by comparison with the textile industry. Hence, in
Italy, not all Italian industries promoted technological catch-up to the leading countries.
It is clear that the Italian textile industry attempted to catch up with Germany as well asother developed countries. On the other hand, the Italian chemical industry fell behindthe leading country, Germany, as well as the other countries. The circumstances of thetwo industries were different. Quah (1997) showed that some countries succeeded incatching up with developed countries while others failed. Our study has shown that Italy
over our time period is a case where there were industries that were technologically12developing and others that stagnated. Of course, we have only compared two industries.
Therefore, when the technological trends of all Italian industries are examined, or otherindustries are analyzed using our method, these cases might differ from the results of thisstudy. Furthermore, this study of patent issuance has not yet led to the analysis of theeffect of the patent stock on growth in each industry and economic growth at the national
level. It is important to examine the effect of patents on the economy specifically. For
example, Pistoresi and Rinaldi (2012) show that Italy ran large trade deficits from 1900,
which increased until the second half of the 1930s when the trade balance improved. The
question is whether there is a relationship between technological development and thetrade balance. Finally, this analysis is heavily dependent on the stock of patents. The
accuracy of our estimates may be critical to our results.
These issues should be addressed by using other data over a long period or
analyzing the number of patents in each industry of other countries.

13

References
Aftalion F (2001) A history of the international chemical industry. Chemical Heritage Foundation,
Philadelphia, USA.
Amidei FB, Cantwell J, Spadavecchia A (2011) Innovation and foreign technology in Italy, 1861–
2011. Banca d’Italia, Rome.
Bardini C (1997) Without coal in the age of steam: a factor-endowment explanation of the Italianindustrial lag before World War I. J Econ Hist 57(03): 633–653.
Broadberry SN, Giordano C, Zollino F (2011) A sectoral analysis of Italy’s development: 1861–
2010. Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Ciccarelli C, Fenoaltea S, Proietti T (2010) The effects of unification: markets, policy, and cyclicalconvergence in Italy, 1861–1913. Cliometrica 4(3): 269–292.
Cohen J, Federico G (2001) The growth of the Italian economy, 1820–1960. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Esposto AG (1992) Italian industrialization and the Gerschenkronian “great spurt”: a regional
analysis. J Econ Hist 52(02): 353–362.
Felice E, Carreras A (2012) When did modernization begin? Italy’s industrial growth reconsideredin light of new value-added series, 1911–1951. Explor Econ Hist 49(4): 443–460.
Fenoaltea S (2003) Notes on the rate of industrial growth in Italy, 1861–1913. J Econ Hist 63(3):695–735.
Fenoaltea S (2005) The growth of the Italian economy, 1861–1913: preliminary secondgeneration estimates. Europ Rev Econ Hist 9(3): 273–312.
Fenoaltea S (2006) The reconstruction of historical national accounts: the case of Italy. In XIV
International Economic History Congress, Helsinki.
Fenoaltea S (2011) The reinterpretation of Italian economic history: from unification to the Great
War. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gerschenkron A (1962) Economic backwardness in historical perspective. Harvard University
Press, MA, USA.
Giannetti R, Federico G, Toninelli PA (1994) Size and strategy of Italian industrial enterprises(1907–1940): empirical evidence and some conjectures. Industrial Corporate Change
3(2): 491–512.
Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J Econ 36(1):
16–38.
Lerner J (2000) 150 years of patent protection (No. w7478). NBER, New York.
Maddison A (1995) Monitoring the world economy, 1820–1992. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Madsen JB (2008) Economic growth, TFP convergence and the world export of ideas: a century
of evidence. Scand J Econ 110(1): 145–167.
14

Mattesini F, Quintieri B (1997) Italy and the Great Depression: an analysis of the Italian economy,
1929–1936. Explor Econ Hist 34(3): 265–294.
Nicholas T (2011) The origins of Japanese technological modernization. Explor Econ Hist 48(2):272–291.
Pistoresi B, Rinaldi A (2012) Exports, imports and growth: new evidence on Italy: 1863–2004.
Explor Econ Hist 49(2): 241–254.
Prados De La Ecosura L (2000) International comparisons of real product, 1820–1990: analternative data set. Explor Econ Hist 37(1): 1–41.
Quah DT (1997) Empirics for growth and distribution: stratification, polarization, andconvergence clubs. J Econ Growth 2(1): 27–59.
Richter R, Streb J (2011) Catching-up and falling behind: knowledge spillover from American toGerman machine toolmakers. J Econ Hist 71(04): 1006–1031.
Rossi N, Toniolo G (1992) Catching up or falling behind? Italy’s economic growth, 1895–1947.
Econ Hist Rev 45(3): 537–563.
Sella L, Marchionatti R (2012) On the cyclical variability of economic growth in Italy, 1881–
1913: a critical note. Cliometrica 6(3): 307–328.
Streb J, Baten J, Yin S (2006) Technological and geographical knowledge spillover in the German
empire 1877–1918. Econ Hist Rev 59(2): 347–373.
Streb J, Wallusch J, Yin S (2007) Knowledge spill-over from new to old industries: the case ofGerman synthetic dyes and textiles (1878–1913). Explor Econ Hist 44(2): 203–223.
Tortella G (1994) Patterns of economic retardation and recovery in south-western Europe in thenineteenth and twentieth centuries. Econ Hist Rev 47(1): 1–21.
von Tunzelmann GN (2000) Technology generation, technology use and economic growth. Europ
Rev Econ Hist 4(2): 121–146.
Young A (1994) Lessons from the East Asian NICs: a contrarian view. Europ Econ Rev 38(3):964–973.
Young A (1995) The tyranny of numbers: confronting the statistical realities of the East Asian
growth experience. Q J Econ 110(3): 641–680.
Zamagni V (1993). The economic history of Italy 1860–1990. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Data
Confederazione fascista degli industriali (1939) Annuario staitistico per le industrie chimiche
1938, Rome:Tipografia.
Ministero d'agricoltura, industria e commercio (each year) Bollettino della proprieta intellettuale,
Rome: Istituto poligrafico dello stato.
Ministero dell'interno, Direzione generale di statistica (each year) Annuario statistico italiano, Rome:
Istituto poligrafico dello stato G.C.
15

Table 1 Estimation results for the textile industry
Countries

Periods.e. of s.e. of 

R2

DW

Italy

1904–1914

5.39945**0.02388

0.061221**

0.003521

0.9711

1.092

1924–1937

5.82002**0.084350.030392**

0.003035

0.89311.280

1904–1914

5.44584**

0.026030.079726**

0.003838

0.9796

1.226

1924–1937

4.62375**

0.142160.063326**

0.005115

0.92740.7654

1904–1914

4.98084**0.016990.060730**

0.002505

0.98492.372

1924–1937

5.72074**

0.09604–0.0007258

0.003455

0.00371.160

1904–1914

4.81357**

0.02978

0.021365**

0.004391

0.7246

1.033

1924–1937

4.51522**0.183850.040107**

0.006615

0.75390.649

1904–1914

4.24071**0.04032

0.086863**

0.005946

0.95950.811

1924–1937

4.21817**0.175770.049426**

0.006324

0.83580.624

1904–1914

4.19055**

0.019020.064586**

0.002805

0.9833

1.968

1924–1937

4.38656**

0.21138

0.036715**

0.007605

0.6601

0.532

Germany

FranceUK
Switzerland
USA

Differencein –0.0308–0.0164–0.06800.0187–0.0374–0.0279

Note 1. ** means statistically significant at 1% and s.e. of  and DW mean standard error of estimated  and Durbin–Watson ratio,
respectively.
Note 2. Difference in  means difference between estimated  from 1904–1914 to 1924–1937.
Note 3. Largest order of  1904–1914: Switzerland, Germany, the USA, Italy, France, and the UK; 1924–1937: Germany, Switzerland, theUK, the USA, Italy, and France.

16

Table 2 Estimation results for the chemical industry
Countries

Periods.e. of s.e. of 

R2

DW

Italy

1904–1914

5.96554**0.02961

0.035101**

0.004365

0.87780.936

1924–1937

6.75914**0.09557–0.0055927

0.003438

0.1806

1.186

1904–1914

6.04826**

0.028910.088305**

0.004262

0.9795

1.052

1924–1937

4.88380**0.150990.084429**

0.005432

0.95270.720

1904–1914

5.07454**0.03434

0.052815**

0.005064

0.9236

1.494

1924–1937

6.37502**0.08578–0.010332

0.003086

0.48290.920

1904–1914

4.33957**

0.027815

0.065629**

0.004101

0.96600.717

1924–1937

5.11036**

0.12480.020832**

0.004489

0.64220.760

1904–1914

3.36926**

0.03653

0.113663**

0.005386

0.9802

1.628

1924–1937

3.82234**

0.14100.057525**

0.005071

0.91470.820

1904–1914

4.05592**

0.033845

0.055935**

0.004990

0.9332

3.006

1924–1937

4.63237**0.12050.047107**

0.004334

0.90780.918

Germany

FranceUK
Switzerland
USA

Differencein –0.0407–0.00388–0.0631–0.0448–0.0591–0.00883

Note 1. ** means statistically significant at 1% and s.e. of  and DW mean standard error of estimated  and Durbin–Watson ratio,
respectively.
Note 2. Difference in  means difference between estimated  from 1904–1914 to 1924–1937.
Note 3. Largest order of  1904–1914: Switzerland, Germany, the UK, the USA, France, and Italy; 1924–1937: Germany, Switzerland, theUSA, the UK, Italy, and France.

17

50,000

45,00040,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,000
5,000
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937

0

raw silk (in tons)

rayon yarn (in tons)

Figure 1 Trend in some products of the textile industry in Italy
18

cotton yarn (in quintals)

300000

250000200000150000100000

50000

1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937

0

hydrochloric acidnitric acid

Figure 2 Trend in some products of the chemical industry in Italy
19

caustic soda

1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Italy
GermanFranceUK

Figure 3 Number of patents of the textile industry
20

Switzerland
USA

1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Italy
GermanFranceUK

Figure 4 Number of patents of the chemical industry
21

Switzerland
USA

1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

Italy
GermanFranceUK

Figure 5 Trend in the number of patents of the textile industry
22

Switzerland
USA

1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

Italy
GermanFranceUK

Figure 6 Number of patents of the chemical industry
23

Switzerland
USA