Search

SUMMARY It is the purpose of the present paper to replace the traditional theory of industrial stages by a better model based on the criteria of capital and control. In constructing the new model we became aware of the fact it is necessary to distinguish between 'capital'-intensive and 'capital'-extensive industries and again within the latter between those which worked for local consumption and for the export trade, respectively. Only for the 'capital'-extensive industries working for the export trade something like stages in the industrial development can be discovered. In fact, the stage reached in these industries in the eighteenth century brought them organizationally close to the older 'capital'-intensive industries, so that for that period we subsume both under the head of protofactory. The protofactory of the model based on capital and control shows the essential characteristics of the factory, although in reality there were some elements distinguishing the protofactory from the full-fledged factory. In the second section of the paper we describe in detail the organizational features of the protofactory after clearing up the etymological confusion in that ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Der Beitrag zielt darauf ab, die traditionelle Theorie der industriellen Stufen durch ein auf den Kriterien ≪Kapital≫ und ≪KontroIle≫ basierendes, besseres Modell zu ersetzen. Beim Aufbau dieses neuen Modells zeigte sich die Notwendig-keit einer Unterscheidung zwischen kapitahntensiven und kapitalextensiven Industrien, welche letztere wiederum unterteilt werden mussen in solche, die fiir den einheimischen Verbrauch arbeiten, und solche, die fiir den Export produ-zieren. Nur fiir die im Export tatigen kapitalextensiven Industrien lasst sich so etwas wie Stadien der industriellen Entwicklung entdecken. In der Tat brachte das Stadium, welches diese Industrien im 18. Jahrhundert erreicht hatten, sie organisatorisch in enge Verbindung zu den alteren, kapitahntensiven Industrien, so dass fiir jene Periode beide unter dem Oberbegriff'Ur-Fabrik' (protofactory) zusammengefasst werden konnen. Das auf ≪Kapital≫ und ≪K.ontrolle≫ aufge-baute Modell der Urfabrik bringt wesentliche Merkmale der Fabrik zum Aus-druck, obwohl sich in Wirklichkeit die Urfabrik von der fliigge gewordenen Fabrik in einigen Punkten unterschied. Im zweiten Teil der Arbeit werden die organisatorischen Grundziige der Urfabrik im Detail beschrieben; zuvor wird die in diesem Bereich herrschende etymologische Verwirrung geklart. Abschliessend wird gezeigt, dass weder der im organisatorischen Aufbau der Industrie tatige Geschaftsmann noch der zeit-genossische Okonom erfasst hatten, was sich vor ihren Augen abspielte. Es brauchte Jahrzehnte, bis der Industrielle die Notwendigkeit regelmassiger Ab-schreibungen erkannte, und der klassische Okonom lehrte noch lange die inverse Korrelation zwischen Lohn und Profit und die Vcrschiebbarkeit des Kapitals von Industrie zu Industrie, nachdem diese beidenfiir das putting-out system typischen Wesensziige mit dem Erscheinen der Urfabrik verschwunden waren. RÉSUMÉ Cet article a pour but, de remplacer la théorie traditionelle des stades industriels par un modèle meilleur, basé sur les critères de capital et de contrǒ1e. En construisant ce nouveau modèle, nous nous rendons compte de la nécessité, de distinguer entre industries intensives en capital et celles extensives en capital et ces dernieres de nouveau, en celles qui travaillent pour la consommation interne, et celles qui produisent pour l'exportation. C'est uniquement pour les industries extensives en capital produisant pour l'exportation, qu'on peut d^couvrir des soi-disants stades du developpement industriels. En fait, le stade atteint dans ces industries au dix-huitieme siecle les amenait du point de vue de I'organisation en relation étroite avec les industries plus vieilles et intensives en capital, de facon a ce que pour cette periode, les deux pouvaient ětre résumés sous le terme de ≪protofabrique≫. La protofabrique du modele, basee sur le capital et le contrdle met en relief les principales caracteristiques de l'usine, malgre que la protofabrique se distingue en realite en beaucoup de points de l'usine evoluée. Dans la deuxieme partie de cet article, les elements organisateurs de la protofabrique sont decrits en detail, apres avoir eclairci les confusions etymologiques. Finalement l'auteur montre, que ni le commercant actif dans le developpement organisateur de l'industrie, ni l'economiste classique contemporain ont saisi ce qui se deroulait devant leurs yeux. II a fallu des dixaines d'annees jusqu'a ce que I'industriel reconnaisse Futility d'amortisations regulieres, et l'econome classique enseignait encore longtemps la correlation inverse entre le salaire et le profit et Pajustement du capital d'une industrie a l'autre, malgre que ces deux faits typiques par le 'putting-out system', avaient disparu avec l'apparition de la protofabrique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper first analyzes the question why did Czarist Russia and Ottoman Turkey fall behind the West? It is argued that interstate rivalry forced West European rulers to respect the private property rights of producers and subjects earlier and to a greater degree than czars or sultans ruling over huge contiguous territories ever had to. Incentives to work were better in Europe than elsewhere. The mobilization of available knowledge for productive purposes was easier than elsewhere. Limited government implied less political obstacles to innovation. Comparatively secure private property ownership in the means of production made the establishment of scarcity prices and the rational allocation of resources easier than elsewhere. Whereas the Western past was feudal, the Russian or Turkish past was patrimonial or even sultanistic. Feudalism is a much better starting point for establishing the rule of law and safe property rights than patrimonialism. The second issue has been the question why Czarist Russia could outperform Ottoman Turkey. Here the political consequences of the Muslim tolerance of slavery and polygyny matter. Being slaves, many members of Ottoman ruling elites were at the mercy of their owner, the sultan. Therefore, they became tools of arbitrary rule. Moreover, the practice of polygyny generated downward social mobility and political instability and thereby added another obstacle to the establishment of safe property rights for producers or merchants. The final issue is the economic prospects of Russia or Turkey. Economic freedom is better in Turkey than in Russia. Moreover, Russia is graying, whereas Turkey may look forward to a growing labor force. Although a rich endowment in natural resources seems to favor Russia, the resource curse has prevented other resource rich countries from developing. Therefore, the Turkish prospect looks much brighter than the Russian one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper uses a game theoretic model to explain empirical research which has revealed higher relational satisfaction among married couples than cohabiting couples, as well as among married couples who did not cohabit before marriage. Despite these findings, in recent decades cohabitation rates have dramatically increased in both Europe and the United States. Instrumental variables estimations on data from 28 industrialized countries and 50 U.S. states show cohabitation strongly correlated with increases in women's labor force participation, where a 10 percent increase in women's labor force participation results in a 6.4 to 14.6 percent increase in cohabitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]