2.6. Conclusions
-
heavy industries have grown more than manufacturing as a whole;
-
the capital per worker has increased a great deal, but has left behind a sub-stantial number of small non-mechanized workshops;
-
the average size of productive units has declined; employment has concentrated in small and medium-size units, while both the very small (below 10 employees) and the very large units (beyond 500) have decreased;
-
during the economic miracle the number of hours worked increased and seasonality decreased;
-
the stock of human capital seems to have increased;
-
industry has been traditionally located in the North-West and is still quite concentrated in spite of the development of the Centre and the North-East;
-
last but not least, most of the listed changes can be attributed mainly to within-sector changes, while structural change has had a minor role, at least apparently.
None of these facts are really unexpected. However, there are some important differences from the norm - i.e. the pattern of industrialization of advanced countries in the 19th century. It is possible to interpret these differences as a creative adaptation to factor endowment (the scarcity of capital and coal) or as serious evidence of backwardness. The choice of one of these interpretations is still an open issue, which will need further research.
Keywords
Population Census Industrial Structure Heavy Industry Total Employment Motive PowerPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.