Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T01:44:17.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Catching-Up and Falling Behind: Knowledge Spillover from American to German Machine Toolmakers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2011

RALF RICHTER  and
JOCHEN STREB
RALF RICHTER*
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Hans Böckler Foundation, Hans-Böckler-Straße 39, 40476 Düsseldorf, Germany. E-mail: Ralf-Richter@boeckler.de.
JOCHEN STREB*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hohenheim (570a), 70593 Stuttgart, Germany. E-mail: j-streb@uni-hohenheim.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Today, German machine toolmakers accuse their Chinese competitors of violating patent rights and imitating German technology. A century ago, German machine toolmakers used the same methods to imitate American technology. To understand the dynamics of this catching-up process, we use patent statistics to analyze firms’ activities between 1877 and 1932. We show that German firms deployed imitating strategies in the late nineteenth century and the 1920s to catch-up to their American competitors. The German administration supported this strategy by stipulating a patent law that discriminated against foreign patent holders and by delaying the granting of patents to foreign applicants.

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 1006 - 1031
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abramovitz, Moses. “Catching-Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind.” The Journal of Economic History 46, no. 2 (1986): 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aghion, Phillipe. “Higher Education and Innovation.” Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 9 (Special edition 2008): 28 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Machinist, various years.Google Scholar
Argumentationshilfe aus dem VDMA zum Stichwort Produktpiraterie, Press release VDMA, March 2008.Google Scholar
Boldrin, Michele, and David, K. Levine. Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Hans-Joachim. “Technologietransfer im Maschinenbau von Deutschland in die USA,1870–1939.” Technikgeschichte 50,2 (1983): 238–52.Google Scholar
Brown, William H. “Innovation in the Machine Tool Industry.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 71, no. 4 (1957): 406–25.Google Scholar
Buchheim, Christoph. “What Causes Late Development? Insights from History.” South African Journal of Economic History 21, no. 1 (2006): 52–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundesarchiv Berlin-Lichterfelde, Stenographischer Bericht über die Besprechung in den Geschäftsräumen des Vereins Deutscher Werkzeugmaschinenfabriken, 5 September 1916, R 8099/259, 26–32.Google Scholar
Burhop, Carsten. “The Transfer of Patents in Imperial Germany.” The Journal of Economic History 70, no. 4 (2010): 921–39.Google Scholar
Cincinnati Historical Society Library, Milacron, Series Frederick V. Geier, Box 53: Amortization of Machine Tools, May 1930.Google Scholar
Burhop, Carsten. Milacron, Series: Misc. Folders (Schwartz), Box 1, Folder Litigation Compilation.Google Scholar
Burhop, Carsten. Milacron, Series: Executives Personal History (Schwartz), Box B-H, Folder Sol Einstein: Einstein, Sol, I do remember—men, machines, and the plants behind the Cincinatti Milling Machine Company, August 1972.Google Scholar
Degner, Harald. “Schumpeterian German Firms Before and After World War I: The Innovative Few and the Non-Innovative Many.” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 54, 1 (2009): 50–72.Google Scholar
Degner, Harald. “Do Technological Booms Matter? New Evidence on the Relationship Between Firm Size and Innovativeness.” Cliometrica 5, 2 (2011): 121–44.Google Scholar
Degner, Harald and Streb, Jochen. “Foreign Patenting in Germany, 1877–1932.” FZID Discussion Papers 21, Hohenheim 2010.Google Scholar
Gebr. Heinemann AG, 1877–1937. St. Georgen im Schwarzwald: 1937.Google Scholar
Goodfriend, Marvin and McDermott, John. “Industrial Development and the Convergence Question.” American Economic Review 88, no. 5 (1998): 1277–89.Google Scholar
Grupp, Hariolf, Dominguez-Lacasa, Icias, and Friedrich-Nishio, Monika. Das deutsche Innovationssystem seit der Reichsgründung. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden, 11125/15632; Ministerium für Kultus und öffentlichen Unterricht, Dresden an Rektor und Senat der Technischen Hochschule Dresden, 27 February 1923.Google Scholar
Herrmann, Klaus. Pflügen, Säen, Ernten. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1985.Google Scholar
Jeremy, David J., ed. International Technology Transfer: Europe, Japan, and the USA, 1700–1914. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1991.Google Scholar
Kahn, Zorina. “Looking Backward: Founding Choices in Innovation and Intellectual Property Protection.” In Founding Choices: American Economic Policy in the 1790s, edited by Irwin, Douglas and Sylla, Richard, 315–42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Kelly, Morgan. “Technological Progress Under Learning by Imitating.” International Economic Review 50, no. 2 (2009): 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesewetter, Hubert. “Beasts or Beagles? Amerikanische Unternehmen in Deutschland.” In Der Einfluß ausländischer Unternehmen auf die deutsche Wirtschaft vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, edited by Pohl, Hans, 165–96. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1992.Google Scholar
Kotabe, Masaaki. “A Comparative Study of U.S. and Japanese Patent Systems.” Journal of International Business Studies 23, no. 1 (1992): 147–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labuske, Kirsten and Streb, Jochen. “Technological Creativity and Cheap Labour? Explaining the Growing International Competitiveness of German Mechanical Engineering Before World War I.” German Economic Review 9, no. 1 (2008): 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, David S. The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landesarchiv Berlin, Bestand Ludwig Loewe, A. Rep. 250/01/18/Karton 110 u. 130.Google Scholar
Miller, Fred J. American and Other Machinery Abroad: Being a Study of the European Field for the Introduction of American Machinery. New York: Press of the American Machinist, 1897.Google Scholar
Miller, Fred J. “German Tool Shop.” American Machinist (November 1898): 818.Google Scholar
Mokyr, Joel. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Moser, Petra. “How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs.” American Economic Review 95, no. 4 (2005): I214–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murmann, Johann Peter. Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Penrose, B., and Williams, J.S.. Duties on Metals and Manufacturers of Metals. Committe on Finance, United States Senate. Washington, DC: GPO, 1912.Google Scholar
Produkt- und Markenpiraterie in der Investitionsgüterindustrie 2008, Press release VDMA, April 2008.Google Scholar
J. E. Reinecker Chemnitz, 1859–1909. Leipzig: Meisenbach Riffarth, 1909.Google Scholar
Richter, Ralf. “Der amerikanische und deutsche Werkzeugmaschinenbau zwischen Konvergenz und Divergenz, 1870–1933.” Ph.D. Diss., Bielefeld, 2012.Google Scholar
Robertson, Robert M. “Changing Production of Metalworking Machinery, 1860–1920.” In Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States After 1800, edited by Barry, D. S., 479–96. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Seckelmann, Margrit. Industrialisierung, Internationalisierung und Patentrecht im Deutschen Reich, 1871–1914. Frankfurt/Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2006.Google Scholar
Spur, Günter, and Fischer, Wolfram, ed. Georg Schlesinger und die Wissenschaft vom Fabrikbetrieb. Munich: Hanser Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
Staatsarchiv Chemnitz, Schätzungsprotokolle über Betriebsgegenstände, 1915, 31007/131.Google Scholar
Staatsarchiv Chemnitz Bestand Wanderer-Werke, VDW to Wanderer-Werke, 23 January 1931, 31030/WW3617.Google Scholar
Statistisches Reichsamt. Monatliche Nachweise über den auswärtigen Handel Deutschlands. Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht, 1900–1933.Google Scholar
Statistisches Reichsamt. Statistik des Deutschen Reichs. Alte Folge, Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht, 1881–1883.Google Scholar
Statistisches Reichsamt. Statistik des Deutschen Reichs. Neue Folge. Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht, 1884–1891, 1908.Google Scholar
Statistisches Reichsamt. Vierteljahrshefte zur Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht, 1892–1897, 1904, 1906, 1912, 1914.Google Scholar
Streb, Jochen. “Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Schumpeterschen Diversifizierung. Die Entwicklung der Firma Freudenberg & Co. Weinheim vom spezialisierten Ledererzeuger zum Kunststoffverarbeiter mit breiter Angebotspalette.” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 46, no. 2 (2001): 131–59.Google Scholar
Streb, Jochen, Baten, Jörg, and Yin, Shuxi. “Technological and Geographical Knowledge Spillover in the German Empire, 1877–1918.” Economic History Review 59, no. 2 (2006): 347–73.Google Scholar
Thurston, Robert Henry. Report on Machines and Manufacturers: With an Account of European Manufacturing Districts; Vienna International Exhibition 1873. Washington, DC: GPO, 1875.Google Scholar
Tooze, Adam. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. London: Penguin, 2006.Google Scholar
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, W. H. Rastall to Julius Klein, 11 January 1926, RG 151, 420 (Box 1950).Google Scholar
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, D. P. Miller to the Director Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 8 November 1926, RG 151, 420 (Box 1950).Google Scholar
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. W. H. Rastall, 2 May 1927, RG 151, 413 (Box 1806).Google Scholar