Industriens Utredningsinstitut
THE INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH
A list of Working Papers on the last pages
No. 348, 1992
INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE
OF SMALL PLANTS IN SWEDISH
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY, 1968-1988
by
Bo Carlsson
November 1992
Postadress
Gatuadress
Telefon
Bankgiro
Postgiro
B9X 5501
114 85 Stockholm
Industrihuset
Storgatan 19
08-7838000
446-9995
191592-5
Telefax
08-6617969
Industrial Dynamics and the Role of Small Plants in Swedish
Manufacturing Industry, 1968-1988
Bo Carlsson
Department of Economics
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio 44106, U.S.A.
Paper prepared for the Conference on "The Management of Technology:
How to Include Technical Progres in the Organization of Business in
an International Context?" in Grenobie , France, October 13-14,
1992.
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the development of the size distribution
of establishments in Swedish manufacturing industry over the period
1968-1988. Contrary to the development in other industrial
countries, the average plant size in Swedish industry has continued
to increase, at least until the end of the 1980s.
Swedish data are presented here for the first time according
to the NACE classification adopted by the European Community. This
has required a re-classification from the Swedish industrial
classification (SNI) to NACE code. The analysis is carried out
primarily at the 2-digit NACE level at 5-year intervals.
Industrial employment rose steadily until it reached a peak of
just over 900,000 in the early 1970s and then fell to 766,000 in
1988. Meanwhile, the number of industrial plants fell continuously
from nearly 14,000 in 1968 to just over 9,000 in 1988. As a result,
output per establishment more than doubled, and the average
employment per establishment increased by 34 %. The most severe
decline in the number of establishments occurred in the smallest
size category (less than 10 employees), where the number was
reduced from 5,831 to 1,234. The number of plants in this size
category was reduced in every 2-digit industry, without exception.
The analysis confirms the common observation that there is a
lack of entrepreneurship in Swedish industry. rt is suggested that
a possible explanation for the continued shift in the size
distribution of Swedish manufacturing plants toward larger units
may have to do with continued adjustment to European integration.
Industrial Dynamics and the Role of Small Plants in Swedish
Manufacturing Industry, 1968-1988
by
Bo Carlsson
Case Western Reserve University
Introduction
The
changing
role
of
small
business
in
the
economy
has
attracted much attention in recent years. See e.g. Carlsson (1989);
Storey & Johnson (1990); Thurik (1990), and Loveman & Sengenberger
(1991). These studies have pointed out aremarkably similar pattern
across most industrial countries,
namely that the trend toward
increasing shares of business activity taking place in large firms
and plants which prevailed for many decades has been reversed in
recent years.
Thus,
for example,
Loveman
&
Sengenberger
(1991)
found such a pattern in the United States, Japan, rtaly, France,
the United Kingdom, and Germany, with a turning point in each case
around 1970 (except 1980 in Germany).
Similar results,
based on
different data, are shown in Carlsson (1992): average plant size as
measured by employment declined between 1969 and 1984 in Denmark,
Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, while it declined
since
1975
in Belgium,
Germany. See Appendix r.
Finland,
and
rtaly,
and since
1980
in
2
Sweden appears to be an exception from this observed pattern.
Contrary to the development in other countries, the average plant
size in Swedish industry has continued to increase, at least until
the end of the 1980s. While it would be interesting to investigate
the
reasons
why
the
pattern
is
different
in
Sweden,
such
an
analysis would require international comparative data which are not
currently available. 1
Instead, this paper will focus on an analysis of the Swedish
development
at
a
disaggregated
level.
In
order
to
facilitate
international comparisons, data are presented here for Sweden for
the
first
time
using
the
NACE
classification
adopted
by
the
European Community. This has required a re-classification of the
Swedish industrial statistical data from the Swedish industrial
classification (SNI) to NACE code. 2 The analysis in this paper is
carried out primarily at the
2-digi t
NACE level,
covering the
period 1968-1988, at 5-year intervals. The re-classification has
also been carried out at the 3-digit NACE level, but for reasons of
time and space the data and analysis presented in this paper will
be restricted to the 2-digit level.
1
A cursory examination of Appendix
I
suggests a
combination of two possible explanations, namely slower output
growth and a sharper drop in the number of plants than elsewhere.
A full examination of these international differences would require
a separate study.
2
The re-classification was done by the author in
conjunction with the project "Industry Dynamics and Small Firms"
carried out by the SPES Study Group (with representation of 14
countries) with funding from the European Commission.
3
Swedish Industrial Development 1968-1988
The Aggregate Level
During the period 1968-1988, Swedish industry experienced slow
growth in output. Industrial production rose an unimpressive 47 %
over the period as a whole (i.e. about 2.0 % per year) , showing no
increase at all between 1973 and 1983.
employment rose steadily until
900,000
in the
it
See Table 1.
reached a
early 1970s and then
fell
to
peak of
766,000
Industrial
just over
in
1988.
Meanwhile, the number of industrial plants fell continuously from
nearly 14,000 in 1968 to just over 9,000 in 1988 (a 35 % decline,
or 2.1 percent annually, on average, over the entire time period
1968-1988). As a result, output per establishment (or plant) more
than doubled (it increased by 127 %), and the average employment
per establishment increased by 34 %. See Figure 1 which presents
these data in index form.
2-Digit NACE Level
Table 2 presents some summary data at the 2-digit NACE level.
The industries are ranked according to the average rate of change
of value added (in current prices). Thus, Motor vehicles and parts,
Man-made fibers, Instrument engineering, Mineral oil refining, and
Chemicals were the most rapidly growing industries over the period
as a whole. The industries with the least growth were Textiles,
Leather & leather goods, and Footwear & clothing.
The
next
column
shows
the
growth
rate
of
the
number
of
establishments in each industry. The Man-made fibers industry had
4
the fastest increase (1.8 percent per year) and Footwear & clothing
the sharpest decline (-6.4 percent per year). The next two columns
show the share of employment in plants with less than 100 employees
in 1968 and 1988, respectively. The last column shows the change in
this employment share between 1968 and 1988.
The share of employment in small plants (with less than 100
employees) declined by 10 percent in the manufacturing sector as a
whole;
it
increased
in only seven industries,
namely Man-made
fibers; Footwear and clothing; Textiles; Office machines and data
processing machines; Rubber and plastics; Other means of transport;
and Production and preliminary processing of metals. As is evident
in the Table, only one of these industries (Man-made fibers)
near the top of
the
list
in terms
of growth of
is
value added.
Instead, three of them are at the bott om of the ranking, namely
Footwear & clothing, Textiles, and Leather & leather goods. This
suggests that there may be very different forces generating the
same
changes
different
in
the
industries.
share
of
More
employment
on
this
in
later.
small
The
plants
in
correlation
coefficient between the ch ange in employment share and the average
growth rate of value added is negative (-0.22) and that between the
change in employment share and the growth rate of the number of
establishments is positive
significant.
There
is
very
(0.21), but neither is statistically
strong
positive
correlation
(0.80)
between the growth rate of value added and the growth rate of the
number
of
establishments.
On
the
other
hand,
there
are
also
strongly negati ve correlations between the growth rate of the
5
number of establishments and the share of employment in small
plants in either 1968 or 1988 (-0.74 and -0.77, respectively).3
Thus,
added
or
the industries which grew rapidly in terms of value
the
number
of
establishments
were
general ly
those
characterized by a small share of employment in small plants. One
suspects that this may be one of the keys to the different pattern
of plant size development in Sweden from that in other countries.
Casual observation of other countries
indicates
that the more
common
primarily
in
pattern
is
characterized by
that
growth
occurs
industries
low entry barriers and small size plants and
firms.
The development of the number of plants in each industry is
shown in Figures 2a -
2d. Panel 2a shows the five industries in
which the number of establishments increased; for reference, the
development in manufacturing industry as a whole is also shown, in
3
The correlation matrix looks as follows:
ESTGROW
EMPSHAR68 EMPSHAR88 CHEMPSH
VALUADD
ESTGROW
EMPSHR68
EMPSHR88
CHEMPSH
VALUADD
1.0000
-.7728**
-.7381**
.2092
.8012**
1.0000
.8848**
-.4085
-.4816
1.0000
N = 20
1-tailed significance: * - .01
ESTGROW
EMPSHR68
EMPSHR88
CHEMPSH
VALUADD
1.0000
.0638
-.6391*
1.0000
-.2207
**
-
.001
Growth rate of the number of establishments, 1968-1988
Employment share in estblishments with less than 100
employees in 1968
Employment share in estblishments with less than 100
employees in 1988
Change in employment share in establishments with less
than 100 employees between 1968 and 1988
Growth rate of value added, 1968-1988
6
this as weIl as in the other panels. Panel 2b shows the industries
where the number of plants declined slightly, while Panels 2c and
2d show the industries with the greatest decline. The industries
where
the
number
of
plants
increased
are
Man-made
fibers,
Processing of metaIs, Office machines, Instruments, and Electrical
engineering. At the opposite end of the spectrum are Footwear &
clothing, Leather products, Nonmetallic mineral products, Food &
beverages, and Textiles.
Table 3 gives a more detailed breakdown of the changes in the
size distribution of establishments. The pattern that emerges is
quite clear: the number of plants in the smallestsize category
(those with less than 10 employees) declined by nearly 80 percent
between
1968
and
1988
(from
5,831
to
1,234
plants)
in
the
manufacturing sector as a whole. The number of plants in the next
smallest size class (10-49 employees) increased slightly between
1968 and 1978 and then declined, resulting in about a 10 percent
decline over the period as a whole. The number of plants in the
middle size class (50-99 employees) held fairly steady over the
whole period,
while the numbers
increased in the
largest size
classes (100-199 employees and over 200 employees).
Looking at the number of employees in various size classes
instead (the right side of Table 3), the same pattern emerges.
Employment in the smallest plants declined from 36,332 to 9,828,
and that in the next size category from 133,851 to 82,774. 4 These
4
It should be noted that the number of employees reported
for 1968 and 1973 in Table 3 refers to wage earners only, whereas
the data for 1978, 1983, and 1988 include both wage earners and
7
declines would have been even greater if salaried personnel had
been included in the figures for 1968 and 1973. The apparent slight
increase in the 50-99 and larger size classes between 1968 and 1978
is
probably
personnel
also
for
due
the
employment toward
primarilY
earlier
larger
to
years.
plants
is
the
exclusion
Nevertheless,
qui te
clear.
of
salaried
the
shift
of
The
share
of
employment in plants with more than 100 employees rose from 61
percent (excluding salaried personnel)
in 1968 to 73 percent in
1978 and 76 percent in 1988. In plants with more than 200 employees
the share increased from 47 percent in 1968 to 59 percent in 1978
and 62 percent in 1988.
A more detailed examination of Table 3 shows that the number
of plants in the smallest category was reduced in every industry,
without exception (at least at this level of aggregation). In the
next size category (10-49 employees), the number of plants rose by
more than 10 percent in nine of the twenty industries, namely NACE
22,
26, 31, 32,
33,
34,
37,
47, and 48 -- i.e., primarily metal
salaried personnel. This is due to the fact that the distribution
of employment by establishment size is available only for wage
earners for the earlier years. The composi tion of industrial
employment with respect to salaried personnel and wage earners is
that presented below:
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
Salaried
personnel
230,794
242,129
252,430
233,501
229,050
Wage
earners
636,321
650,033
608,468
528,977
529,058
Total
867,115
892,162
860,898
762,478
758,108
Ths slight discrepancies between these figures and those presented
in Table 3 are due to differences between the Swedish industrial
classification and the NACE code.
8
products
and various
engineering
industries,
as
weIl
as
paper
products and plastic goods. In the middle size categories (50-99
and 100-199 employees) the observed development ranges from sharp
reduction (e.g.
rapid growth
in Leather products and Footwear & clothing) to
(e. g.
similar variability
Man-made
also
in
fibers
the
and
Instruments).
largest size
class
There
(over
lS
200
employees).
Analysis of Individual Industries
In order to get a better idea of whether there is or is not a
common pattern across industries, it is of interest to study what
has happened in a few individual industries at either end of the
growth spectrum.
In the industry with the fastest growth of value added, Motor
vehicles & parts
(NACE 35), there was agreater decline in the
number of plants in the smallest size class than in the industry as
a whole. This suggests that there was little or no entry of new
plants and that existing plants, in the event they survived at all,
tended to shift into larger size classes. The middle size classes
(50-99 and 100-199) grew rapidly in terms of both number of plants
and number of employees between 1968 and 1978 and have since held
steady.
Virtually all the net employment growth
(51,000 out of
54,000) in this industry has occurred in the largest plants.
In the Instruments engineering industry (NACE 37), the number
of establishments grew between 1968 and 1978 but not since.
spite of the growth during the first decade of the period,
In
the
9
number of plants in the smallest size category was reduced sharply.
The number of plants in each size class the n remained constant,
except
that
some
plants
in
the
100-199
size
class
apparent ly
shifted to the largest category af ter 1983.
In the Chemical
industry
(NACE
25),
the number of
plants
declined by about 60 between 1968 and 1978 and has since remained
steady. The number of plants in the smallest size class was reduced
by about 80 plants, while the number of plants in the largest size
class increased by about 20.
If we look at the opposite end of the growth spectrum, the
Footwear & clothing industry (NACE 45) saw a decline of the number
of plants across
all
size classes ,
with the sharpest declines
occurring in the smallest and largest size classes and the middle
size classes faring somewhat better. But the remaining plants in
the largest size class increased from an average of 352 workers in
1968 to
383
employees
in
1978
and 679 employees
in 1988.
The
Textile industry (NACE 43) exhibits exactly the same pattern, and
the Leather & leather goods industry (NACE 44) a similar one.
An examination of the industries with the largest number of
employees in 1968 in comparison with 1988 shows that there was
little change in the size rankings.
The Paper
&
paper products
industry (NACE 47) and the Mechanical engineering industry (NACE
32) were the largest in both years. The Motor vehicles industry
(NACE 35) became the third largest, pushing down the Metal products
industry (NACE 31) to fourth place.
10
Some Concluding Comments
Perhaps the strongest impression one gets from this analysis
is that it confirms the common observation that there seems to be
a lack of entrepreneurship in Swedish industry. At the level of
aggregation used here, only one industry, Motor vehicles, has grown
into
a
position
international ly .
of
importance
The growth
both
in this
in
Swedish
industry
has
industry
and
clearly been
through existing units which have grown bigger (probably due partly
to consolidation and partly to internaI growth) rather than through
the emergence of new uni ts.
Even in the miscellaneous category
(other manufacturing industries, NACE 49) where new enterprises in
yet-to-be-defined industries would typically appear there is little
apparent dynamism:
not particularly impressive growth in value
added and an actual decline in the number of plants. This seems to
be
the
experience
throughout
Swedish
industry.
However,
a
definitive conclusion on this issue clearly requires data on gross
entry and exit rather than the net changes examined here. Also,
international camparisons would shed further light; indeed, one of
the
primary
motivations
of
this
study
is
to
facilitate
such
international comparisons by presenting Swedish data according to
NACE. 5
A possible explanation of the observed continued shift in the
size distribution of Swedish manufacturing plants toward larger
5
It may also be noted that previous studies (e.g. Du Rietz
1980) have found that there is a considerable time lag (up to a
decade or more) between the entry of a new entity and its inclusion
in the national industrial statistics.
11
units may have to do with the adjustment to
integration.
There
are
several
studies
further
showing
that
European
Swedish
industry in the form of multinational firms has shown much more
dynamism abroad (particularly in Europe) than at home in recent
decades (see e.g. Swedenborg 1988, Ohlsson 1989, and Braunerhjelm
1990). similarly to the experience of the United States, Swedish
mul tinationals
have
maintained their
world market
shares much
better than have Swedish exports (Blomström & Lipsey, 1989). The
apparent consolidation of Swedish manufacturing units may thus be
a
result
of
mul tinationals
the
continued
efforts
on
to become major players
the
part
in Europe
of
Swedish
(even though
Sweden as a country has only recently applied for membership in the
EC). Their supplying units in Sweden simply have to be competitive
on a European scale. Several studies by Braunerhjelm (e.g. 1990 and
and 1991) indicate that Swedish subcontractors as well as small
independent firms are having a difficult time surviving.
12
Bibliography
Blomströmi M. and R.E. Lipsey, 1989, "The Export Performance of
U. S. and Swedish Multinationals," Review of Income and Weal th,
series 35, No. 3, September.
Braunerhjelm, P., 1990, Svenska industriföretag inför EG 1992:
förväntningar och planer (Stockholm, IUI and Överstyrelsen för
civil beredskap).
Braunerhjelm, P., 1991, Svenska underleverantörer och småföretag i
det nya Europa, Research Report No. 38 (Stockholm: IUI).
Carlsson, B., 1989, "The Evolution of Manufacturing Technology
and Its Impact on Industrial Structure: An International
Study" , Small Business Economics l, 21-37.
Carlsson, B., 1992, "The Rise of Small Business: Causes and
Consequences" in W.J. Adams (ed.), Singular Europe: Economy
and Polity of the European Community af ter 1992 (Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press).
Du
Rietz, G.,
1980,
Företagsetableringarna i
Sverige under
efterkrigstiden (The Establishment of New Firms in Sweden
during the Postwar Period) (Stockholm, IUI).
Loveman , G., and W. Sengenberger, 1991, "The Re-emergence of SmallScale Production, " Small Business Economics, 3 (l), pp. 1-37.
Ohlsson, L., 1989, Industrin inför EGs 90-tal: en strategisk
effektanalys (Stockholm, Industriförbundets förlag).
Storey, D.J., and S.G. Johnson, 1990, "A Review of Small Business
Employment Data Bases in the United Kingdom," Small Business
Economics, 2 (2), pp. 279-299.
Swedenborg, B., 1988, Den svenska industrins utlandsinvesteringar
1960-1986 (Stockholm, IUI).
Thurik, R., 1990, "Recent Developments in Firm Size Distribution
and Economies of Scale in Dutch Manufacturing," research paper
no. 9004, Research Institute for Small and Medium-Sized
Business in the Netherlands.
TABLE 1
Summary of Hanufacturing Data for Sweden, 1963-1988
Number of
Establ.
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
13933
12477
10841
9252
9037
Index, 1968 = 100
100.0
1968
89.5
1973
1978
77.8
66.4
1983
1988
64.9
Value
Index of
Number of
Added
Industrial
Employees (bill. SEK, Production
(thousands) curr. prices) (1985=100)
Production Production
per
Employees
per
Establ., Employee,
per
Index
Establ.
Index
878.5
904.2
873.7
773.2
765.7
39.4
65.7
106.0
179.5
273.1
72
91
85
91
106
63.1
72.5
80.6
83.6
84.7
0.517
0.729
0.784
0.984
1.173
8.20
10.06
9.73
ll.77
13.84
100.0
102.9
99.5
88.0
87.2
100.0
166.7
269.1
455.5
693.2
100.0
126.4
ll8.1
126.4
147.2
100.0
ll4.9
127.8
132.6
134.4
100.0
141.1
151.7
190.3
227.0
100.0
122.8
ll8.7
143.6
168.9
TABLE 2
NACE 2-Digit Industry Summary Data, 1968-1988
Avg. growth rate 1968-1988
NACE
Value
Added
Motor vehicles and parts
35
Han-made fibers ind
26
Instrument engineering
37
Mineral oil refining
14
Chemical industry
25
Paper &paper prods; printing &publ
47
Office mach &data proc mach
33
Rubber &plastics
48
Electrical engineering
34
Metal prods exc f mech, el, instr &veh
31
Food, drink &tobacco industry
41/42
Hechanical engineering
32
Timber &wooden furniture industries
46
Prod &prelim process. of metals
22
Hanuf of nonmetal mineral prods
24
Other means of transport
36
Other mfg industries
49
Extract &prep of metallic ores
21
Textile industry
43
Leather &leather goods industry
44
Footwear &clothing industry
45
0.151
0.139
0.133
0.130
0.124
0.113
0.112
0.110
0.107
0.104
0.097
0.092
0.092
0.090
0.074
0.074
0.071
0.056
0.052
0.041
0.027
Hanufacturing Industry Total
0.102
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
No. of
EstabL
-0.004
0.018
0.009
-0.008
-0.009
-0.008
0.013
-0.002
0.002
-0.009
-0.040
-0.003
-0.033
0.015
-0.048
-0.021
-0.041
-0.038
-0.038
-0.056
-0.064
-0.021
Emp share
Emp share
Change in
in establ
in establ
emp share
<100 1988 1968-88
<100 1968
1968 rank
1988 rank
Rank
Rank
8
1
4
10
12
9
3
6
5
11
17
7
14
2
19
13
18
15
16
20
21
2
20
7
18
1
0.086
0.264
0.313
0.287
0.192
0.217
0.145
0.383
0.141
0.523
0.307
0.309
0.579
0.036
0.388
0.168
0.548
19 -0.133
13 0.113
9 -0.091
12 -0.059
15 -0.171
14 -0.070
17 0.039
8 0.028
18 -0.057
5 -0.019
11 -0.227
10 -0.032
2 -0.097
20 0.017
7 -0.117
16 0.023
3 -0.201
17
1
14
12
18
13
4
5
11
9
20
10
15
7
16
6
19
8
4
3
0.487
0.529
0.706
6 0.067
4 -0.015
l 0.076
3
0.289
-0.101
0.219
0.151
0.404
0.346
0.363
0.287
0.106
0.355
0.198
0.542
0.534
0.341
0.676
0.019
0.505
0.145
0.749
15
17
9
12
10
14
19
11
16
5
6
0.420
0.544
0.630
0.390
13
8
2
TABLE 3
Changes in the Size Distribution of Establishments in Swedish Manufacturing Industry, 1968-1988
Total
Number of establishments with
1-9
10-49
50-99 100-199
empl.
empl.
empl.
empl.
14 Mineral oil refining
1968
42
1973
40
35
1978
1983
35
36
1988
Total Number of employees in establishments with
>200
50-99 100-199 >200
No. of
1-9
10-49
empl.
empl.
empl. employees empl.
empl.
empl.
18
18
20
20
19
3
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
1
5
5
5
1857
1406
3230
3249
3348
72
85
21
18
23
356
383
470
535
462
215
161
305
345
373
389
443
533
593
708
825
334
1901
1758
1782
22 Prod &prelim process. of metals
1968
64
3
13
1973
58
8
3
1978
68
O
12
1983
67
3
9
1988
86
4
18
5
6
7
9
12
8
6
7
7
14
35
35
42
39
38
41921
43290
56357
45771
38282
24
30
7
25
30
322
299
392
486
385
454
440
781
702
885
1051
873
1300
1437
2227
40070
41648
53877
43121
34755
24 Manuf of nonmetai mineral products
1968
992
457
406
765
1973
361
304
1978
558
153
294
1983
401
91
222
1988
370
69
209
65
50
48
38
33
33
25
34
26
34
31
25
29
24
25
32495
25732
29417
22163
21597
2509
1944
936
672
509
9232
6998
6563
5163
3414
4675
3814
3661
3017
2463
4415
3478
5022
3641
4699
11664
9498
13235
9670
10512
25 Chemical industry
1968
353
1973
349
1978
293
282
1983
296
1988
26 Man-made fibers ind
1968
16
1973
19
26
1978
1983
22
1988
23
15
16
3
3
4
121
122
46
30
24
147
137
139
140
156
40
35
42
44
47
25
33
26
29
31
20
22
40
39
38
19699
20941
35181
39730
40073
696
689
363
224
180
3557
3253
5977
3542
2762
2894
2433
401
3511
3611
3675
4790
3940
4665
5227
8877
9776
24500
27788
28293
2
3
3
8
8
9
7
10
1
1
4
9
7
2
4
5
2
2
3
3
5
4
4
2101
2259
4238
3269
3212
18
14
22
10
206
188
353
269
250
94
59
297
625
555
251
529
573
303
308
1532
1469
2993
2072
2089
81
91
100
103
103
52
54
65
52
48
67590
73228
84014
75615
80306
5886
5501
2907
2407
1864
19440
20112
23382
22684
17275
11333
11970
14785
13129
15444
11076
12953
14478
14706
14709
19855
22692
28462
22689
31014
48
48
92
83
87
74
83
101
101
94
72832
77762
114618
95969
92922
2741
2750
1448
1013
835
13788
13418
16666
15156
11286
8331
9434
10089
10388
11446
6821
6736
13477
11824
12229
41151
45424
72938
57588
57126
O
O
31 Metal prods exc f mech, el, instr &vehicles
1968
2045
897
857
158
1973
2048
834
168
901
395
1855
1978
1082
213
316
180
1640
1983
989
1694
238
1098
207
1988
32 Mechanical engineering
1968
1241
421
1973
1254
409
191
1978
1252
1983
1120
133
1988
1166
107
579
581
725
659
714
119
133
143
144
164
O
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Total
Number of establishments with
1-9
10-49
50-99 100-199
empl.
empl.
empl.
empl.
33 Office mach &data proc mach
1968
46
8
1973
54
14
1978
51
8
1983
47
6
1988
59
7
34 Electrical
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
engineering
423
175
567
232
469
78
419
67
443
52
18
17
20
21
26
5
7
7
10
9
6
6
3
8
7
9
7699
7583
8436
6341
9296
44
82
59
46
52
437
434
393
431
514
41
60
67
64
73
39151
50483
78756
74761
67813
980
1514
604
490
395
10
10
10
617
605
751
883
581
1298
6277
5751
6640
4512
6815
3295
4552
4934
4779
3718
2782
3641
4047
3042
3729
3951
4252
6755
5309
4927
28143
36524
62416
61141
55044
336
565
461
771
140
193
229
210
235
55
42
52
26
31
40
36
31
35 Motor vehicles and parts
1968
309
104
1973
315
96
1978
331
36
1983
305
41
285
1988
27
142
137
169
142
122
29
41
50
49
51
17
19
45
38
35
17
22
31
35
50
26874
39987
63464
65651
81288
650
650
268
330
227
3243
3208
3757
3474
2298
1999
2707
3462
3683
3696
2443
2616
6879
5527
5385
18539
30806
49098
52637
69682
36 Other means of transport
1968
258
82
1973
230
64
1978
213
23
1983
191
20
170
19
1988
90
76
91
77
62
39
42
42
46
47
18
19
18
29
29
39
31
26
37304
39559
53776
40506
31292
488
397
184
155
163
2055
2107
2222
1976
1416
2849
2957
3165
3218
3422
2576
2734
2309
2245
2278
29336
31364
45896
32912
24013
37 Instrument
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
engineering
128
60
146
65
156
24
154
23
154
18
48
60
82
79
82
6
9
9
5
4
26
26
26
16
18
14
14
4477
5010
9222
10107
13382
352
386
173
194
145
1038
1464
1760
1906
1481
420
723
1911
1846
2024
1311
1272
2242
2494
1920
1356
1165
3136
3667
7812
drink &tobacco
1831
942
1382
619
1039
197
856
124
809
96
637
520
549
453
434
134
123
131
127
121
75
77
91
85
89
43
43
71
67
69
55081
53106
72834
68263
69737
5308
3577
1448
1046
768
14690
12198
12277
10494
6770
9424
8963
9793
9886
10209
10250
11004
13967
13738
14007
15409
17364
35349
33099
37983
260
180
191
161
146
56
40
40
37
37
36
42
30
26
20
29
22
18
11
11
27195
21508
19220
14593
13189
1142
939
498
345
320
6229
4249
4579
3841
2441
4044
2887
3033
2832
2704
5089
5826
4603
3707
2839
10691
7607
6507
3868
4885
41/42 Food,
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
43 Textile industry
1968
561
1973
436
1978
345
1983
278
1988
246
180
152
66
43
32
41
51
5
Total Number of employees in establishments with
>200
No. of
1-9
10-49
50-99 100-199 >200
empl. employees empl.
empl.
empl.
empl.
empl.
17
16
8
8
8
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Total
Number of establishments with
1-9
10-49
50-99 100-199
empl.
empl.
empl.
empl.
44 Leather &leather goods industry
1968
92
37
33
1973
67
27
28
42
1978
9
22
1983
32
4
19
1988
29
7
17
Total Number of employees in establishments with
50-99 100-199 >200
10-49
>200
No. of
1-9
empl.
empl.
empl.
empl.
empl. employees empl.
241
164
75
35
63
812
713
526
448
409
904
391
419
386
142
900
844
684
496
381
738
l
l
l
3595
2112
1950
1593
1400
62
37
33
23
15
16
12
10
7
4
38182
27572
22214
15595
11467
2322
1675
929
572
376
13951
9983
7962
5879
3298
7779
5914
4335
3526
2909
8498
5190
5158
3235
2168
5632
4810
3830
2383
2716
46 Timber &wooden furniture industries
1968
2609
1197
1146
157
2235
1973
863
1067
184
1978
1889
404
1128
212
1983
1503
306
907
176
234
1320
1988
803
177
81
82
86
72
73
28
39
59
42
33
65118
66682
73583
58790
57075
7828
5843
2996
2311
1855
25250
24233
24509
20628
12883
10939
12883
14776
12259
12420
11802
11344
12094
9737
10676
9299
12379
19208
13855
19241
47 Paper &paper prods; printing &publishing
1968
1252
484
490
104
1973
1173
472
430
103
1978
1134
248
567
105
1061
1983
220
539
105
1074
1988
182
589
99
71
69
90
86
93
103
99
124
111
111
75051
73137
103235
97837
96374
3172
3037
1828
1654
1425
10935
9488
11446
10915
7510
7441
7148
7998
7818
7384
10055
10199
14910
14366
15805
43448
43265
67053
63084
64250
48 Rubber &plastics
1968
391
1973
430
382
1978
1983
341
375
1988
45 Footwear &clothing
1968
1124
1973
811
544
1978
1983
379
1988
292
industry
354
257
116
73
45
NOTE:
13958
12527
10797
9220
9005
6
6
4
3
2
3
109
83
59
47
38
O
O
246
228
405
211
198
91
63
54
137
173
214
201
230
18
27
36
36
42
12
14
23
22
26
13
18
18
19
23
15895
20203
23125
19625
23193
1349
1184
669
482
466
3038
3535
4516
4441
3473
1255
2005
2807
2827
3281
1622
2105
3531
3438
4158
8631
11374
11602
8437
11815
81
64
22
19
15
85
67
68
51
49
10
9
14
10
2
3
6
6
6
11
2
2
5
l
l
4309
4163
5217
3488
3098
510
380
174
148
122
1977
1638
1487
1230
729
741
560
1052
849
154
421
815
902
881
1379
660
770
1602
380
714
5831
4871
2113
1585
1234
5837
5327
5937
5135
5209
1112
1120
1244
1144
1177
621
626
755
688
708
557
583
748
668
677
638426
655723
862087
762916
758344
36332
30841
15609
12167
9828
133851
122453
134171
118277
82774
78909
79655
87578
84660
87468
87201
88754
114240
102923
107328
302133
334020
510489
444889
470946
49 Other mfg industries
1968
181
1973
148
115
1978
1983
87
1988
78
Total
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
583
422
326
229
190
13
6
6
5
2
Employment data for 1968 and 1973 in this table include on ly wage earners.
For 1978 1 1983 1 and 1988 the employment data include both wage earners and salaried personnel.
FIGURE l
Swedish Manufacturing, 1968-1988
Index, 1968 = 100
240~--------------------------------~~----~
- _ .__..
220
__
...._..-
_
...._._._-_._--------- .• ..._._._._-
----
Establ
200 .--.. . --.. . . -..-..---.. . . .--.-.--.. -----.-.-...-.-......---.--.------. .--... -.. ----......... -.---
Employ mt
180 . - ...--.-.-.--..-.--.. -.. --......------.--.. . . -.. . . . . . . . . . .--..-.. . --._-- . -.-------.--.. -.--...-------.
Prod uction
140 ---.-..--..-.-.-.. . . -.. .-
Productiv
~:::::::;;::~~~...
_----------_..__..._-_._...._.._...._............_-_..
__.
---A-
Empl/Est
100 --.-
. . ----.. . . . .-.--.------.-..--.. . . . . . . . . . .--.-..-.-.-
80 . -_....-.. . . . . .-.. . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --.-..-.-.. .-60~~-----~------~----~-----~~
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
FIGURE 2a
Number of Establishments
NACE 2-digit industries 1968-88
170~----------------~----------------~~--~
...............
Tot mfg
160 -------.-----------/150 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------...--.---.....-..--
Fibers
140------·----·-·----··-····-----1-'-
130 ------.-.------ -------.-.--.. .-----..---.-r--~~o,. . . -........-....-
-.-j
Met proc
-aOff.mach
------;+-
Instr
-Å-
90 . .-.-...-.. . .-.. .-..-.-.. ----.. .-.. .-.. . ----.. -, ..- ..- - -..----..-..-..--.. . .--..--.-.-.. . . --.-.. . -.-.-.-...-.-.-.. . . . . . . -.. . 8 O . . . . . . . . . -.-.. . . . . . . ----....-...-.. . . . . . . -.. . . . . . . . .-.. . . .-.. . .--.-...---.---......-. .. .-.. . . . ._. . .-..-.-.. . . . . . . . . . .-.. . . . . . .-..-.. . . . . . . . -.. . . . . -...........-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
7 O . . . . . . -.. .--.-.-......-.-....---.-.. . . . . . . -.---.----.-.----.. ----.-.. .-....-.. . . .-.... ..--...-..--.--....-.. .--.-.----..--..--.. . . . . .-.. . . . . . . . ..
60~--~----~------~------~-----~~
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
Eleng
FIGURE 2b
Number of Establishments
NACE 2-digit industries 1968-88
---
110~---------*------------------------~ ~----~
105-+-.-----7''---
-~---------------_.-
100 ._ _~~~~===~:=:~~v:-------~~---
Tot mfg
Rub&plast
95 ---------Mech eng
90-------------------··--····---,..··.---.--":
-~--_
..__..._._----""'------;-"------_.
-_.._._---_..._-_._._ _-_.._.....-.._---_...
..
Motor veh
85 ---------------..----.-----.---""c---'-'<.-80 . .-..--..-----..-----.----.----.-----.--.--.----- ----.-.-.-.-.-----------..--.--.-.. .--.. .-..--..-.----.---..-.. --..---.-.-..----.-..
Paper
---:*:-
75-----------··--·--··-----·--··--··---------- .----.-..-..-.----.-..-------.. -.---.---.-..-.-.---.. -.---.-7 0-·----··--·--·-------------·---·-··-····--------···-----.-----.--.. ----.. . ----.--.-.---..-.. ------..- . . .-.--..--.. -..----.-.---.----.
65-------------·-··------·-·---·--····--·---··-·-·-------..-----------.--.- . . . . --.. . -...---.. ----.----.--..--.. --.--..----...
60~--~----~------~----~------~--~
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
Oil ref
FIGURE 2c
Number of Establishments
NACE 2-digit industries 1968-88
110~----------------------------------.
~------~
-II-
Tot mfg
Met prods
90--------
---
--------------
-7lE-
Chemicals
80
Oth transp
Wood prods
Ore mining
50 - - - - - - - ---- ------"----------"--------""----------------------"------"-"----------"--"---------------"--"--------------"-- -------------"-----""-" - - ------
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
FIGURE 2d
Number of Establishments
NACE 2-digit industries 1968-88
100~~~----------------------------~
90 --.-.------
Tot mfg
""a----------------
Textiles
Food & bev
- - - - - - -..__.._-------_.
60-----------50
Nonmetals
Leather
-j.-..............- .....- ............... .
-A:-
40 -_. ---.-. . .-.-..-- . . . ------..-.. -.. .--..-.-. .---.--.-.-.-----.------.. ---------- -
. -.._--.---.. --_. .--
30 .---.---.-.. . . . .--..-.. . .----...-..----.. . . . . .--.. .-------..- - -..- . - - - - - - - - -----..------.---
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
Shoes&cloth
APPENDIX I
Output, Employment, Number of Plants, and Average Plant
size in Manufacturing in Various Countries, 1969-1987
Belgium: Manufacturing Data 1969-83
Denmark: Manufacturing Data 1969-84
1~1.-----------------------------~
~ ~m~~~--~--------~~~------~
....~
110-----~~~~--~~~--------~
~ 100+-----~~~~~~----~~~~~
><
ID.
~
1970
7S
80
Finland: Manufacturing Data 1969-84
Germany: Manufacturing Data 1969-84
1~.------------~--------------~
1~,-----------------------------~
1~~-------------------------~~
1~
130
8
'":;;
11 O-l-"""7""'O:::-------------:-~"--_,.:;~~~__!
~ 1~~/------~~~~~~~.~-=~~--!
c;~..:'-~/
1~0
___~
~
~.
84
Japan: Manufacturing .Data 1969-83
Italy: Manufacturing Data 1969-82
1~!,-----~-----------------------~
1~.-----------------------------~
140+---------------------~....;;;.--:;,;;::.--.J
o
o
130~-------------------
1970
7S
-~-~~--~
80
o
o
130+------
-------.-,t- .- - - - . - - j
80
J
APPENDIX I
( continued)
U. K.: Manufacturing Data 1970-83
Sweden: Manufacturing Data 1969-83
1~~-----------------------~
120
1~~-----------------
8
1204------------~
!
1104--="~:__--------__,/_rk=""'=-~,~._l
8
110+---
"O>
~ l00~~--~~~«E~~--_=~---~~
><
'"
~ 'oo~-~~~~------~~~~------~
7S
1970
80
,
,
7S
80
U. S.: Manufacturing Qata 1969-87
170
8 ::\_<O
~_"
----.
120+------
1970
~
..
~_'l
;-----,
-
--- - - .= - .. ./
130 .
tO>
-----xl
84
80
7S
-+--
-::::-- Output
~
\
Employment -
No. of Plants
APS (empl.) ---!!!- APS (output)
Source: United Nations
Industrial statistics Yearbook,
General Industrial Statistics, various issues.
I
Vol.
II