1
Early-19th
century households in
Guadalajara (Mexico): A protoindustrial approach.
Carlos Riojas 1
INTRODUCTION
This essay has two aims. First I will attempt to analyze the construction and functioning of the
proto-industrial model; to this end it is necessary to examine each of its components, and to
account for its consolidation and historical relevance in different regions of the world; then I
will try to evaluate its limits and advantages as a methodological approach. In spite of the
widespread of the proto-industrial paradigm, the concepts that have emerged from it are
sometimes used indiscriminately when applied to societies that went through an
industrialization process, especially peripheral societies.
Secondly, I will look into how close a fit there is between the proto-industrial model and
concrete empirical evidence from a specific case: the 8th and 13th cuarteles 2 of the city of
Guadalajara in Mexico, registries of which were drawn up in 1821. These documents are part of
the collection of the city’s population registries (padrones) taken between 1813 and 1822.
Therefore, I consider it feasible to codify this information in order to construct a series of
simple and compound demo-economic relationships of the inhabitants of Guadalajara. On this
basis I will try to determine whether the proto-industrial proposal is capable of generating
coherent explanations of the first manifestations of the industrialization process in a
peripheral society where small production units (SPU’s) have predominated, as in Western
Mexico.
I. THE PROTO-INDUSTRIAL THEORY
Construction and Functioning
The phenomenon called the Industrial Revolution has been regarded as the starting point of a
process that eventually led to the consolidation of industrialized societies, England being the
1
Researcher at Regional Studies Department, University of Guadalajara, Mexico ([email protected])
1
2
earliest national model (O'Brien, 1986: 293). Some authors have defined the phenomenon as
a complex background of technical changes in the means and modes of production (Landes, 1961:
6). But the original causes of the process have been explored from a wider perspective. Classic
studies focus on the irreversible social, political and economic changes, while the German
Historical School stressed the transcendence of household industrialization. Still others analyze
the Industrial Revolution as a phase in the development of the capitalist production system
(Marx, 1993; Mantoux, 1905; Ashton, 1983; Landes, 1975 and 1999; Hobsbawm, 1971; Kriedte,
Medick and Schlumbohm, 1986; Braudel 1979; Dobb, 1988; Pipitone 1995).
Seen from the Marxist perspective, the Industrial Revolution was the last transition
stage between feudalism and capitalism, a time when characteristics of both systems coexisted (Sweezy et al., 1954). At first, scholars detected certain factors of change: the pursuit of
production surplus led to the transformation of an economy traditionally linked to land
ownership, the increase in agricultural productivity triggered population growth, and the
gradual emergence of worker-owners created an allocation of labor. The linkages among these
factors stimulated market expansion, which led to an increase in manufacturing production.
Nevertheless, the influence of the Industrial Revolution was not limited to the countries
where these changes occurred. While some regions of the world underwent a process of
economic growth and development, others experienced a process of underdevelopment. The
need to find raw materials for production, along with buyers of manufactured goods, was the
driving force behind the creation of a world market, which inevitably affected other
industrialization processes that were gradually getting underway, subject to their own internal
limitations and problems. In the case of Latin America, some authors regarded the economic
backwardness and technological inequality as elements that were inherent to the global
historical process of capitalist development, situations that led to the formation of semiThe city of Guadalajara was divided in 24 cuarteles in 1821 (neighborhoods usually linked with the catholic
parish).
2
2
3
industrialized societies (Bairoch, 1990: 133- 175; Sunkel, 1971: 6; Furtado, 1979: 30;
Arocena y Sutz, 2001: 31).
Even though certain elements are generally recognized as having triggered the
Industrial Revolution, the debate is far from over. One of the most promising paradigms for
confronting the flood of issues was proposed by F. Mendels (1972: 242-262); his suggestions
were then taken up and expanded by other researchers. In their monumental work, Kriedte,
Medick and Schlumbohom (1986) wrote of «the industrialization before industrialization».
According to proto-industrial theory, agricultural surplus led to constant population growth;
in addition, people started marrying at an earlier age, which raised fertility rates and the
productive potential of households, due to the increase in the number of their members. This
led in turn to the growth of manufacturing production in rural areas, and stimulated trade and
urban development. This incipient industrialization made itself felt in generalized economic
growth, and according to the model, provided sufficient elements to set off the process of fullfledged industrialization (Cailly, 1993: 19-20; Desama, 1981: 147-8; Deyon, 1979: 9). The novel
argument of the proto-industrial theory was to regard the extension of domestic industry as a
preliminary stage of the Industrial Revolution, which was seen as one of the consequences of a
dying feudal system. P. Jeannin (1980:52) considers the proposal ambitious, but recognizes
that it has opened the way for methodical research into a generally confusing area of economic
history.
The Consolidation of the Model
According to the model and its empirical evidence, a labor surplus arose in the proto-industrial
phase due to demographic growth, for which the lowering of marriage age and the
reproduction of artisan households were crucial. One sector of the workforce began to engage
in manufacturing activities in rural areas, to the point of specializing in them and thus
complementing the family income. This phenomenon represents one of the basic hypotheses
3
4
of
proto-industrialization:
temporary employment in manufacturing gave rise to a
proletarianization of peasants, who had to adapt to new work rhythms, while the marketbound manufacturing production was controlled by a Verlager. In the proto-industrial model,
complementarity among specialized regions is indispensable for economic growth; in fact, this
relationship can be found between urban and rural areas of a single region (Deyon and
Mendels, 1981: 11; Ho, 1984: 894; Chao, 1984: 958; Ogilvie, 1993: 159-179; Mendels, 1972: 252;
Mendels, 1984: 945; Ciriacono, 1996: 317 and 394; Gutmann, 1996: 154 and 156; Honenberg,
1996: 9). What has sustained the consolidation of the proto-industrial model is its multivariable analytical structure for transition periods when stages of the capitalist system overlap.
It is true that case studies reveal the limitations of the approach, but it is no less true that they
also contribute new elements that end up reinforcing it (Leboutte, 1996: 7; Berg, 1996: 213). So
the question arises: Could the proto-industrial model have the same explanatory power for
peripheral regions like Western Mexico, which has seen its industrialization process
truncated?
An Evaluation of the Model
The proto-industrial theory suffers from considerable limitations, which generate difficulties
and challenges for the objectives that this study has set out to reach. Therefore, I will point out
only three basic restrictions. First, undue attention was initially paid to the agricultural
context, while urban activities were shunted to the background. Mendels (1981: 11), however,
recognized this limitation and tried to rectify the omission of the city by proposing a new
interpretation. In this way it became clear that the rural environment did not necessarily
represent the ideal setting for the proliferation of these activities. The fact that some
productive sectors developed essentially with rural labor was not sufficient cause to disregard
other cases where cities offered suitable conditions for the multiplication of family-run and
non-family SPU’s, which is what happened in Mexican cities, including Guadalajara, in the
4
5
first half of the 19th century (Illades, 1996: 23- 66; Gómez, 1985: 13; Illades, 2001: 29-45).
Thus, the urban-rural divide has not been universally relevant to this analysis. M. Berg (1996:
214) has in fact come to the conclusion that it a false dichotomy, in which dynamic and static
variables also have an influence (Maitte, 1997: 181 and 201).
Second, the paradigm must also tackle the problem of boundaries between pre- and
proto-industrial, which implies different time frames, logics and institutional contexts. Even
though Mendels tried to clarify what he meant by proto-industrial, uncertainty has persisted.
The debate has once again taken a turn toward the articulation between urban and rural
activities, but the most significant aspect has been the types of accessible markets, and not the
antagonism by definition among their actors. This latter focus has led to a simplistic or
exaggerated vision, whereas the empirical evidence paints a more complex picture of changing
contexts. Now an urban proto-industry has been posited, which in the 70’s would have been
received as an incoherency in the debate.
Third and last, historical research has had trouble to point out precisely the type of
articulation that occurred among the actors, given the model’s rigid criteria. The links are
usually mixed in with other forms and characteristics; the only way to make these abstractions
would be through continuous, long-term research. The activities of peasant-artisans were not
limited to land work or manufacturing; it was feasible for them to become marketing agents.
Strict adhesion to the model impedes a full appreciation of the empirical evidence. There is
even divergence in the paths taken by specific industrialization processes. One example was
the transformation of proto-industrial areas into industrial regions as a regional peculiarity, or
the type of insertion in world trade at early or later stages. The co-existence of different
productive units has been a recurring theme in studies of industrialization processes. Mention
can also be made of the persistence of SPU’s in Latin America as a long-term phenomenon.
Discrepancies notwithstanding, at least three results are clear: 1. The proto-industrial
vision stimulated regional studies in different historical periods, which has continually
5
6
reframed the discussion and shed light on the complexity of the phenomenon. 2. It has taken
its place as a demo-economic model that identifies key variables, and as a legitimate heir to
historical demography with its own supporting empirical evidence. And 3. Once the
generalization of the proposal is established, the challenge has been and will continue to be the
incorporation of both evidence and critiques of the model in a logical structure, for the
purpose of elaborating a more complete interpretation.
III. THE THEORETICAL RELEVANCE OF WESTERN MEXICO IN THE EARLY
19TH CENTURY
Problems Inherent to Industrialization in Peripheral Societies
By looking for explanatory elements of an internal nature, situated in a specific regional time
and space, it may be possible to increase our knowledge about the factors that had an impact
on industrialization in peripheral societies. The most influential schools of economic thought
in Latin America insistently pointed out the historical factors behind this problem (Prebisch,
1996: 175-245; Chiaramonte, 1984), and yet, when pressed to account for specific cases, their
explanations were not entirely convincing (Bernecker, 1992: 11-14; Haber, 1999: 9-46; Stern,
1988: 828-872). Mexico is no exception: the arguments that attempt to explain the difficulties
in achieving the economic growth have focused stubbornly on the external context (Ferrer,
1996: 9-50; Jaguaribe, 1970: 3-85). Other visions have looked for the causes of the country’s
stagnation in the Colonial period, using a neo-institutional approach (Coatsworth, 1990: 325;
Haber, 1999: 9-46). Still others have insisted on a classical vision of industrialization in
Mexico in the 19th century, based on the formation of large-scale productive units as the only
feasible strategy (Cardoso, 1980: 155-156; Olveda, 1991: 139; Beato, 1985: 190). A vision of
SPU’s as decadent element has become widespread not only for peripheral societies; it has also
become commonplace in Europe. A counterproposal has been made that admits a world of
possibilities for industrialization, emphasizing the multiple forms of productive structuring
6
7
and organization (Dewerpe, 1996: 9-52; Sabel and Zeitlin, 1985: 133-6; Berg and Hudson,
1993:24-50).
At the beginning of the 20th century, Max Weber (1991:176) pointed to household
industry with non-free labor as a universal phenomenon. Regardless of the universality of the
phenomenon, research with a proto-industrial focus has been done that accounts for the
existence of this production unit in different regions of the world (Rudolph, 1985: 47-69; Saito,
1996: 537-553; A’Hearn, 1998: 734-762; Ahmad, 1997: 315-323; González, 1984: 11-44). The
simple presence of household industry, however, does not guarantee the emergence and
functioning of a proto-industrial system. As far as Mexico is concerned, the model has been
used partially to study demographic dynamics in the late Colonial period: the proliferation of
manufacturing, artisans’ workshops and their links to agriculture (Miño, 1993: 227; Miño,
1989: 793-818; Ouwenneel, 1989: 399-417; Thomson, 1991: 257; Thomson, 1989: 62; Salvucci,
1992: 287; Coatsworth, 1989: 538-545; Coatsworth, 1989ª: 549-557; Ouweneel, 1991: 531577). Nevertheless, I think the proto-industrial concept has been used indiscriminately,
without rigor or prior analysis, which means its methodological value has been overlooked. If
this trend continues, the risk is that proto-industrialization will turn into nothing more than
an easy concept for referring to the pre-industrial stage; it will also become more difficult to
study the ages of SPU’s, and to make a relevant international comparison.
Studies like the one done by Miño (1989: 808) have used the proto-industrial
perspective to draw attention to early manufacturing activities in Guadalajara and other parts
of New Spain in the 18th century. I believe that their proposals, with all due respect for their
originality, need to be re-examined. The proto-industrial perspective is attractive, but
insufficiently explored with regard to Mexican cases. Comparing the manifestations of
industrialization in peripheral societies not only enriches the discussion, but also quite likely
will bring out new objects of study concerning the peripheral regions, especially if light is shed
on the factors that have blocked their development and the differences in the type of
7
8
backwardness over time (Libby, 1991: 1-35; Cook, 1984: 60-85; Libby, 1997: 88-108;
Szlajfer, 1986: 45-73). The proto-industrial approach offers a set of promising tools for
studying industrialization in Western Mexico during the 19th century, especially when primary
sources allow for in-depth analysis.
The City of Guadalajara in 1821 as Empirical Evidence
Other studies that have looked at 19th-century Western Mexico have detected certain elements
in common with European proto-industrial areas of the 18th century: specialized agricultural
production, population growth, an increase in manufacturing activities, ties between
merchants and artisans, etc., (Riojas, 2000: 221-247; Riojas, 2003 and 2003ª). Some of these
elements have appeared implicitly or explicitly in other studies of the same region (Anderson,
1983; Brading, 1993, Van Young, 1989; Lindley, 1987; Serrera, 1991). There are many other
decisive aspects that we know nothing about, or that we need to study in more depth: the
make-up of artisan households, concrete forms of financing offered by merchants to artisans,
demographic indicators of production units, etc.
SPU’s are crucial to this kind of research, regardless of the problems they faced over the
course of the 19th century (process of independence, political destabilization, economic crises,
foreign intervention, coups d’état, etc.). SPU’s have also been associated with backward
economies characterized by property fragmentation and an army of poor small landowners
(Cardoso, 1980: 155-156; Olveda, 1991: 139; Beato, 1985: 190; Bernecker, 1992: 23; Salvucci,
1992: 98). In fact, historical studies of 19th-century Guadalajara often use the words “artisan”
and “poor” as synonyms (Anderson, 1983: 20 and 31-2; Olmedo, 1997: 42 and 179), which I
believe reflects a partial understanding of the problem and an ignorance of the logic of the
city’s artisan economy. SPU’s have also been regarded as a diffuse form of industrialization,
with a certain flexibility and adaptability to adverse conditions, which did not keep them from
attaining levels of competitiveness that factories rarely achieve (Alba, 1987: 50-60; De la Peña,
8
9
1986: 51; Escobar, 1986: 16; Lechuga, 2002: 15-45). The key to industrialization is the
formation of a more diversified economy and a culture of ongoing technical change.
The persistence of SPU’s in the regional manufacturing context has not been
appreciated in its real dimensions, basically because of the complications involved in
measuring its macroeconomic impact and the few elements that exist for examining their
microeconomic performance. If we bear in mind the fact that industrialization and protoindustrialization are processes that take shape in a regional context, then it becomes necessary
to define an area that will serve as empirical evidence for verifying the model’s usefulness. To
this end I have based my study on Western Mexico in the early decades of the 19th century,
specifically on Guadalajara, the main regional center and one of the most populated urban
areas in the country, with a dynamic economy where artisan-manufacturing activities occupied
a significant place in the productive structure of the country, to such a degree that they
challenged traditional manufacturing centers like Mexico City, Puebla, Querétaro or León. It is
also imperative to remember that this historical period was marked by the bloody struggles for
Independence’s wars, the consequences of which were felt throughout the rest of the 19th
century.
The study of certain sections of Guadalajara has been made easier thanks to the
existence of detailed demographic registries that were made for taxation and military
purposes. These documents cover roughly the period from 1813 to 1822. 3 From these
documents I generated a series of simple and compound demo-economic relationships that as
a whole help to explain certain characteristics of family-run SPU’s from the proto-industrial
perspective (Table 1). Before going on, I must point out that these registries have been
systematically studied in various stages by Rodney Anderson and his team of collaborators,
Municipal Historical Archives of Guadalajara (AHMG, in their initials in Spanish), Cs.3/ 1821 Ant. Paq.38
Leg.17; Cs.3/ 1821 Ant.Paq.38 Leg.8.
3
9
10
but none of their studies have made use of the proto-industrial model or any theoretical
approach beyond the classical premises of Peter Laslett (2000). 4
Table 1. Fundamental Demo-economic Relations
a) Simple Variables
Number Category
Notation
Derivation
1 Size of household (H)
T
Frequency of H by size
2 Occupations registered for H
O
3 Status of H members (HM’s)
Si
Characterization
of
H
artisan/manufacturing
or
artisan/manufacturing
Listed as doña, don or doncella
4 Age of HM’s
Exi
X according to family relationship, e 0 > i < 99
5 Sex of HM’s
Sxi
Sexes
6 Marital status of HM’s
C
Marital status, and family relationships
7 Origin of HM’s
P
Where they are from, immigrants or locals
8 Urban location of DG
U
Location within the city
as
non-
b) Compound Variables
9 f (O) Artisan/Manufacturing
f (O)
10 Size of H and Occupation
11 Social status as
occupation
12 Average age of H
related
T f(O)
to
Si f(O)
16 Place of origin and Occupational
Trade
17 Sex of the HM’s and the
occupational trade
18 Urban location and occupation
P f(O)
Occupation as related to artisan
manufacturing activities, where f(O) = 1...n
The size of the H as related to occupation
/
Social status as related to the occupation of the
HM’s
Êi f(O)
Average age of H as related to artisan/
manufacturing occupation
13 Mother’s age when her first child Êm- Êh1= EIm; Mother’s age when her first child is born
EIm f(O)
is born and the occupation of the
(initial age) as related to the occupation of the
HM’s
HM’s
14 Fertility variance in years
s² Êim f(O)
Variance in mother’s fertility age where i=
1...n, as related to occupation
15 Initial Age as related to Status
EI f(S)
Mother’s initial age as related to status
The place of origin as related to the registered
occupational trades of the HM’s
Sx f(O)
The relationship between the sexes of the HM’s
and the occupational trades performed
U f(O)
Relationship between the urban location and
the occupational trade to detect neighborhood
specialization
Source: This series of relationships was built up on the basis of data presented in the registers of Guadalajara,
specifically from Cuarteles 13 and 8 in 1821.
Both Anderson and some of his collaborators (Lindsay and Matt Harrington, whose work was presented in the
seminar Registries and Censuses of Guadalajara, 18th to 20th Centuries, Guadalajara, April 28-29, 2004), when
studying these registries, used the classic family-history approach derived from Laslett (2000). Even though these
studies could show some connections to elements derived from proto-industrialization, they are far from
presenting an overall or partial vision of the phenomenon, as I attempt to do here. In the discussion of the proto-
4
10
11
Their analyses have focused more on the city’s social history and its ties to the wars
of Independence, a phenomenon that I do not overlook, but which is not an essential part of
our object of study. The first stage of the study of the Guadalajara registries (1821-1822) was
carried out on a sample of the registries. At that point Anderson (1983) raised a series of
doubts regarding the mode of production and the articulation between household units
engaged in artisan work and the productive system, but was unable to offer satisfactory
answers about these phenomena. The second stage was more complex; almost all the
information contained in the registries was systematized in electronic format, thereby
generating a multi-variable database (Anderson 2004), that made it possible to establish a
series of analyses with different objectives. I am not aware, however, of any published work
based on this database; attempt to go beyond Laslett’s ideas.
Even though the database put together by Anderson and his colleagues has been
enormously helpful for this study, it was necessary to re-captured and recodify the information
for some city cuarteles, because the data as presented did not lend themselves to analysis
within the theoretical framework of proto-industrialization. The two databases were put
together using the same documents, and yet they are qualitatively different. What I did was
make use of the demo-economic relationships that appear in Table 1 to codify the information
in such a way that if we consider the elements from my own database, by means of a particular
research method and with specific questions, it becomes feasible to answer the questions
raised by Anderson over 20 years ago. Allow me to present an exercise along these lines.
The cuarteles that were systematized for this study were the number 8 and 13. The first
was located in district seven, on the north side of Guadalajara, within the Analco parish. This
cuartel was large in terms of both territorial extension and population (3892 inhabitants with
industrial approach for European cases, there are studies that have gone back to Laslett’s hypothesis (Kertzer
1991: 155-179; Harevan 1991: 95-124).
11
12
939 households), 5 with a significant number of Indians and high concentrations of poor
people, according to Anderson (1983: 20). Cuartel 13 offered a sharp contrast to cuartel 8: it
covered less territory and thus had a smaller number of inhabitants (1277, and 262
households). This cuartel was located in district five, known as El Carmen. Overall we have a
total universe of 5,169 persons and 1201 households recorded (the empirical evidence
constitutes 11.63% of the total population in 1821, while the total number of households is
unknown at present). 6
Graphic 1. Frequencies of household, cuarteles numbers 8 and 13 (1821)
30,0%
Frequencies
25,0%
20,0%
15,0%
10,0%
5,0%
0,0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
22
Source: AHMG, Cs.3/1821 ant.paq. 38, Legs.8 and 17.
I will begin with the frequencies of household size. The most frequent households fell in
the range of two to four members (59.1%, Graphic 1); the most representative was the twomember household (24.9%). Neither Analco nor El Carmen can be catalogued as the home of
Guadalajara’s elite, if this status is related to the use of the title doña or don, because 82%
(4249) of the inhabitants appeared without any sort of title (Graphic 2).
One of the limits of my interpretation is the determination of households, which admittedly is a somewhat
arbitrary undertaking. In some cuarteles, the registrar clearly indicates where each one begins and ends, while in
others the information is listed continuously and without any separations, making it necessary to carefully
examine the composition of the members in order to define where the household begins and ends. But once work
was done on different cuarteles, the division of these groups became easier to see.
6 The basic unit of analysis will be the household, although reference will still be made to individuals as a function
of the demo-economic relationships presented here. This impacts directly on the results and their interpretation,
because different conclusions can be drawn from a quantitative perspective depending on whether totals of
individuals or households are taken (frequencies are a good example of these discrepancies).
5
12
13
Graphic 2. Social status of inhabitants of cuarteles 8 and 13 (1821)
8%
10%
82%
Non specified
Doña
Don
Source: AHMG, Cs.3/1821 ant.paq. 38, Legs.8 and 17.
Graphic 3. Household's classification according to the types of activities, cuarteles
8 and 13 (1821)
25%
29%
Non specified
Artisans
Non artisans
46%
Source: AHMG, Cs.3/1821 ant.paq. 38, Legs.8 and 17.
Furthermore, the households were classified in three groups depending on the type of
activity the members mainly engaged in: artisans, non-artisans and not specified. In both
cuarteles, artisan households predominated (554: 46%), second place being taken by
households where it was impossible to determine the main activity (351: 29%), followed by
13
14
those associated with non-artisan activities (296: 25%). Although these indicators do not
reveal an overwhelming specialization in artisans’ occupations, these activities are certainly
important (Graphic 3).
As for population structure, there are no significant differences between the two
cuarteles: in both, women constitute the majority (57%). The most representative age groups
were those that fell between 20 and 34 years of age (34.1%), where women contribute a good
number of cases. The population pyramid bears witness to irregularities in demographic
growth (Graphic 4).
Graphic 4. Population Pyramid of cuarteles 8 and 13, (1821)
80 ó más
70 a 74
60 a 64
Women
50 a 54
Men
40 a 44
30 a 34
20 a 24
10 a 14
0a4
-300
-20
0
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
Source:AHMG, Cs.3/ 1821 Ant. Paq.38 Leg.8 and Leg.17
It is important, however, to take these figures with a certain amount of skepticism:
probably not all the men were registered, because of the special circumstances Western Mexico
was going through in connection with the movements for Independence, and because of the
military nature of the padrón, as well as the practice of age-rounding, always inherent to this
kind of source.
14
15
Originally, the padrones consulted did not report marital status; this variable was
inferred from the phrase that indicated “su muger” (sic). Nevertheless, the categories married,
single and widow(er) were created. When it was practically impossible to infer marital status,
it was left unspecified. Both in Analco and in El Carmen the numbers of single and married
people was very similar (1968 and 1807, in that order), with a small number of widow(er)s
(480); for the rest, no marital status was specified (Graphic 5).
Graphic 5. Marital status of inhabitants of cuarteles 8 and 13 (1821)
9%
18%
Non specified
38%
Married
Single
35%
Widows
Source: AHMG, Cs.3/1821 ant.paq. 38, Legs.8 and 17.
Graphic 6. Inhabitants’ Place of origin, cuarteles 8 and 13 (1821)
16%
Locals
Immigrants
Unknown origin
47%
37%
Source: AHMG, Cs.3/1821 ant.paq. 38, Legs.8 and 17.
These figures must be taken with circumspection, however, because the source was not
sufficiently clear. Finally, concerning to the description of simple relationships, we have the
15
16
place of origin. We find that Guadalajara natives
outnumbered
the
so-called
immigrants (47% and 37% respectively); for the rest (812), their place of origin is unknown
(Graphic 6).
Up to here I have set forth the simple demo-economic relationships, which are merely
descriptive references that neither contradict nor support any hypothesis about the
manifestation of proto-industrialization in Guadalajara in the early 19th century. And yet they
are essential for constructing compound demo-economic relationships, which might
reasonably show whether proto-industrial theory is capable of explaining coherently whether
or not the first manifestations of the industrialization process actually occurred in terms of the
demo-economic functioning of the society in question. Concretely, I am referring to the role
played by artisan households; another key variable will be the age of the household’s mother
when she had her first child (as a variable that is meant to substitute marriage age). It is also
interesting to have information about birth intervals measured in years, for the purpose of
verifying whether the reproductive rhythms of artisan households were higher than those of
non-artisan households, as the theory anticipates when the first manifestations of
industrialization occur.
With respect to household size as a function of the type of economic activity, we find
that 61.7% of households classified as artisan fall in the two- to four-member range, with twomember households as the most common (28.2%), while those classified as non-artisan were
more evenly distributed, i.e., 50.7% of the cases fell within these ranges, and the two-member
household was the predominant range (20.3%). This is reflected in the accumulated frequency
curves, where the artisan household curves evolve more quickly than their non-artisan
counterparts (Graph 7).
16
17
%
Graphic 7. Households’ accumulated frequencies as function of
economic activity, cuarteles, 8 and 13
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Non specified
Artisan
Non-Artisan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Source:AHMG, Cs.3/ 1821 Ant. Paq.38 Leg.8 and 17
Next I will examine one of the issues that constantly come up in the historiography on
urban artisans in Mexico: the supposedly direct and unambiguous relationship between the
categories “poor” and “artisan”. Specifically I raise the question of whether there was any
direct relationship at all between the social status of household members and their main
occupation. The evidence uncovered up to now is less than compelling to reach a conclusion in
this regard, because the number of people registered with the titles don or doña was not
significant with respect to the total population (17.8%); and yet 91 people (out of 920 cases)
with the titles don or doña were engaged in artisans’ activities, while 21% of the dones and
doñas had a main occupation of a non-artisan nature, (Table 2). I therefore think it rash to
associate artisans unequivocally with low or poor social classes in the city of Guadalajara in
1821, although one must not overlook the institutional instability that society was facing due to
the insurgent movements, which had especially deep roots in Western Mexico. The empirical
evidence presented here would indicate that the urban artisan universe was far more complex
than this simple determinism.
17
18
Table 2. Social Status as a function of economic activity, cuarteles 8 and 13 (1821)
Economic Activity
Non specified
Don / Doña
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
Non specified
2933
69%
632
69%
3565
69.0%
Artisan
910
21%
91
10%
1001
19.4%
Non artisan
406
10%
197
21%
603
11.7%
Total
4249
100%
920
100%
5169
100.0%
Source: AHMG, Cs.3/ 1821 Ant. Paq.38 Leg.8 and Cs.3/ 1821 Ant. Paq.38 Leg.17
A key element in this essay is the behavior of birth intervals 7 given the impossibility of
detecting marriage age with these documents. According to the fundamental premises of
proto-industrialization, marriage age went down in households engaged in artisans’ activities,
and with it the birth interval as well. This reproductive behavior would lead to an increase in
the household’s workforce and offer the chance to organize a division of labor within the
household. Let us look at the results.
G r a p h ic 8 . M o th e r in itia l a g e ’ fre q u e n c ie s w h e n h e r firs t c h ild w a s b o rn , c u a r te le s 8
a n d 1 3 (1 8 2 1 )
1 2 ,0 0 %
1 0 ,0 0 %
F r e q u e n c ie s
8 ,0 0 %
6 ,0 0 %
4 ,0 0 %
2 ,0 0 %
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
16
14
12
18
A
ge
0 ,0 0 %
S o u rce :A H M G , C s .3 /1 8 2 1 a n t.p a q .3 8 L e g .1 7 a n d 8
The documents that we examined contained records of 644 mothers in 1821 for Analco
and El Carmen. In most cases (50.16%), the first child was born when the mother was between
15 and 22 years of age (Graphic 8), the most representative period being between 19 and 20
Birth interval here is taken to be the average period measured in years between the birth of the first child and
the second, and so on.
7
18
19
years of age (16.9%). 8 These results included all mothers; however, it is possible to classify
them by social status and their relevance to the activities carried out by the household
members. When we apply the first of these criteria, one result that stands out is that on
average, doñas had their first child at an earlier age (21.6 years) than non-doñas (21.8 years);
among doñas, in 36.7% of the cases the first child was born when the mother was between 17
and 22 years of age, while the percentage for the same age range among non-doñas was 33.3%
(Graphic 9).
Graphic 9. Frequencies of the mother’s initial age, when her first child was born,
cuarteles 8 and 13 (1821)
60
Doña
50
No Doña
40
30
20
10
41
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
Ag
e
0
Source:AHMG, Cs.3/1821 ant.paq.38 Leg.8 and 17
However, this reproductive behavior seems to waver among doñas over the course of
their birth intervals. The documents show that on average, the first interval was slightly
shorter among doñas (3.49 years) than among non-doñas (3.65 years), which confirms the fact
that doñas undertook motherhood at an earlier age. On the second interval, however, the nondoñas reproduced faster (3.55 vs. 4.02 years for doñas). On the third interval it is the doñas
It is important to point out that birth interval also gives us a rough approximation of fertility, because the
children who were counted were those that actually appeared in the registry. This document, given its nature,
makes no reference to infant mortality, which might change the mothers’ age when first giving birth. It will thus
be necessary to consult other sources (parish or church records, for example) in order to obtain a more exact
approximation of infant mortality rates and to form a more precise idea of the age at which women became
mothers for the first time in early 19th-century Guadalajara.
8
19
20
once again who have the lower numbers. It must be pointed out that the non-doñas who
had three intervals reduced their length consistently (Table 3).
Table 3. Birth intervals, mothers of cuarteles 8 and 13 (1821)
Doñas
First
Second
Third
Average
3,49
4,02
3,21
Variance
7,56
11,10
4,21
Standard deviation
2,69
3,32
2,04
Non Doñas
First
Second
Third
Average
3,65
3,55
3,49
Variance
5,67
6,65
2,11
Standard deviation
2,34
2,57
1,39
Source: AHMG, Cs.3/ 1821 Ant. Paq.38 Leg.8 and Cs.3/ 1821 Ant. Paq.38 Leg.17
Another key element was the greater reproductive constancy among non-doñas as
compared to doñas, which invites us to reflect on the impact that social status has on
reproductive patterns. This specificity is not taken into account by the proto-industrial model.
When the type of activity in the mother’s household is considered, we found that 291
(45.2%) of the mothers registered belonged to artisan households. These mothers on average
had their first child at the age of 21.66 years; the 15- to 22-year-old age range concentrated
49.1% of the total group. The birth interval results indicate that the second child was born on
average 3.68 years later. The following interval was lower: 3.50, but the third was higher: 3.81.
On the other hand, 165 (25.6%) were mothers from non-artisan households; on average they
had their first child at the age of 21.93 years, and the 15- to 22-year-old range concentrated
53.9% of the observations. The average first birth interval was 3.83 years, and the other two
were 4.04 and 2.32, in that order (Graphic 10 and Table 4). Overall, it is important to observe
that the average age, as well as the accumulated frequencies, showed a similar pattern of
behavior: the differences showed up in the first two birth intervals. Moreover, the mothers
from artisan households on average had their first child at an earlier age than the other groups,
20
21
and their first two birth intervals were generally shorter than those of mothers from
non-artisan households.
Graphic 10. Frequencies of the mother’s initial age, when her first child was
born according to economic activ ity , cuarteles 8 and 1 3 (1 821 )
1 4 ,0%
1 2 ,0%
1 0,0%
Non specified
8,0%
Artisans
6 ,0%
Non Artisans
4 ,0%
2 ,0%
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
Ag
e
0,0%
Sou r ce:A HMG, Cs.3 /1 8 2 1 a n t .pa q.3 8 Leg s.8 a n d 1 7
Table 4. birth intervals according economic activity cuarteles 8 and 13 (1821)
Artisan household
First
Second
Third
Average
3,68
3,50
3,81
Variance
6,76
6,07
2,88
Standard
2,48
2,33
1,68
deviation
Non-artisan household
First
Second
Third
Average
3,83
4,04
2,32
Variance
8,67
11,40
2,90
Standard
2,93
3,37
2,66
deviation
Non specified household
First
Second
Third
Average
3,75
3,84
2,99
Variance
7,40
15,13
0,91
Standard
2,72
3,58
0,70
deviation
Source: AHMG, Cs.3/1821 ant.paq.38 Leg.8 and 17.
This evidence shows a certain coherence with the manifestations anticipated by protoindustrialization in other societies, inasmuch as the younger age of mothers from artisan
households when their first child was born supports the theory, if only slightly, but the
behavior shown over the birth intervals is ambiguous on this point. However, the coherence
21
22
tends to disappear when the results are referenced to social status, because the doñas
had their first child at an earlier age than the non-doñas, while the birth intervals of the
former were longer than those of the latter. These findings and the demo-economic
relationships presented here point to a weak and hesitant proto-industrialization. These
cuarteles may be representative of Guadalajara’s demo-economic structure in 1821, but it will
be important to compare the results presented here with those of other sections of the city, and
to explore other elements of the proto-industrial approach in order to have a more
comprehensive vision of the phenomenon. These, however, are tasks for another paper.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Industrial Revolution impacted peripheral countries essentially on two fronts. On the one
hand, these countries served as markets for the economies that industrialized quickly, and on
the other, their early manifestations of industrialization were hampered. The proto-industrial
theory has been one of the most refined interpretations concerning the causes of the Industrial
Revolution, and it offers vast analytical potential, which at the same time, paradoxically, has
generated different kinds of limitations. In spite of the restrictions inherent to the approach, it
is feasible to generate more specific explanations about the factors that have influenced the
process of industrialization. Proto-industrialization has also evolved thanks to new regional
studies and to an increase in demo-economic tools available, especially those used to study
transformations that originate in households. In this approach, SPU’s have been key elements;
I have tried to analyze them from this perspective, without overlooking the socio-economic
specificities that emerged from our empirical evidence.
At the end of the 1980’s, the proto-industrial paradigm began to divulgate in studies on
industrialization processes and regional economic history. This situation led to an
unwarranted use of the paradigm without prior reflection or analysis, often resulting in an
22
23
impoverishment of debate. Mexico is a good example of this. 9 I consider it useful to reflect
on the paradigm’s instrumental value on the basis of concrete cases. The fundamental demoeconomic relationships presented in this study were drawn from a detailed reading of the
documents and reflection on the proto-industrial proposal. The study’s numerical nature is
intended to measure the information gathered from Guadalajara’s population registries in
1821. Thus our empirical evidence was constructed on the basis of documents from cuarteles
number 8 and 13 (Analco and El Carmen, respectively). The study revolved around a universe
of 5,169 individuals and 1,201 households. The results having been analyzed, we can say that
the most important finding was the manifestation of a weak and hesitant protoindustrialization, reflected in the fact that the initial childbearing age of mothers from artisan
households was lower (21.66 years) than that of mothers from non-artisan households (21.94
years). The difference may be slight, but this behavior is in keeping with the predictions of
proto-industrial theory. As for birth intervals referenced to type of activity, the first two for
mothers from artisan households were lower than those of their non-artisan counterparts,
exactly as proto-industrialization anticipates, but in the case of the third intervals, the results
are inverted.
In the same way, the results were inconclusive with regard to the ages of mothers when
they had their first child, and to the birth interval as a function of social status. Doñas on
average became mothers at an earlier age (21.67 years) than non-doñas (21.81 years). The first
birth interval ratified this tendency (3.49 years for doñas vs. 3.65 for non-doñas), but the
second interval was lower for non-doñas, while the third showed an inverted relation. This
situation also reflects the importance of social status on reproductive patterns, and bears
witness to a traditional society where social relations are deeply rooted with respect to
economic strategies. On this basis, we can call early 19th-century Guadalajara a traditional
society with a weak and hesitant proto-industrialization. Finally, it is important to emphasize
9
This observation was pointed out by Carmagnani and Romano (1999: 233).
23
24
the fact that it will be essential to increase our universe and the timeframe of our study in
order to obtain more conclusive results. I believe that if we do not adhere too strictly to the
proto-industrial model, it could be feasible to use some of its tools to explain the early
manifestations of industrialization in Western Mexico at the beginning of the 19th century. In
the same way, it is possible to detect certain traits that are specific to the society in question,
by means of this type of exercise.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALBA VEGA Carlos, 1987, La petite industrie et les entrepreneurs dans une société
dépendante: le cas de Guadalajara, Mexique, Thèse 3ème cycle, École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales, Paris, pp.364
A’HERN Brian, 1998, “Institutions, externalities, and economic growth in southern Italy:
evidence from the cotton textile industry, 1861-1994”, Economic History Review, LI, 4, pp.
734-762.
AHMAD Ahrar, 1997, “Analyzing pre-colonial South Asia: mode of production or protoindustrialization”, Journal of Contemporary Asia, August 1997 V. 27, No.3, pp. 315-323.
ANDERSON R.A., 1983, Guadalajara a la consumación de la Independencia: Estudio de la
población según los padrones de 1821-1822, MExico, Gobierno de Jalisco.
--------- 2004, Guadalajara Census Project, 1791-1930 Vol. 1: The Guadalajara Censuses of
1821 & 1822, Florida State University (electronic version).
AROCENA Rodrigo and SUTZ Judith, 2001, “Desigualdad, tecnología e innovación en el
desarrollo latinoamericano”, Iberoamericana, I, 1, pp.29-49.
ASHTON T.S., 1983, La revolución Industrial, 1760-1830, México, FCE.
BAIROCH P., 1990, "Développement", in Encyclopédie Economique, Eds. Greffe X., Mairesse J.,
and J.L. Reiffers, Paris, Economica, pp.133-175.
BEATO G., 1985, "Jalisco. Economía y estructura social en el siglo XIX", in El siglo XIX en México:
cinco procesos regionales: Morelos, Monterrey, Yucatán, Jalisco y Puebla, Ed. Cerutti M.,
(Mexico, Claves Latinoamericanas), pp. 49-199.
BERG M., 1996, “New consumers industries in eighteenth-century England: Products, markets
and metal goods in Birmingham and Sheffield”, in Proto-industrialistion. Recherches récentes
et nouvelles perspectives, Ed. Leboutte, R. (Genève, Droz), pp.211-236.
BERG M. and HUDSON P., 1992, “Rehabilitating the industrial revolution”, The Economic
History Review, 45/1, pp.24-50.
24
25
BERNECKER Walter L., 1992, De agiotistas y empresarios. En torno de la temprana
industrialización mexicana (Siglo XIX), México, Universidad Iberoamericana.
Brading David A., 1993, Mineros y Comerciantes en el México Borbónico, (1763-1810),
México, FCE.
BRAUDEL Fernand, 1979, Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, Paris, A., Colin.
CAILLY Claude, 1993, "Contribution à la définition d'un mode de production proto-industriel",
Histiore et Mesure, VII-1/2, pp.19-40.
CARDOSO C., (Ed), 1980, México en el siglo XIX: 1821-1910, historia económica y de la
estructura social, Nueva Imagen, México.
CHAO K., 1984, "La production textile dans la Chine traditionnelle", Annales, ÉconomiesSociétés-Civilisations, 39/6, pp. 957-976.
CIRIACONO S., 1996, «Venise et la Vénétie dans la transition vers l’industrialisation. A propos des
thèses de Franklin Mendels», in Proto-industrialistion. Recherches récentes et nouvelles
perspectives, Ed. Leboutte, R. (Genève, Droz), pp. 291-320.
COATSWORTH J., 1990, Los orígenes del atraso, México, Alianza Editorial.
--------- 1989, “The economics Cycle in Bourbon Central Mexico: A Critique of the Recaudación
del Diezmo Líquido en pesos”, The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 69, No.3 (Aug.,
1989) pp. 538-545.
---------- 1989a, “The economics Cycle in Bourbon Central Mexico: A Critique of the
Recaudación del Diezmo Líquido en pesos, by Ouweneel and Bijleveld. II”, The Hispanic
American Historical Review, Vol. 69, No.3 (Aug.,) pp. 549-557.
COLEMAN D.C., 1983 “Proto-industrialization: a concept too many?”, Economic History
Review, XXXVI/3, August, pp. 435-448.
COOK Scott, 1984, “Rural industry, social differentiation, and the contradictions of provincial
Mexican capitalism”, Latin American Perspectives, Vol.11, No.4, (Autumn, 1984), pp.60-85.
CHIARAMONTE J. C., 1984, Formas de sociedad y economía en Hispanoamérica, México,
Grijalbo-UNAM.
DE LA PEÑA Guillermo, 1986, "Mercado de trabajo y articulación regional: apuntes sobre el caso
de Guadalajara y el occidente mexicano", in DE LA PEÑA G., and ESCOBAR A. (eds.), Cambio
regional, mercado de trabajo y vida obrera en Jalisco, Ed. El Colegio de Jalisco, México, pp.4788.
DESAMA C., 1981 "Démographie et industrialisation: Le modèle verviétois (1800-1850)", Revue
du Nord, LXIII/248, Janvier-Mars, pp.147-155.
DEWERPE Alain, 1996 Le Monde du Travail en France, 1800-1950, París, Armand Colin.
25
26
DEYON P. 1979, "L'enjeu des discussions autour du concept de 'proto-industrialisation'", Revue
du Nord, LXI/240, Janvier-Mars, pp.9-15.
----- y MENDELS F., 1981 "La proto-industrialisation: Théorie et réalité", Revue du Nord,
LXIII/248, Janvier-Mars, pp.11-16.
DOBB M., 1988 Estudios sobre el desarrollo del capitalismo, México, Siglo XXI.
ESCOBAR LATAPI A., 1986, "Patrones de organización social en el mercado de trabajo manual
en Guadalajara", in DE LA PEÑA G., and ESCOBAR A., (eds), Cambio regional, mercado de
trabajo y vida obrera en Jalisco, Ed. El Colegio de Jalisco, México, pp.147-189.
FURTADO C., 1979, “El desarrollo desde el punto de vista interdisciplinario”, El Trimestre
Económico, XLVI/181, Enero-Marzo, pp.1-40.
FERRER A., 1996, Historia de la globalización: Orígenes del orden económico mundial, México,
FCE.
GONZÁLEZ ENCISO A., 1984, "La protoindustrialización en España", Revista de Historia
Económica, 2(1), pp.11-44.
GUTMANN M.P., 1996, «War and industrial development in early modern Europe», in Protoindustrialistion. Recherches récentes et nouvelles perspectives, Ed. Leboutte, R. (Genève, Droz),
pp.153-180.
GÓMEZ SERRANO J., 1985, Mercaderes, artesanos y toreros. La Feria de Aguascalientes en el
siglo XIX, Aguascalientes, Gobierno del Estado.
HABER S., (Ed.), 1999, Cómo se rezagó la América Latina. En sayos sobre las historias
económicas de Brasil y México, 1800-1914, Mexico, FCE-Lecturas 89.
HAREVEN T.K., 1991, “The history of the family and the complexity of Social Change”, The
American Historical Review, 96/1, 95-124.
HO P.S., 1984, "Protoindustrialisation, protofabriques et désindustrialisation: une
analyse économique", Annales, Économies-Sociétés-Civilisations, 39/6, pp.882-895
HOBSBAWM E., 1971, Entorno a los orígenes de la Revolución Industrial, México, Siglo XXI.
HONENBERG P.M., 1996, “Urbanization and proto-industrialization: reflections on an intellectual
journey”, in Proto-industrialistion. Recherches récentes et nouvelles perspectives, Ed. Leboutte,
R. (Genève, Droz), pp.9-28.
ILLADES C., 1996, Hacía la república del trabajo. La organización artesanal en la ciudad de
México, 1853-1876, México, UAM-El Colegio de México.
------- , 2001, Estudios sobre el artesanado urbano del siglo XIX, Ed.Universidad Autóma
Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, México.
JAGUARIBE H., et al., 1970, La dependencia político-económica en América Latina, Ed. Siglo
XXI, México.
26
27
JEANNIN P., 1980, "La protoindustrialisation : développement ou impasse?", Annales,
Économies-Sociétés-Civilisations, 35/1, pp.52-65.
KERTZER D., 1991, “Household History and Sociological Theory”, Annual Review of
Sociology, 17, pp.155-179.
KRIEDTE P., MEDICK H., and SCHLUMBOHM J., 1986, Industrialización antes de la
industrialización, Barcelona, Crítica.
LANDES D., 1999, La riqueza y la pobreza de las naciones, Argentina, Javier Vergara.
----- , 1975, L'Europe technicienne ou le Prométhée libéré: Révolution technique et libre essor
industriel en Europe occidentale de 1750 à nos jours, Paris, Gallimard.
----- , 1961, "Encore le problème de la Révolution Industrielle en Anglaterre", Bulletin de la
société d'Histoire moderne, 68/18, pp.5-7.
LASLETT P., 2000, The world we have lost. Further explored, Ed. Routledge, London.
LEBOUTTE R., ed., 1996, Proto-industrialistion. Recherches récentes et nouvelles
perspectives, Droz, Genève.
LECHUGA MONTENEGRO J., 2002, El cambio estructural en la industria manufacturera de
Jalisco. Hacia un Nuevo patrón de especialización, México Universidad de GuadalajaraAUM-Azcapotzalco.
LIBBY D.C., 1991, “Proto-industrialisation in a Slave Society: The case of Minas Gerais”,
Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol.23, No.1 (February), pp.1-35.
--------, 1997, “Reconsidering textile production in late colonial Brazil: New evidences from
Minas Gerais”, Latin American Research Review, Vol.32, No.1, pp.88-108.
LINDLEY B. R., 1987, Las haciendas y el desarrollo económico, Guadalajara, México, en la época
de la independencia, México, FCE.
MAGER W., 1993, “Proto-industrialization and proto-industry: the uses and drawbacks of two
concepts”, Continuity and Change, 8/2, August, pp.185-186.
MAITTE, C., 1997, "Incertitudes et bricolages. L’industrie textile à Prato aux 18ème et 19ème
siècle”, Annales, Histoire, Sciences Sociales, Nº6, pp.1275-1303.
MANTOUX, P., 1905, La Révolution Industrielle au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, Société Nouvelle de
libraire et de l'édition.
MARX K., 1993, Le Capital, Livre I, Paris, Quadrige-PUF.
MENDELS F., 1972, "Proto-industrialization: The first phase of industrialization process", The
Journal of Economic History, XXXII/1, pp.241-261.
27
28
-------, 1981, "Le temps de l'industrie et le temps de l'agriculture. Logique d'un analyse
régionale de la protro-industrialization", Revue du Nord, LXIII/248, Janvier-Mars, pp.21-33.
-------, 1984, "Niveau des salaires et âge au mariage en Flandre, XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles", Annales,
Économies-Sociétés-Civilisations, 39/6, pp.939-956.
MIÑO GRIJALVA, M., 1989, "¿Proto-industria colonial?", Historia Mexicana, XXXVIII/4,
pp.793-818.
-------, 1993, La protoindustria colonial en Hispanoamérica, México, FCE-El Colegio de México.
O'BRIEN P.K., 1986, "Do we have typology for the study of European industrialization in the
19th century?", The Journal of European Economic History, Vol.15, Issue 2, pp.291-333.
OGILVIE Sh.C., 1993, “Proto-industrialisation in Europe”, Continuity and Change, 8/2, August,
pp.159-179.
OLMEDO José, 1997, Los zapateros de Guadalajara. Nueva Galicia, 1751-1824, México,
Universidad de Guadalajara-Centre Français d’Études Mexicaines et CentroaméricainesINAH.
OLVEDA J., 1991, La oligarquía de Guadalajara, México, CONACULTA.
OUWENNEEL A., 1989, “The agrarian cycle as a catalyst of economic development in 18th
century central Mexico”, Ibero-Amerikanisches Archiv, 15/3, pp.399-417.
------- 1991, “Growth, Stagnation, and Migration: An explorative Analysis of the Tributario
Series of Anahuac (1720 – 1800)”, The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 71, No.3,
August pp. 531-577.
PIPITONE U., 1995 La salida del atraso: Un estudio histórico comparativo, México, FCE.
PREBISCH R., 1996, “El desarrollo económico de la América Latina y algunos de sus principales
problemas”, El Trimestre Económico, Vol.LXIII (1), Enero-Marzo, No. 249, pp.175-245.
RIOJAS LÓPEZ C., 2003 Las intransitables vías del desarrollo: el proceso de industrialización en
Jalisco durante el siglo XIX, México, Universidad de Guadalajara.
--------, 2003ª “Sobre proto-industrialización” Revista de la Universidad de Guadalajara, 26,
Invierno (separata), pp.48.
--------, 2000, “Desafíos para el estudio de la dinámica demográfica en Jalisco durante el siglo
XIX”, Papeles de población, 26, Oct-dic., pp.221-247.
ROMANO R. and CARMAGNANI, M., 1999, “Componentes económicos”, in Para una historia
de América I. Las estructuras, Eds. Carmagnani, M., Hernández, A., y Romano, R., (México,
FCE), pp.160-287.
RUDOLPH R., 1985, “Agricultural structure and proto-industrialization in Russia: economic
development with unfree labor”, Journal of Economic History, Vol.45, Issue 1, mar., pp. 4769.
28
29
SABEL Ch., and ZEITLIN J., 1985, “Historical alternatives to mass production: Politics, markets
and technology in nineteenth century industrialization”, Past and Present, no.108, august,
pp.133-176.
SAITO O., 1996, “Historical Demography: achievements and prospects”, Population Studies,
Vol.50, Issue 3, pp.537-553.
SALVUCCI R. J., 1992, Textiles y capitalismo en México. Una historia económica de los obrajes,
1539-1840, México, Alianza Editorial.
SERRERA R.M., 1991, Guadalajara Ganadera: Estudio regional novohispano (1760-1805),
México, Ayuntamiento de Guadalajara.
SZLAJFER H., 1986, “Against dependent capitalist development in 19th century Latin America:
The case of Haiti and Paraguay”, Latin American Perspectives, Vol.13, No.1, pp.45-73.
STERN, S.J., 1988, “Feudalism, capitalism, and the World-System in the perspective of Latin
America and the Caribbean”, The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, Issue 4, pp.829-972.
SWEEZY, P. et al.,1954, La Transición del Feudalismo al Capitalismo, Colombia, THF.
THOMSON, G.P.C., 1989 Puebla de los Angeles. Industry and society in a Mexican City, 17001850, Boulder Colorado, Westwiew Press.
------- 1991, "Continuity and Change in Mexican Manufacturing, 1800-1870", in Between
Development and Underdevelopment: The precocious attempts at industrialization of the
Periphery, 1800-1870, (Ed.) Batou J., J., (Genève, Droz) pp.255-302.
VAN YOUNG E., 1989, La ciudad y el campo en el México del siglo XVIII: La economía rural de
la región de Guadalajara, 1675-1820, México, FCE.
VRIES, De J., 1994, “The industrial revolution and the industrious revolution”, The Journal of
Economic History, 54/2, pp.249-270.
WEBER, M., 1991, Histoire économique: Esquisse d’une histoire universelle de l’économie et de
la société, Paris, Gallimard.
29