Else Cronbach: International Regulation of Shuttle Embroidery (1910)

Else Cronbach’s Zur Frage einer internationalen Regelung der Arbeitsbedingungen in der Schifflistickereiindustrie. I. Gutachten (1910), prepared for the International Association for Labour Legislation, examines the economic grounds and competitive consequences of common labour standards. Comparing industrial organization, markets, and existing regulation, it asks whether identical requirements would impose equitable burdens. Detailed investigation of working conditions in Vorarlberg belongs to the separate second report.

The proposed agreement would prohibit employment of children under fourteen and night work between eight in the evening and six in the morning, extend factory legislation to establishments with two or more machines, and require registration. Its initial scope reflected a closely integrated cross-border industry:

Die bezüglichen Vereinbarungen sollten in erster Linie zwischen der Schweiz und Vorarlberg getroffen werden, also für das große Stickereigebiet der Ostschweiz und das angrenzende Vorarlberg Geltung haben.

English translation: The agreements in question should be concluded in the first place between Switzerland and Vorarlberg, and thus have validity for the great embroidery district of eastern Switzerland and the adjoining Vorarlberg.

Cronbach broadens the comparison to Saxony and Bohemia. Her central distinction is between the desirability of worker protection and the economic justification for a particular international settlement. Social benefits do not by themselves establish that concessions among producing countries are equivalent.

Mechanization provides the first test of industrial differences. Shuttle embroidery required greater capital and more elaborate premises than hand-machine production:

Denn die höheren Kosten der Maschine, ihr größerer Umfang, die Notwendigkeit des mechanischen Antriebes fordern größere Räume und bedeutendere Kapitalinvestitionen als die viel anspruchslosere Handstickmaschine.

English translation: For the higher cost of the machine, its greater size, and the necessity of mechanical power demand larger premises and more considerable capital investments than does the far more modest hand embroidery machine.

These requirements did not produce a uniform movement toward large factories. Large and medium establishments predominated in Switzerland, whereas electricity and accessible credit helped sustain small enterprises in Vorarlberg. Comparing machine numbers and establishment size, Cronbach identifies a divergent trajectory:

Während drei Jahren ist also die Zahl der Schifflimaschinen in Vorarlberg sehr gestiegen, die durchschnittliche Betriebsgröße dagegen sehr bedeutend gesunken.

English translation: In the course of three years, then, the number of shuttle embroidery machines in Vorarlberg has risen greatly, whereas the average size of establishment has fallen very considerably.

Expansion could thus accompany fragmentation rather than concentration. Cronbach also distinguishes subcontracting from household production: enterprises manufacturing on commission could themselves operate substantial factories. Neither machine counts nor commercial classifications alone adequately described labour organization.

Market relations further complicated national comparisons. Vorarlberg depended heavily on Swiss merchants, who connected its output to foreign demand, especially the American market:

Nur ein relativ geringer Prozentsatz der Vorarlberger Produktion wird im Inlande abgesetzt, ein noch geringerer Teil direkt exportiert.

English translation: Only a relatively small percentage of Vorarlberg production is sold at home, and a still smaller part is exported directly.

National export statistics consequently understated the region’s international exposure while obscuring its dependence on intermediaries. Bohemian workers’ stronger organization stabilized payment rates, whereas Vorarlberg’s fluctuating rates made it a source of cheap subcontracted production during downturns.

Cronbach acknowledges that household production sharpened wage competition. Family producers treated remuneration as income rather than as a wage expense payable before production could continue. They could therefore accept returns below those sustainable for employers of wage labour, weakening factory wages and coordinated efforts to reduce output.

Yet she rejects household overwork as the principal explanation of the 1908 crisis. Fashion-dependent demand, the American financial crisis, and rapid machinery investment were more decisive. Longer and increasingly automatic machines expanded capacity beyond what machine totals alone disclosed. A night-work prohibition could not remedy this mismatch between demand and capacity; by encouraging machinery purchases during prosperous periods, it might even aggravate subsequent overcapacity. Cronbach nevertheless recognizes regulated hours’ benefits for health and lasting productive efficiency.

The decisive policy objection concerns unequal starting conditions. Existing Swiss and German restrictions already approached much of the proposed regime, while Vorarlberg’s small and family establishments would face the greatest new constraint. Weaker capital resources, older machinery, and dependence on distant merchants compounded their vulnerability. Credit-financed machinery meant that business failures could transmit losses beyond individual producers. The separate investigation’s finding that night work and excessive hours were uncommon further weakened the case for urgent intervention.

Cronbach ultimately rejects the proposed agreement from the Austrian standpoint, emphasizing Vorarlberg’s exposure. Her report distinguishes equality of legal requirements from equality of economic burdens: international coordination cannot be assumed to neutralize competitive disadvantages when production structures, existing protections, and market dependencies differ sharply.