¹ Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics (London, 1920), 281Google Scholar. By analyzing industrial districts from the perspective of such externalities, Michael Porter clarifies the nature of competition and source of competitive advantage. Porter, Michael, On Competition (Boston, 1998)Google ScholarPubMed.

² Sonobe, Tetsushi and Otsuka, Keijiro, Cluster-Based Industrial Development: A Comparative Study of Asia and Africa (New York, 2010), 4Google Scholar.

³ Sabel, Charles F. and Zeitlen, Jonathan, World of Possibilities: Flexibility and Mass Production in Western Industrialization (Cambridge, Mass., 1997), 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Carnevali, Francesca, “‘Crooks, Thieves, and Receivers’: Transaction Costs in Nineteenth-century Industrial Birmingham,” Economic History Review 57 (2004): 533–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Hashino, Tomoko, Keizai hatten to sanchi, shijo, seido: Meijiki kinuorimonogyo no shinka to dainamizumu [Economic development, industrial districts, markets and institutions: The evolution and dynamics in the silk weaving industry in the Meiji period] (Kyoto, 2007), 12–15Google Scholar.

⁶ Schmitz, Hubert, “Collective Effi ciency: Growth Path for Small-scale Industry,” Journal of Development Studies 31 (Apr. 1995): 529–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Nadvi, Khalid, “The Cutting Edge: Collective Efficiency and International Competitiveness in Pakistan,” Oxford Development Studies 27 (1999): 81–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmitz, Hubert, “Small Shoemakers and Fordist Giants: Tale of a Supercluster,” World Development 23 (Jan. 1995): 9–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Brusco, Sebastiano, “The Emilian Model: Productive Decentralization and Social Integration,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 6 (1982): 167–84Google Scholar.

⁹ Jonathan Zeitlin appropriately pointed out that a more important question for researchers on industrial districts concerns their reproduction and sustainability. Zeitlin, Jonathan, “Industrial Districts and Regional Clusters,” in The Oxford Handbook of Business History, ed. Jones, Geoffrey and Zeitlin, Jonathan (Oxford, 2007), 225Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Kiryu Orimonoshi Hensankai Kiryu Orimonoshi Hensankai [Editorial Association of the History of the Kiryu Silk Weaving Industry], Kiryu orimonoshi [History of the Kiryu silk weaving industry] 3 (Kiryu, 1940), 373–79.

¹¹ Hashino, , Keizai hatten, 170Google Scholar. For a brief history of Kiryu, see Hashino, Tomoko, “The Rise of the Power-loom Factory in the Traditional Silk-weaving District: Change in Demand and the Labor Market,” in Production Organization in Japanese Economic Development, ed. Okazaki, Tetsuji (London, 2007), 14–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The rapid growth of habutae export is described in Hashino, Tomoko, “The Importance of Consular Reports for the Export Growth of the Japanese Silk Fabric Habutae in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in Consuls et services consularaires au XIXe siècle, ed. Ulbert, Jorg and Prijac, Lukian (Hamburg, 2010), 486–501Google Scholar.

¹² Yamawaki, Hideki, “The Evolution and Structure of Industrial Clusters in Japan,” Small Business Economics 18 (2002): 121–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Habutae is a type of silk fabric that was mainly exported; it is very light, plain, even, and uniform. For more details on habutae export and related issues, see Hashino, “The Importance of Consular Reports.”

¹⁴ Hashino, Tomoko and Kurosawa, Takafumi, “Competition and Cooperation in the Fashion Market: The Development of a Textile Cluster in Japan Supported by the Functions of a Trade Association,” paper presented at the annual meeting for the European Business History Association, Milan, 11–13June 2009Google Scholar.

¹⁵ This figure is based on the data in Report on History of Weaving Industry in Gunma Prefecture [Gunmaken orimonogyo enkakuchosasho] (from 1878 to 1901); Statistical Survey of Gunma Prefecture [Gunmaken tokeisho] after 1902.

¹⁶ At the turn of the century, Kiryu's production declined again, then increased after 1904. Such changes may be attributed to a temporary slump due to an economy-wide crisis around 1900.

¹⁷ Hensankai, Kiryu Orimonoshi [Editorial Association of the History of the Kiryu Silk Weaving Industry], Kiryu orimonoshi [History of the Kiryu silk weaving industry] 1 (Kiryu, 1935), 242Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Tamura, Hitoshi, Fasshon no shakaikeizaishi: Zairai orimonogyo no gijutsu kakushin to ryuko shijo [A socio-economic history of the fashion market in Japan (1840–1880s)] (Tokyo, 2004), ch. 1Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Suzuki, Yoshitaka, Hashino, Tomoko, and Shiratori, Keishi, MBA no tameno Nihon keieishi [Japanese business history for MBA programs] (Tokyo, 2007), 67Google Scholar.

²⁰ Hashino, Tomoko, “Historical Context of Institutionalising Technical Education: The Case of Weaving Districts in Meiji Japan,” Australian Economic History Review 52 (Mar. 2012): 25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Okazaki, Tetsuji, “The Role of the Merchant Coalition in Pre-modern Japanese Economic Development: An Historical Institutional Analysis,” Explorations in Economic History 42 (Oct. 2005): 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an example of a US trade association with a different outcome, see Harris, Howell, “Coping with Competition: Cooperation and Collusion in the US Stove Industry, c.1870–1930,” Business History Review 86, no. 4 (Winter 2012): 658–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Okazaki, , “The Role of the Merchant Coalition,” 188Google Scholar.

²³ Ibid., 189.

²⁴ Pratt, Edward, Japan's Protoindustrial Elite: The Economic Foundations of the Gono (Cambridge, Mass., 1999), 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Suzuki, , Hashino, , and Shiratori, , MBA, 67Google Scholar; Abe, Takeshi and Nakamura, Naofumi, “Nihon no sangyo kakumei to kigyo keiei: Gaisetsu” [Enterprise and industrial revolution in Japan: An overview], in Nihon Keieishi 2: Sangyo kakumei to kigyo keiei [Japanese business history 2: Enterprise and industrial revolution], ed. Abe, Takeshi and Nakamura, Naofumi (Kyoto, 2010), 20–21Google Scholar.

²⁵ Hashino, “Historical Context.”

²⁶ Such cases increased to about seven hundred in 1909 and to 1,029 in 1915, when the weaving trade associations numbered 134. Suzuki, , Hashino, , and Shiratori, , MAB, 67–68Google Scholar. For further information on the development process of legal systems for local trade associations, see Abe, Takeshi, “The Development of the Putting-out System in Modern Japan: The Case of the Cotton-weaving Industry,” in Small Firms, Large Concerns, ed. Odaka, Konosuke and Sawai, Minoru (New York, 1999), 217–49Google Scholar.

²⁷ Gunmaken [Gunma Prefecture], Gunmaken orimonogyo enkaku chosasho [History of the weaving industry in the Gunma Prefecture] (Maebashi, 1904), 9–13, 79. The detailed activities of the weaving industry in this prefecture are explained in section 4.

²⁸ The first law to regulate the use of the word “company” in general was enacted in 1893. Before its enactment, a wide variety of “new” types of economic entities used the word “company.”

²⁹ Edward Pratt argued that such initiatives came from the rural elites during the Tokugawa Period. See Pratt, , Japan's Protoindustrial Elite, 76Google Scholar.

³⁰ In 1891, the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce informed the governors that they could enact legislation for local trade associations, if needed, to protect and promote the development of the industry and commerce in the prefecture. In such cases, governors were allowed to enact the legislation instead of adhering to the Dogyo Kumiai Junsoku [Standing Rules for Trade Association] that the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce had enacted in 1884.

³¹ Hensankai, Kiryu Orimonoshi, Kiryu orimonoshi 3, 58Google Scholar.

³² Pratt, , Japan's Protoindustrial Elite, 76Google Scholar.

³³ Hashino, “Historical Context.”

³⁴ Despite our serious inquiries into the documents of KTAW, we could not find any central figures in the association.

³⁵ shinkokai, Nishijin, Kanto no kigyo [Weaving industry in Eastern Japan] (Kyoto, 1914), 1Google Scholar.

³⁶ shinkokai, Nishijin, Kanto, 5Google Scholar.

³⁷ Hashino, , Keizai hatten, 20Google Scholar.

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ Ibid., ch. 1. The literature survey by Okazaki and Nakabayashi is valuable for understanding how researchers challenged the “mode of production” for the last four decades, which was based on the traditional view of Karl Marx. See Okazaki, Tetsuji and Nakabayashi, Masaki, “History of Production Organizations,” in Production Organization in Japanese Economic Development, ed. Okazaki, Tetsuji (London, 2007), 4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the case of the embroidery industry in the eastern part of Switzerland, the decline in embroidery machine prices at the end of the nineteenth century brought about an “inverse” transition from a factory system to the putting-out system based on out-workers in the villages. See Kurosawa, Takafumi, Kindai Suisu keizei no keisei: Chiiki shuken to Kourain chiikino sangyou kakumei [The formation of the modern Swiss economy: Regionalism and the industrial revolution in the Hoch-Rhein region] (Kyoto, 2002), 330–32Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Gunmaken, , Gunmaken orimono, 60–61Google Scholar.

⁴¹ The term “weaving producers” refers to independent weavers, including putters. Outweavers were excluded from membership in KTAW.

⁴² Suzuki, , Hashino, , and Shiratori, , MBA, 57Google Scholar.

⁴³ Gunmaken, , Orimono, 95–96Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ In this survey, the number of out-weavers is quite different from the figure provided in Statistics of Gunma Prefecture (1901).

⁴⁵ Stigler, George J., “The Division of Labor Is Limited by the Extent of the Market,” Journal of Political Economy 59 (June 1951): 183–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ Shinkokai, Nishijin, Kanto, 18–19Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Pratt, , Japan's Protoindustrial Elite, 76Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Statistical Survey of the Gunma Prefecture, 1906, 144; 1910, 163Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Hesankai, Kiryu Orimonoshi, Kiryu orimonoshi 3, 254Google Scholar.

⁵¹ For information on the problem and the response of the prefectural government, see Hashino, , “The Importance of Consular Report,” 495–500Google Scholar.

⁵² Hashino, “From Putting-out to the Factory System,” Figures 2–11.

⁵³ Statistical Survey in Gunma Prefecture, 1908, 142Google Scholar; 1910, 162.

⁵⁴ Statistical Survey in Gunma Prefecture, 1904, 213Google Scholar. According to this survey, the four types of factories are throwing factories (14 workers), dyeing-scouring factories (22 workers), finishing factories (10 workers), and scouring-finishing factories (27 workers).

⁵⁵ Hensankai, Kiryu Orimonoshi, Kiryu Orimonoshi 3, 130Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Matsumoto, Takanori, “Ryotaisenkanki Nihon no seizogyo ni okeru dogyo kumiai no kino” [“Function of dogyo kumiai and manufacturing in Inter-war Japan”], Shakaikeizaishigaku 58-55 (Jan. 1993): 47–77Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Hensanka, Kiryu Orimonoshi, Kiryu orimonoshi 3, 60–61Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Hashino, , Keizai hatten, 170Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 10.

⁶⁰ Gunmaken, [Gunma Prefecture], Kiryu orimonogyo enkaku chosasho [History of the weaving industry in Kiryu] (Maebashi, 1904), 35Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Pratt, , Japan's Protoindustrial Elite, 77Google Scholar. In the 1880s, local trade associations established seven institutes of dyeing. Many of them became prefectural textile and dyeing schools when the Ministry of Education developed the educational system law in the 1890s. (Hashino, “Historical Context.”)

⁶² Yasuoka, Shigeaki, “Meijiki dogyokumiai no hinshitsu kisei no shoso” [The Difference in the quality control between merchants' and manufacturers' associations in the Meiji era], Doshisha Shogaku 43 (Jan. 1992): 70–71Google Scholar.

⁶³ Hensankai, Kiryu Orimonoshi, Kiryu oriomonoshi 3, 58–90Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Inspections of fabrics for the export market became stricter in 1907 because the current inspection methods were neither appropriate nor sufficient. Hensankai, Kiryu Orimonoshi, Kiryu orimonoshi 3, 427Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ The Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce was divided into the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 1925.

⁶⁶ Hensankai, Kiryu Orimonoshi, Kiryu orimonoshi 3, 187–210Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 537–40.

⁶⁸ Nakabayashi, , “Flexibility and Diversity,” 151–59Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ It is known that the Kakiage Company also held a central position in the local financial system, by issuing promissory notes, which weaving producers used widely as payment to raw silk merchants. Those bills were discounted by local banks. See Ishii, Kanji, “Kigyo kinyuu no keisei” [Formation of cooperate finance], in Nihon keieishi 2: Sangyo kakumei to kigyo keiei [Japanese business history 2: Enterprise and industrial revolution], ed. Abe, Takeshi and Nakamura, Naofumi (Kyoto, 2010), 247–78Google Scholar. The relationship between the local production system and the regionally organized banking system requires further research from the view of industrial clustering.

⁷⁰ Vernus, Pierre, “Regulating the Activity of a Business Community: Employers' Organization in the Lyon Silk Industry, 1860s–1939,” Business and Economic History On-line 2 (2004): 1–18Google Scholar. On the Lancashire textile industry's self-regulation, see Higgins, David M., ”‘Forgotten Heroes and Forgotten Issues’: Business and Trademark History during the Nineteenth Century,” Business History Review 86 (Summer 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ Local trade associations have not always contributed to the development of industrial districts. In fact, Benedita Camera cited a typical example in the case of the embroidery industry in Madeira where the production, based on the putting-out system, was intended mainly for the US market, and manufacturer-exporters established a compulsory “guild” in 1935. Contrary to expectations, the state-backed guild promoted the collective regional brand by prohibiting imitation rather than promoting innovation. Benedita Camera, “The Institutional Control of Innovation: The Case of the Embroidery of Madeira,” Business History 53 (July 2011): 583–99Google Scholar. Steven Tolliday and Yasushi Yonemitsu also investigated a similar case in the Arita pottery district in Japan, in which a pragmatic or individualistic rather than cooperative industrial atmosphere was dominant. The pragmatic atmosphere was so dominant in Arita that encompassing collective institutions were not nurtured. See Tolliday, Steven and Yonemitsu, Yasushi, “Microfirms and Industrial Districts in Japan: The Dynamics of the Arita Ceramic-ware Industry in the Twentieth Century,” Journal of Japanese Studies 33 (Winter 2007): 65Google Scholar.

⁷² Sonobe, Tetsushi and Otsuka, Keijiro, An East Asian Model: A Comparative Study of Asia and Africa (New York, 2010)Google Scholar.

⁷³ Carnevali, Francesca, “Social Capital and Trade Associations in America, c.1860–1914: A Microhistory Approach,” Economic History Review 64 (2011): 905–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.