Table 2 -Firms belonging to a business group: 2001
|
Firms |
_____Employees_____ | |||
|
(c)/(a) |
(c)∕(b) |
(c)/(a) |
(c)/(b) | |
|
% |
% |
% |
% | |
|
Non district LLSs (585) |
4.63 |
21.31 |
44.94 |
63.47 |
|
District LLS (199) |
5.87 |
23.88 |
35.39 |
53.05 |
|
District LLS (only district sector) (199) |
5.86 |
24.11 |
35.67 |
53.28 |
(a) All firms
(b) Firms with known ownership structure
(c) Firms belonging to a business group
Table 3 - Firms belonging to a business group (2001), % of firms
|
District firms |
Non-district firms | |||
|
(c)/(a) |
(c)/(b) |
(c)/(a) |
(c)/(b) | |
|
% |
% |
% |
% | |
|
Food (17) |
5.67 |
20.61 |
2.69 |
17.75 |
|
Textile and clothing (68) |
5.01 |
21.82 |
3.09 |
17.43 |
|
Leather and footwear (28) |
4.06 |
15.92 |
2.83 |
14.73 |
|
Furniture (39) |
4.91 |
25.33 |
2.39 |
18.66 |
|
Mechanics (33) |
7.46 |
25.77 |
5.43 |
22.31 |
|
Other sectors (14)__________ |
7.23 |
20.99 |
9.27 |
26.27 |
(a) All firms
(b) Firms with known ownership structure
(c) Firms belonging to a business group
Table 4 - Firms belonging to a business group (2001), % of employees
|
District firms |
Non-district firms | |||
|
(c)/(a) |
(c)/(b) |
(c)/(a) |
(c)/(b) | |
|
% |
% |
% |
% | |
|
Food (17) |
51.73 |
64.69 |
32.34 |
57.57 |
|
Textile and clothing (68) |
29.80 |
49.89 |
28.65 |
50.15 |
|
Leather and footwear (28) |
17.29 |
31.47 |
20.66 |
38.36 |
|
Furniture (39) |
41.54 |
61.14 |
25.30 |
49.00 |
|
Mechanics (33) |
42.19 |
57.36 |
40.77 |
57.46 |
|
Other sectors (14)__________ |
36.36 |
50.43 |
51.60 |
64.72 |
(a) All firms
(b) Firms with known ownership structure
(c) Firms belonging to a business group
It is worth noting that, for the aim of our study, the higher presence of groups when
measured in terms of firms is more significant than when measured in terms of employees.
Indeed, this difference means that in industrial districts the group form is more widespread
12