One of the standard objections against guilds in the premodern world has been their exclusiveness. Guilds have been portrayed as providing unfair advantages to the children of established masters and locals, over immigrants and other outsiders. Privileged access to certain professions and industries is seen as a source of inequality and a disincentive for technological progress. In this paper we examine this assumption by studying the composition of guild masters and apprentices from a large sample of European towns and cities from 1600 to 1800, focusing on the share who were children of masters or locals. This data offers an indirect measurement of the strength of guild barriers, and by implication their monopolies. We find very wide variation between guilds in practice, but most guild masters and apprentices were immigrants or unrelated locals: openness was much more common than closure, especially in larger centres. Our understanding of guild ‘monopolies’ and exclusivity is in need of serious revision. [157 words]

中文翻译：

---

贸易准入：17 和 18 世纪欧洲手工业协会的垄断和流动

在前现代世界中反对行会的标准反对意见之一是它们的排他性。公会被描绘成为老牌大师和当地人的孩子、移民和其他外来者提供不公平的优势。进入某些专业和行业的特权被视为不平等的根源和阻碍技术进步的因素。在本文中，我们通过研究来自 1600 年至 1800 年欧洲城镇和城市的大量样本的行会大师和学徒的构成来检验这一假设，重点是那些是大师或当地人的孩子的份额。这些数据提供了对公会障碍强度的间接衡量，并暗示他们的垄断。我们在实践中发现公会之间的差异非常大，但大多数公会会长和学徒都是移民或无关的当地人：开放比封闭更普遍，尤其是在较大的中心。我们对公会“垄断”和排他性的理解需要认真修改。[157个字]