IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jechis/v41y1981i03p491-516_04.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Production Relations, Labor Productivity, and Choice of Technique: British and U.S. Cotton Spinning

Author

Listed:
  • Lazonick, William H.

Abstract

The role of capital-labor relations in the transformation of inputs into output is central to the Marxian theory of capitalist development but is neglected by neoclassical theory. By comparing the development of cotton spinning in Britain and the U.S. in the last half of the nineteenth century, this paper analyzes the ways in which capital-labor relations affected the level and structure of wages, labor productivity, and choice of technique. This case study demonstrates the descriptive and predictive limitations of the neoclassical theory of choice of technique while at the same time pointing the way towards the development of a more incisive, and historically relevant, theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Lazonick, William H., 1981. "Production Relations, Labor Productivity, and Choice of Technique: British and U.S. Cotton Spinning," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 491-516, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jechis:v:41:y:1981:i:03:p:491-516_04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022050700044302/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ciliberto, Federico, 2010. "Were British cotton entrepreneurs technologically backward? Firm-level evidence on the adoption of ring spinning," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 487-504, October.
    2. Tommaso Ciarli & Valentina Meliciani & Maria Savona, 2012. "Knowledge Dynamics, Structural Change And The Geography Of Business Services," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 445-467, July.
    3. Allen, Robert C., 2014. "American Exceptionalism as a Problem in Global History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 309-350, June.
    4. Claudia Goldin & Kenneth Sokoloff, 1984. "The Relative Productivity Hypothesis of Industrialization: The American Case, 1820 to 1850," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(3), pages 461-487.
    5. Gavin Wright, 1999. "Can a Nation Learn? American Technology as a Network Phenomenon," NBER Chapters, in: Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms, and Countries, pages 295-332, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen, 2009. "Commerce in Braudel and the Marxists," MPRA Paper 21054, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. William Lazonick, 2018. "Comments on Gary Pisano: “toward a prescriptive theory of dynamic capabilities”," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(6), pages 1165-1174.
    8. Timothy Leunig, 2003. "A British industrial success: productivity in the Lancashire and New England cotton spinning industries a century ago," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 56(1), pages 90-117, February.
    9. James, John A. & Skinner, Jonathan S., 1985. "The Resolution of the Labor-Scarcity Paradox," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(3), pages 513-540, September.
    10. Marc van Essen & J. (Hans) van Oosterhout & Pursey P. M. A. R. Heugens, 2013. "Competition and Cooperation in Corporate Governance: The Effects of Labor Institutions on Blockholder Effectiveness in 23 European Countries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 530-551, April.
    11. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-141 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Leunig, Tim, 2001. "Britannia ruled the waves," Economic History Working Papers 536, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jechis:v:41:y:1981:i:03:p:491-516_04. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jeh .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.