IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/wpaper/515.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can profitable arbitrage opportunities in the raw cotton market explain Britain’s continued preference for mule spinning?

Author

Listed:
  • Leunig, Tim

Abstract

In an influential article Saxonhouse and Wright argued that the quality of local cotton was the single most important factor in explaining national preferences for ring or mule spinning. For Britain, they argue that mills using more flexible mule spindles could exploit arbitrage opportunities between different types of cotton in the Liverpool market, reducing the incentives to adopt rings. We use newly assembled price data to show that such cost-reducing arbitrage opportunities were small. We argue instead that the primary determinants of Lancashire’s technological choice were demand factors, but that the availability of good raw cotton did determine technological choice in emerging cotton industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Leunig, Tim, 2002. "Can profitable arbitrage opportunities in the raw cotton market explain Britain’s continued preference for mule spinning?," Economic History Working Papers 515, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:wpaper:515
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/515/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Copeland, Melvin Thomas, 1912. "The Cotton Manufacturing Industry of the United States," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number copeland1912.
    2. Leunig, Timothy, 2001. "NEW ANSWERS TO OLD QUESTIONS: EXPLAINING THE SLOW ADOPTION OF RING SPINNING IN LANCASHIRE, 1880–l913," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 439-466, June.
    3. Gary Saxonhouse & Gavin Wright, 1987. "Stubborn mules and vertical integration: the disappearing constraint?," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 40(1), pages 87-94, February.
    4. Leunig, Tim, 2000. "New answers to old questions: explaining the slow adoption of ring spinning in Lancashire, 1880-1913," Economic History Working Papers 22378, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    5. Gary R. Saxonhouse & Gavin Wright, 1984. "New Evidence on the Stubborn English Mule and the Cotton Industry, 1878-1920," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 37(4), pages 507-519, November.
    6. William Lazonick, 1981. "Factor Costs and the Diffusion of Ring Spinning in Britain Prior to World War I," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 96(1), pages 89-109.
    7. Cox, Alonzo B., 1928. "Marketing American Cotton in England," Technical Bulletins 156323, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Lars G. Sandberg, 1969. "American Rings and English Mules: The Role of Economic Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 83(1), pages 25-43.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    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. Tim Leunig & Joachim Voth, 2011. "Spinning welfare: The gains from process innovation in cotton and car production," Economics Working Papers 1352, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    3. Tim Leunig, 1998. "New Answers to Old Questions: Transport Costs and the Slow Adoption of Ring Spinning in Lancashire," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _022, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. David Higgins & Steve Toms, 2003. "Financial distress, corporate borrowing, and industrial decline: the Lancashire cotton spinning industry, 1918-38," Accounting History Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 207-232.
    6. Crafts, Nicholas, 2020. "British Relative Economic Decline in the Aftermath of German Unification," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1295, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    7. Kris James Mitchener & Se Yan, 2010. "Globalization, Trade & Wages: What Does History tell us about China?," NBER Working Papers 15679, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Joan R. Rosés, 2009. "Subcontracting and vertical integration in the Spanish cotton industry1," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 62(1), pages 45-72, February.
    9. Crafts, Nicholas & O’Rourke, Kevin Hjortshøj, 2014. "Twentieth Century Growth*This research has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement no. 249546.," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 6, pages 263-346, Elsevier.
    10. Leunig, Tim, 2000. "New answers to old questions: explaining the slow adoption of ring spinning in Lancashire, 1880-1913," Economic History Working Papers 22378, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    11. Christopher Spencer & Paul Temple, 2012. "Alternative Paths of Learning: Standardisation and Growth in Britain, 1901-2009," Discussion Paper Series 2012_10, Department of Economics, Loughborough University, revised Oct 2012.
    12. Crafts, Nicholas, 2011. "British Relative Economic Decline Revisited," CEPR Discussion Papers 8384, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Alejandro Ayuso‐Díaz & Antonio Tena‐Junguito, 2020. "Trade in the shadow of power: Japanese industrial exports in the interwar years," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 73(3), pages 815-843, August.
    14. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James Robinson, 2005. "The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 546-579, June.
    15. Stephen Redding, 2002. "Path Dependence, Endogenous Innovation, and Growth," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1215-1248, November.
    16. James Bessen, 2009. "More Machines, Better Machines...Or Better Workers?," Working Papers 0803, Research on Innovation.
    17. Gupta, Bishnupriya, 2006. "Unions, Wages and Labour Productivity: Evidence from Indian Cotton Mills," Economic Research Papers 269646, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    18. Irwin, Douglas A. & Temin, Peter, 2001. "The Antebellum Tariff On Cotton Textiles Revisited," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 777-798, September.
    19. Tomoko HASHINO & Keijiro Otsuka, 2021. "Selective Technology Choice, Adaptations, and Industrial Development: Lessons from Japanese Historical Experience," Discussion Papers 2124, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
    20. Crafts, Nicholas, 2012. "British relative economic decline revisited: The role of competition," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 17-29.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General
    • O52 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Europe

    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:ehl:wpaper:515. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: LSERO Manager on behalf of EH Dept. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chlseuk.html .

    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.