IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oxf/esohwp/_022.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New Answers to Old Questions: Transport Costs and the Slow Adoption of Ring Spinning in Lancashire

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Leunig

Abstract

It has been argued that the additional cost of transporting ring yarn in the vertically and geographically specialised Lancashire cotton industry was sufficiently high to deter spinners from adopting rings. The absence of a transition to large scale vertically integrated plants is seen as a form of entrepreneurial failure. In this paper we use new evidence to show that the majority of yarn could have been woven within the district in which it was spun, and, further, that in such areas, the average distance between spinners and weavers was a matter of yards. Transport costs were no more important for these firms that for vertically integrated ones. This yields a testable hypothesis: vertically specialised firms located in this areas should have been as read to adopt rings as were integrated firms. We test this proposition and find it to be correct: co-located independent, vertically specialised firms were as likely to adopt rings as were vertically integrated firms. As such the industrys failure to move to large scale vertically integrated production cannot be characterised as a form of entrepreneurial failure.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oxf:esohwp:_022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/economics/history/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lazonick, William, 1983. "Industrial Organization and Technological Change: The Decline of the British Cotton Industry," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(2), pages 195-236, July.
    2. N. F. R. Crafts & C. K. Harley, 1992. "Output growth and the British industrial revolution: a restatement of the Crafts-Harley view," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 45(4), pages 703-730, November.
    3. William Lazonick, 1984. "Rings and Mules in Britain: Reply," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(2), pages 393-398.
    4. 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.
    5. Lars G. Sandberg, 1984. "The Remembrance of Things Past: Rings and Mules Revisited," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(2), pages 387-392.
    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. 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.
    8. Chandler, Alfred D., 1990. "Scale and Scope: A Review Colloquium - Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. By Alfred D. ChandlerJr., with Takashi Hikino · Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990. xix + ," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 690-735, January.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. William Lazonick, 2008. "Entrepreneurial Ventures and the Developmental State: Lessons from the Advanced Economies," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2008-01, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. 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.
    8. Jaume Ventura & Hans-Joachim Voth, 2015. "Debt into growth: How sovereign debt accelerated the first Industrial Revolution," Economics Working Papers 1483, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    9. Richard E. Baldwin & Philippe Martin & Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Global Income Divergence, Trade, and Industrialization: The Geography of Growth Take-Offs," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 2, pages 25-57, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Stephan Heblich & Stephen J Redding & Daniel M Sturm, 2020. "The Making of the Modern Metropolis: Evidence from London," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(4), pages 2059-2133.
    11. Susan Helper & Mari Sako, 2010. "Management innovation in supply chain: appreciating Chandler in the twenty-first century," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(2), pages 399-429, April.
    12. David B. Audretsch & Martin A. Carree & Adriaan J. Van Stel & A. Roy Thurik, 2002. "Impeded Industrial Restructuring: The Growth Penalty," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 81-98.
    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. Modalsli, Jørgen, 2011. "Inequality and growth in the very long run: inferring inequality from data on social groups," Memorandum 11/2011, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    15. Robert J. Bennett & Harry Smith & Piero Montebruno & Carry van Lieshout, 2022. "Changes in Victorian entrepreneurship in England and Wales 1851-1911: Methodology and business population estimates," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(7), pages 1211-1243, September.
    16. Robert C. Allen, 2005. "Capital Accumulation, Technological Change, and the Distribution of Income during the British Industrial Revolution," Economics Series Working Papers 239, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    17. Stephen Broadberry & Bruce Campbell & Alexander Klein & Mark Overton, 2010. "British economic growth, 1300-1850: some preliminary estimates," Working Papers 10009, Economic History Society.
    18. David Clayton, 2006. "Labour--Intensive Industrialization in Hong Kong, 1950--70: A Note on Sources and Methods," Asia Pacific Business Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 375-388, July.
    19. Faria, João Ricardo & Cuestas, Juan Carlos & Mourelle, Estefanía, 2010. "Entrepreneurship and unemployment: A nonlinear bidirectional causality?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1282-1291, September.
    20. Broadberry, Stephen & Ghosal, Sayantan & Proto, Eugenio, 2017. "Anonymity, efficiency wages and technological progress," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 379-394.

    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:oxf:esohwp:_022. 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: Anne Pouliquen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfeixuk.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.