IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ehsrev/v62y2009i3p685-710.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technical choice, innovation, and British steam engineering, 1800–501

Author

Listed:
  • ALESSANDRO NUVOLARI
  • BART VERSPAGEN

Abstract

The development of the high‐pressure expansive engine represented a watershed in the evolution of steam power technology, allowing the attainment of major fuel economies. In Britain, Cornish engineers took the lead in the exploration of this specific technological trajectory. Notwithstanding its superior fuel efficiency was immediately widely discussed, the high‐pressure expansive engine did not find widespread application in other steam‐using regions (in particular in Lancashire), where the Watt low‐pressure engine continued to be the favourite option. This article provides a reassessment of the factors accounting for the precocious adoption of the high‐pressure steam engine in Cornwall and for its delayed fortune in the rest of Britain.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandro Nuvolari & Bart Verspagen, 2009. "Technical choice, innovation, and British steam engineering, 1800–501," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 62(3), pages 685-710, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ehsrev:v:62:y:2009:i:3:p:685-710
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00472.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00472.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00472.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Nuvolari, 2004. "Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(3), pages 347-363, May.
    2. Nicholas Crafts, 2004. "Steam as a general purpose technology: A growth accounting perspective," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 338-351, April.
    3. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    4. Mark Doms & Eric J. Bartelsman, 2000. "Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 569-594, September.
    5. Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
    6. Halsey, Harlan I., 1981. "The Choice Between High-Pressure and Low-Pressure Steam Power in America in the Early Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 723-744, December.
    7. Atkinson, Anthony B & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1969. "A New View of Technological Change," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 79(315), pages 573-578, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Javier Silvestre & John E. Murray, 2023. "Determinants in the adoption of a non-labor-substitution technology: mechanical ventilation in West Virginia coal mines, 1898–1907," Cliometrica, Springer;Cliometric Society (Association Francaise de Cliométrie), vol. 17(3), pages 467-500, September.
    2. Nomaler, Onder & Verspagen, Bart, 2016. "River deep, mountain high: Of long-run knowledge trajectories within and between innovation clusters," MERIT Working Papers 2016-048, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. James Bessen & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2019. "Diffusing new technology without dissipating rents: some historical case studies of knowledge sharing," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(2), pages 365-388.
    4. Nicholas Crafts, 2022. "Slow real wage growth during the Industrial Revolution: productivity paradox or pro-rich growth? [Engels’ pause: technical change, capital accumulation, and inequality in the British industrial rev," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 1-13.
    5. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    6. Nicholas Crafts, 2021. "Understanding productivity growth in the industrial revolution," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 74(2), pages 309-338, May.
    7. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    8. George Selgin & John L. Turner, 2011. "Strong Steam, Weak Patents, or the Myth of Watt's Innovation-Blocking Monopoly, Exploded," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(4), pages 841-861.
    9. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).

    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. Nuvolari, A. & Verspagen, B., 2005. "'Unravelling the Duty': Lean�s Engine Reporter and Cornish Steam Engineering," Working Papers 05.14, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    2. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    3. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    4. Antonio D'Agata, 2010. "Endogenous Adaptive Dynamics In Pasinetti Model Of Structural Change," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 333-363, May.
    5. Uwe Cantner & Simone Vannuccini, 2012. "A New View of General Purpose Technologies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-054, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Grazzi, 2006. "Technologies as problem-solving procedures and technologies as input--output relations: some perspectives on the theory of production," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(1), pages 173-202, February.
    7. George Selgin & John L. Turner, 2011. "Strong Steam, Weak Patents, or the Myth of Watt's Innovation-Blocking Monopoly, Exploded," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(4), pages 841-861.
    8. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    9. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    10. Allen, Robert C., 2012. "Backward into the future: The shift to coal and implications for the next energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 17-23.
    11. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2005. "Models of knowledge and systems of governance," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 51-73, June.
    12. Montobbio, Fabio & Staccioli, Jacopo & Virgillito, Maria Enrica & Vivarelli, Marco, 2022. "Robots and the origin of their labour-saving impact," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    13. Pier Paolo Saviotti, 2011. "Knowledge, Complexity and Networks," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Dario Guarascio & Mario Pianta & Francesco Bogliacino, 2017. "Export, R&D and New Products: A Model and a Test on European Industries," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 393-432, Springer.
    15. Luís F. Tironi & Bruno de O. Cruz, 2008. "Inovação Incremental ou Radical: Há Motivos para Diferenciar? Uma Abordagem com Dados da PINTEC," Discussion Papers 1360, Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada - IPEA.
    16. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & von Hippel, Eric, 2009. "Transfers of user process innovations to process equipment producers: A study of Dutch high-tech firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1181-1191, September.
    17. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    18. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1352-1361.
    19. Alfonso GAMBARDELLA & Bronwyn H. HALL, 2004. "Propriety vs. Public Domain Licensing of Software and Research Products," Economics Working Papers ECO2004/15, European University Institute.
    20. Leonard Dudley, 2010. "General Purpose Technologies and the Industrial Revolution," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2010-11, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.

    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:bla:ehsrev:v:62:y:2009:i:3:p:685-710. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ehsukea.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.