Was technological change in the early Industrial Revolution Schumpeterian? Evidence of cotton textile profitability
Price and profit data between the 1770s and the 1820s from accounting records of three Lancashire cotton firms help to illumine the nature of the economic processes at work in early industrialization. Many historians have seen the Industrial Revolution as a Schumpeterian process in which discontinuous technological change led by the mechanized factories of the cotton industry created large profits for innovators that persisted in succeeding decades while technology slowly diffused. In this view imperfect capital markets limited the use of the new technology, keeping profits high. Reinvestment of these profits gradually financed expansion of innovating firms. The new technology dominated only after a long diffusion process. The evidence here, however, supports a more equilibrium view in which the industry expanded rapidly and prices fell in response to technological change. Expansion of the industry led to dramatic declines in the prices of cotton goods as early as the 1780s. There is no evidence of super-normal profits thereafter. Prices continued to fall and output expand thereafter as cost-reducing technological change continued.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Harley, C. Knick & Crafts, N.F.R., 2000. "Simulating the Two Views of the British Industrial Revolution," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(03), pages 819-841, September.
- C. Knick Harley, 1998. "Cotton Textile Prices and the Industrial Revolution," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 51(1), pages 49-83, 02.
- Nicholas Crafts & C. Knick Harley, 2002.
"Precocious British industrialization: a general equilibrium perspective,"
Economic History Working Papers
22368, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
- N. F. R. Crafts & C. Knick Harley, 2002. "Precocious British Industrialization: A General Equilibrium Perspective," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 200213, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Stanley D. Chapman, 1970. "Fixed Capital Formation in the British Cotton Industry, 1770–1815," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 23(2), pages 235-253, 08.
- Mokyr, Joel, 1976. "Growing-up and the industrial revolution in Europe," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 371-396, November.
- C. Knick Harley, 2010.
"Prices and Profits in Cotton Textiles During the Industrial Revolution,"
Economics Series Working Papers
Number 81, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- C. Knick Harley, 2010. "Prices and Profits in Cotton Textiles During the Industrial Revolution," Oxford University Economic and Social History Series _081, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
- Allen, Robert C., 2009. "Engels' pause: Technical change, capital accumulation, and inequality in the british industrial revolution," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 418-435, October.
- Pollard, Sidney, 1964. "Fixed Capital in the Industrial Revolution in Britain," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(03), pages 299-314, September.
- Gregory Clark, 2009. "The Macroeconomic Aggregates for England, 1209-2008," Working Papers 919, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
- Lyons, John S., 1985. "Vertical Integration in the British Cotton Industry, 1825–1850: a Revision," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(02), pages 419-425, June.
- Harberger, Arnold C, 1998. "A Vision of the Growth Process," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 1-32, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:exehis:v:49:y:2012:i:4:p:516-527. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.