IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/exehis/v47y2010i4p487-504.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Were British cotton entrepreneurs technologically backward? Firm-level evidence on the adoption of ring spinning

Author

Listed:
  • Ciliberto, Federico

Abstract

I study the slow adoption of ring spinning in Great Britain's cotton industry at the end of the 19th century, which has been used as evidence of British entrepreneurs' declining efficiency and conservatism (Musson, 1959; Aldcroft, 1964; Lazonick, 1981, 1981b). To this purpose I use firm-level data from all of Lancashire's cotton firms over several years. The data are from Worrall's The Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Directory for the years 1885, 1886-1887, 1890, 1894, 1902, and 1910. First, I show that the vertical organization of the industry, with its firms specializing in spinning or weaving, did not act as an impediment to the adoption of the ring spinning technology, as was argued by Lazonick. In particular, I show the following: i) non-integrated firms were the first to adopt rings in Great Britain; ii) the large majority of firms that adopted rings were incumbents; iii) vertically integrated firms that were spinning only either twist or weft yarn were still in existence in 1910; and iv) only a negligible number of firms changed their organizational structure upon adopting ring spinning. I also show that a large fraction of firms installed very small numbers of ring spindles upon the adoption of ring spinning, suggesting that firms were slowly adopting ring spindles to replace old mule spindles rather than transitioning over to ring spinning at a single point in time. Then, I show that the rate at which vertically integrated firms adopted rings suddenly accelerated after 1902. I interpret this as evidence that British entrepreneurs were fully aware of the technological complementarities between rings and automatic looms. These complementarities could only be fully exploited by vertically integrated firms.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:exehis:v:47:y:2010:i:4:p:487-504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014-4983(10)00030-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saxonhouse, Gary R. & Wright, Gavin, 2010. "National Leadership and Competing Technological Paradigms: The Globalization of Cotton Spinning, 1878–1933," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(3), pages 535-566, September.
    2. Temin, Peter, 1990. "Product Quality and Vertical Integration in the Early Cotton Textile Industry: A Reply," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(03), pages 691-692, September.
    3. 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.
    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. 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. Mokyr, Joel, 2001. "The rise and fall of the factory system: technology, firms, and households since the industrial revolution," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 1-45, December.
    8. William Lazonick, 1987. "Stubborn mules: some comments," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 40(1), pages 80-86, February.
    9. 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.
    10. V. A. G. Gatrell, 1977. "T. S. ASHTON PRIZE ESSAY FOR 1976 Labour, Power, and the Size of Firms in Lancashire Cotton in the Second Quarter of the Nineteenth Century," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 30(1), pages 95-139, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Huberman, Michael, 1990. "Vertical Disintegration in Lancashire: A Comment on Temin," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(03), pages 683-690, September.
    13. McCloskey, Donald N. & Sandberg, Lars G., 1971. "From damnation to redemption: Judgments on the late victorian entrepreneur," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 89-108.
    14. Musson, A. E., 1959. "The Great Depression in Britain, 1873–1896: a Reappraisal," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 199-228, June.
    15. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Crafts, Nicholas, 2020. "British Relative Economic Decline in the Aftermath of German Unification," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 501, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    2. Tim Leunig & Joachim Voth, 2011. "Spinning Welfare: the Gains from Process Innovation in Cotton and Car Production," CEP Discussion Papers dp1050, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Crafts, Nicholas, 2012. "British relative economic decline revisited: The role of competition," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 17-29.
    4. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Crafts, Nicholas, 2011. "British Relative Economic Decline Revisited," CEPR Discussion Papers 8384, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. 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.
    5. Crafts, Nicholas, 2012. "British relative economic decline revisited: The role of competition," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 17-29.
    6. 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.
    7. Crafts, Nicholas & Wolf, Nikolaus, 2014. "The Location of the UK Cotton Textiles Industry in 1838: A Quantitative Analysis," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(4), pages 1103-1139, December.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Tim Rooth, 2006. "Revisiting the mature economy: Britain, 1860-1939," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(1), pages 119-126.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Leunig, Tim & Voth, Joachim, 2011. "Spinning welfare: the gains from process innovation in cotton and car production," Economic History Working Papers 121731, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    14. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-141 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Leunig, Tim, 2001. "Britannia ruled the waves," Economic History Working Papers 536, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    16. Stephen Broadberry & Bishnupriya Gupta, 2009. "Lancashire, India, and shifting competitive advantage in cotton textiles, 1700–1850: the neglected role of factor prices1," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 62(2), pages 279-305, May.
    17. Klein, Alexander & Leunig, Tim, 2013. "Gibrat’s Law and the British Industrial Revolution," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 146, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    18. Broadberry, Stephen & Burhop, Carsten, 2008. "Resolving the Anglo-German Industrial Productivity Puzzle, 1895–1935: A Response to Professor Ritschl," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 930-934, September.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ring spinning Technology adoption Cotton industry Lancashire Vertical integration Specialization;

    JEL classification:

    • N63 - Economic History - - Manufacturing and Construction - - - Europe: Pre-1913
    • L67 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Other Consumer Nondurables: Clothing, Textiles, Shoes, and Leather Goods; Household Goods; Sports Equipment
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure

    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:eee:exehis:v:47:y:2010:i:4:p:487-504. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622830 .

    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.