IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/exehis/v48y2011i2p310-324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological diffusion and the Union blockade

Author

Listed:
  • Hetherington, Bruce W.
  • Kower, Peter J.

Abstract

This paper answers the following question. If returns from smuggling cotton and contraband through the blockade of Confederate ports during the American Civil War were significantly lower than earnings from alternative investments, why did private firms so quickly adopt costly purpose-built steam ships in the face of the strengthening Northern blockade? First, we note that the rate of diffusion of steam ships, specially designed to run the blockade significantly exceeded any reported for innovations from the late 19th or early 20th century. Second, we correct an error in Stanley Lebergott's (1981) seminal work and conclude that that returns to infamous steamer, the Banshee (I) of 700% to be quite plausible. This finding of high returns is confirmed by two other historical sources, which have not been previously used. Additionally, we calculate that investors in the one of the leading blockade running firms, known as the Bee Company, earned in excess of 86% return on their investment, over double the profits previously reported. Finally, we demonstrate that adoption of purpose-built ships, significantly decreased the arrival rate of capture, thus increasing expected profits.

Suggested Citation

  • Hetherington, Bruce W. & Kower, Peter J., 2011. "Technological diffusion and the Union blockade," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 310-324, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:exehis:v:48:y:2011:i:2:p:310-324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014-4983(11)00004-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. & John D. Jackson & Mark Thornton, 2004. "The "Unintended Consequences" of Confederate Trade Legislation," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 187-205, Spring.
    2. Lebergott, Stanley, 1981. "Through the Blockade: The Profitability and Extent of Cotton Smuggling, 1861–1865," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 867-888, December.
    3. Atack, Jeremy & Bateman, Fred & Weiss, Thomas, 1980. "The Regional Diffusion and Adoption of the Steam Engine in American Manufacturing," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 281-308, June.
    4. Richard C. K. Burdekin & Marc D. Weidenmier, 2001. "Inflation Is Always and Everywhere a Monetary Phenomenon: Richmond vs. Houston in 1864," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1621-1630, December.
    5. Hetherington, Bruce W. & Kower, Peter J., 2009. "A Reexamination of Lebergott's Paradox About Blockade Running During the American Civil War," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(02), pages 528-532, June.
    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. Marc D. Weidenmier, 2002. "Turning Points in the U.S. Civil War: Views from the Grayback Market," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(4), pages 875-890, April.
    2. Robert Ekelund & John Jackson & Mark Thornton, 2010. "Desperation votes and private interests: an analysis of Confederate trade legislation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 199-214, July.
    3. Jeremy Atack & Robert A. Margo & Paul Rhode, 2020. "‘Mechanization Takes Command’: Inanimate Power and Labor Productivity in Late Nineteenth Century American Manufacturing," NBER Working Papers 27436, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Harald Edquist & Magnus Henrekson, 2006. "Technological Breakthroughs and Productivity Growth," Research in Economic History, in: Research in Economic History, pages 1-53, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    5. Andrew Atkeson & Patrick J. Kehoe, 2002. "The transition to a new economy after the Second Industrial Revolution," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Nov.
    6. Andrew Atkeson & Patrick J. Kehoe, 2007. "Modeling the Transition to a New Economy: Lessons from Two Technological Revolutions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 64-88, March.
    7. Burdekin, Richard C.K., 2008. "US pressure on China: Silver flows, deflation, and the 1934 Shanghai credit crunch," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 170-182, June.
    8. Alex W. Chernoff, 2021. "Firm heterogeneity, technology adoption and the spatial distribution of population: Theory and measurement," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 475-521, May.
    9. Richard C. K. Burdekin & Marc D. Weidenmier, 2003. "Suppressing Asset Price Inflation: The Confederate Experience, 1861--1865," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(3), pages 420-432, July.
    10. Atack, Jeremy & Margo, Robert A. & Rhode, Paul W., 2024. "De-skilling: Evidence from late nineteenth century American manufacturing," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Jean Lacroix & Kris James Mitchener & Kim Oosterlinck, 2023. "Domino Secessions: Evidence from the U.S," NBER Working Papers 31589, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Claude Diebolt & Charlotte Le Chapelain & Audrey Rose Menard, 2021. "Neither the elite, nor the mass. The rise of intermediate human capital during the French industrialization process," Cliometrica, Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), vol. 15(1), pages 167-202, January.
    13. Atack, Jeremy & Margo, Robert A. & Rhode, Paul W., 2022. "Industrialization and urbanization in nineteenth century America," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. Hutchinson, William K. & Margo, Robert A., 2006. "The impact of the Civil War on capital intensity and labor productivity in southern manufacturing," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 689-704, October.
    15. Graetz, Georg & Feng, Andy, 2014. "Rise of the Machines: The Effects of Labor-Saving Innovations on Jobs and Wages," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100401, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Claude Diebolt & Charlotte Le Chapelain & Audrey-Rose Menard, 2017. "Industrialization as a Deskilling Process? Steam Engines and Human Capital in XIXth Century France," Working Papers of BETA 2017-17, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    17. Jeremy Atack & Fred Bateman & Robert A. Margo, 2003. "Capital Deepening in American Manufacturing, 1850-1880," NBER Working Papers 9923, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Weidenmier, Marc D., 2005. "Gunboats, reputation, and sovereign repayment: lessons from the Southern Confederacy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 407-422, July.
    19. Shih-tse Lo & Dhanoos Sutthiphisal, 2008. "Crossover Inventions And Knowledge Diffusion Of General Purpose Technologies? Evidence From The Electrical Technology," NBER Working Papers 14043, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. James Bessen, 2009. "More Machines, Better Machines...Or Better Workers?," Working Papers 0803, Research on Innovation.

    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:48:y:2011:i:2:p:310-324. 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.