IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/qjecon/v96y1981i1p89-109..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factor Costs and the Diffusion of Ring Spinning in Britain Prior to World War I

Author

Listed:
  • William Lazonick

Abstract

A key contribution to the attempt by "new" economic historians to absolve the British economy of the charge of technological conservatism in the late nineteenth century is Lars Sandberg's analysis of the choice of technique between ring spinning and mule spinning. In this article I demonstrate that Sandberg's analysis has serious problems and that a careful reexamination of the rings versus mules question is in order. While I point out some of the methodological problems of the neoclassical approach to choice of technique, the major focus of this paper is on the empirical shortcomings of Sandberg's analysis. My primary empirical conclusions are that the extent of the diffusion of ring spinning prior to World War I was much less than Sandberg's analysis would indicate and that it was the vertically specialized structure of the industry which imposed the major factor-cost constraint on its more rapid introduction.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:96:y:1981:i:1:p:89-109.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/2936142
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    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. 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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Thales Zamberlan Pereira, 2021. "Taxation and the stagnation of cotton exports in Brazil, 1800–60," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 74(2), pages 522-545, May.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    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:oup:qjecon:v:96:y:1981:i:1:p:89-109.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/qje .

    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.