IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/493.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New answers to old questions : explaining the slow adoption of ring spinning in Lancashire, 1880-1913

Author

Listed:
  • Leunig, Tim

Abstract

This paper re-examines theories previously advanced to explain Lancashire’s slow adoption of ring spinning. New cost estimates show that although additional transport costs and technical complementarities between certain types of machine reduced ring adoption rates, these supply side constraints were not dominant. Instead what mattered most were demand side factors. Lancashire produced far more fine yarns than other countries and that yarn was better spun on mules. Furthermore, Lancashire had a sizeable export yarn trade, a market again more suited to mule spinning. Low ring adoption rates were a positive response to demand patterns dominated by high quality goods.

Suggested Citation

  • Leunig, Tim, 2001. "New answers to old questions : explaining the slow adoption of ring spinning in Lancashire, 1880-1913," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 493, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/493/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Jewkes, 1951. "The Growth Of World Industry," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-15.
    2. C. P. Kindleberger, 1961. "Foreign Trade and Economic Growth: Lessons from Britain and France, 1850 to 1913," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 14(2), pages 289-305, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Brown, John C., 1992. "Market Organization, Protection, and Vertical Integration: German Cotton Textiles before 1914," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 339-351, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Harley, C. K., 1974. "Skilled labour and the choice of technique in Edwardian industry," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 391-414.
    7. Elbaum, Bernard, 1990. "Cumulative or comparative advantage? British competitiveness in the early 20th century," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 18(9), pages 1255-1272, September.
    8. 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. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James Robinson, 2005. "The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 546-579, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Crafts, Nicholas, 2012. "British relative economic decline revisited: The role of competition," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 17-29.
    7. Crafts, Nicholas, 2011. "British Relative Economic Decline Revisited," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 42, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    8. 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.
    9. Christopher Spencer & Paul Temple, 2012. "Alternative Paths of Learning: Standardisation and Growth in Britain, 1901-2009," Discussion Paper Series 2012_10, Department of Economics, Loughborough University, revised Oct 2012.
    10. Crafts, Nicholas & O’Rourke, Kevin Hjortshøj, 2014. "Twentieth Century Growth*This research has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement no. 249546.," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 6, pages 263-346, Elsevier.
    11. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Knick Harley, 2003. "Growth theory and industrial revolutions in Britain and America," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 809-831, November.
    5. Vania Licio, 2023. "The Italian coal shortage: the price of import and distribution, 1861–1911," Cliometrica, Springer;Cliometric Society (Association Francaise de Cliométrie), vol. 17(3), pages 501-532, September.
    6. Stephan Heblich & Stephen J Redding & Daniel M Sturm, 2020. "The Making of the Modern Metropolis: Evidence from London," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(4), pages 2059-2133.
    7. Modalsli, Jørgen, 2011. "Inequality and growth in the very long run: inferring inequality from data on social groups," Memorandum 11/2011, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    8. Robert C. Allen, 2005. "Capital Accumulation, Technological Change, and the Distribution of Income during the British Industrial Revolution," Economics Series Working Papers 239, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    9. Crafts, Nicholas, 2004. "Productivity Growth in the Industrial Revolution: A New Growth Accounting Perspective," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 521-535, June.
    10. Ulrich Pfister & Jana Riedel & Martin Uebele, 2012. "Real Wages and the Origins of Modern Economic Growth in Germany, 16th to 19th Centuries," Working Papers 0017, European Historical Economics Society (EHES).
    11. Stephen Broadberry & John Wallis, 2017. "Growing, Shrinking and Long Run Economic Performance: Historical Perspectives on Economic Development," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _154, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    12. Crafts, Nicholas & Mills, Terence C., 2004. "Was 19th century British growth steam-powered?: the climacteric revisited," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 156-171, April.
    13. Broadberry, Stephen & Ghosal, Sayantan & Proto, Eugenio, 2017. "Anonymity, efficiency wages and technological progress," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 379-394.
    14. B. Zorina Khan, 2017. "Prestige and Profit: The Royal Society of Arts and Incentives for Innovation, 1750-1850," NBER Working Papers 23042, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Wolf-Fabiann Hungerland & Nikolaus Wolf, 2022. "The panopticon of Germany’s foreign trade, 1880–1913: New facts on the first globalization [Economics and the modern economic historian]," European Review of Economic History, European Historical Economics Society, vol. 26(4), pages 479-507.
    16. Nicholas Crafts, 2021. "The Sources Of British Economic Growth Since The Industrial Revolution: Not The Same Old Story," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 697-709, July.
    17. Stokey, Nancy L., 2001. "A quantitative model of the British industrial revolution, 1780-1850," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 55-109, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Sanchís Llopis, M. Teresa, 2005. "Disaggregated productivity growth and technological progress in the interpretation of Spanish economic growth, 1958-1975," IFCS - Working Papers in Economic History.WH dilf0503, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Instituto Figuerola.
    20. Veselov, Dmitry & Yarkin, Alexander, 2024. "Lobbying for Industrialization: Theory and Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 17045, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    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:ehl:lserod:493. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.