IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/494.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A British industrial success: productivity in the Lancashire and New England cotton spinning industries a century ago

Author

Listed:
  • Leunig, Tim

Abstract

This paper uses new product-specific, micro-level US data to show that New England had lower levels of productivity in cotton spinning than Lancashire, c. 1900, contradicting results derived by Broadberry from the Censuses of Production. The discrepancy stems from the Censuses’ poor methods of aggregating heterogeneous yarn output. The finding that Britain – the labour-abundant country – has higher labour productivity contradicts the Rothbarth-Habakkuk model. We suggest Britain’s industrial success stems from more intensive competition, manifested through external economies of scale and longer production runs. We finish with some speculative implications for British performance in the first and second industrial revolutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Leunig, Tim, 2003. "A British industrial success: productivity in the Lancashire and New England cotton spinning industries a century ago," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 494, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/494/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G. R. Hawke, 1975. "The United States Tariff and Industrial Protection in the Late Nineteenth Century," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 28(1), pages 84-99, February.
    2. Broadberry S. N., 1994. "Comparative Productivity in British and American Manufacturing during the Nineteenth Century," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 521-548, October.
    3. Haskel, Jonathan, 1991. "Imperfect Competition, Work Practices and Productivity Growth," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 53(3), pages 265-279, August.
    4. S Broadberry & Nicholas Crafts, 1996. "British Economic Policy and Industrial Performance in the Early Post-War Period," CEP Discussion Papers dp0292, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    5. Copeland, Melvin Thomas, 1912. "The Cotton Manufacturing Industry of the United States," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number copeland1912.
    6. 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.
    7. Hay, Donald A & Liu, Guy S, 1997. "The Efficiency of Firms: What Difference Does Competition Make?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(442), pages 597-617, May.
    8. Broadberry,Steve N., 2005. "The Productivity Race," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521023580.
    9. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, April.
    10. Nickell, Stephen J, 1996. "Competition and Corporate Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 724-746, August.
    11. Clark, Gregory, 1987. "Why Isn't the Whole World Developed? Lessons from the Cotton Mills," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 141-173, March.
    12. Magee,Gary Bryan, 2002. "Productivity and Performance in the Paper Industry," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521892179, October.
    13. Stefan Szymanski, 1996. "The impact of compulsory competitive tendering on refuse collection services," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Lars G. Sandberg, 1984. "The Remembrance of Things Past: Rings and Mules Revisited," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(2), pages 387-392.
    16. Geroski, P A, 1990. "Innovation, Technological Opportunity, and Market Structure," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 586-602, July.
    17. James Field, Alexander, 1985. "On the unimportance of machinery," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 378-401, October.
    18. Nickell, Stephen & Nicolitsas, Daphne & Dryden, Neil, 1997. "What makes firms perform well?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 783-796, April.
    19. Steven Toms, 1998. "Windows of Opportunity in the Textile Industry: The Business Strategies of Lancashire Entrepreneurs, 1880-1914," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 1-25.
    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Leslie Hannah & Robert Bennett, 2022. "Large‐scale Victorian manufacturers: Reconstructing the lost 1881 UK employer census," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 75(3), pages 830-856, August.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Robert C. Allen, 2021. "The Interplay among Wages, Technology, and Globalization: The Labour Market and Inequality, 1620-2020," Working Papers 20210065, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Jun 2021.
    7. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-108 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ugo M. Gragnolati & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2023. "Innovation, localized externalities, and the British Industrial Revolution, 1700-1850," LEM Papers Series 2023/26, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    9. Crafts, Nicholas, 2012. "British relative economic decline revisited: The role of competition," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 17-29.
    10. Peter Maw & Peter Solar & Aidan Kane & John S. Lyons, 2022. "After the great inventions: technological change in UK cotton spinning, 1780–1835," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 75(1), pages 22-55, February.
    11. Crafts, Nicholas, 2011. "British Relative Economic Decline Revisited," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 42, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    12. Joel Mokyr & Hans-Joachim Voth, 2012. "Understanding Growth in Europe, 1700–1870: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Sociology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 13(5), pages 57-102.
    13. Jong, H. de & Woltjer, P., 2009. "A Comparison of Real Output and Productivity for British and American Manufacturing in 1935," GGDC Research Memorandum GD-108, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen.
    14. Tim Rooth, 2006. "Revisiting the mature economy: Britain, 1860-1939," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(1), pages 119-126.
    15. Theo Balderston, 2010. "The economics of abundance: coal and cotton in Lancashire and the world," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 63(3), pages 569-590, August.
    16. Leslie Hannah, 2007. "Logistics, Market Size and Giant Plants in the Early 20th Century: A Global View," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-486, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.

    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. Crafts, Nicholas, 2011. "British Relative Economic Decline Revisited," CEPR Discussion Papers 8384, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Crafts, Nicholas, 2012. "British relative economic decline revisited: The role of competition," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 17-29.
    3. Nickell, Stephen, 1999. "Product markets and labour markets1," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Allen, Robert C., 2014. "American Exceptionalism as a Problem in Global History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 309-350, June.
    5. Crafts, Nicholas, 2017. "The Postwar British Productivity Failure," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1142, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. Stephen Broadberry & Nicholas Crafts, 2003. "UK productivity performance from 1950 to 1979: a restatement of the Broadberry‐Crafts view," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 56(4), pages 718-735, November.
    7. Crafts, Nicholas, 2012. "Creating Competitive Advantage: Policy Lessons from History," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 91, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    8. Harris, Richard & Moffat, John, 2011. "Plant-level determinants of total factor productivity in Great Britain, 1997-2006," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 33561, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Leunig, Tim, 2001. "Britannia ruled the waves," Economic History Working Papers 536, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    10. Nicholas Crafts & Mary O'Mahony, 2001. "A perspective on UK productivity performance," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 271-306, September.
    11. Hossain, Shahadat & Galbreath, Jeremy & Hasan, Mostafa Monzur & Randøy, Trond, 2020. "Does competition enhance the double-bottom-line performance of microfinance institutions?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    12. Feldman, David & Saxena, Konark & Xu, Jingrui, 2020. "Is the active fund management industry concentrated enough?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 23-43.
    13. Stefan Beiner & Markus M. Schmid & Gabrielle Wanzenried, 2011. "Product Market Competition, Managerial Incentives and Firm Valuation," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 17(2), pages 331-366, March.
    14. Iacovone, Leonardo, 2012. "The better you are the stronger it makes you: Evidence on the asymmetric impact of liberalization," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 474-485.
    15. Gaëtan Nicodème & Jacques-Bernard Sauner-Leroy, 2007. "Product Market Reforms and Productivity: A Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature on the Transmission Channels," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 53-72, March.
    16. L??szl?? Halpern & G??bor K??r??si, 2003. "Corporate performance and market structure during transition in Hungary," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2003-606, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    17. 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.
    18. Symeonidis, George, 2007. "The Effect of Competition on Wages and Productivity: Evidence from the UK," Economics Discussion Papers 3687, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    19. Young Bong Chang & Vijay Gurbaxani, 2013. "An Empirical Analysis of Technical Efficiency: The Role of IT Intensity and Competition," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 561-578, September.
    20. Ghosh, Arghya & Kato, Takao & Morita, Hodaka, 2017. "Incremental innovation and competitive pressure in the presence of discrete innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 1-14.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cotton; spinning; Lancashire; New England; productivity; Rothbarth-Habakkuk; Chandler; rings; mules; external economies of scale; competition;
    All these keywords.

    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:494. 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.