IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/wpaper/22381.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competition and innovation in 1950’s Britain

Author

Listed:
  • Broadberry, Stephen
  • Crafts, Nicholas

Abstract

We find little support for the Schumpeterian hypothesis of a positive relationship between market power and innovation in 1950’s Britain even though many economists and policymakers accepted it at the time. Pricefixing agreements were very widespread prior to the 1956 Restrictive Practices Act and they seem to have had adverse effects on costs and productivity. Competition policy appears to have been much too lenient but the productivity problems of British industry at this time are best viewed as arising largely from the difficulties of reaping the benefits of innovation rather than from a failure to innovate per se.

Suggested Citation

  • Broadberry, Stephen & Crafts, Nicholas, 2000. "Competition and innovation in 1950’s Britain," Economic History Working Papers 22381, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:wpaper:22381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22381/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Valerio Cerretano, 2009. "The Treasury, Britain's postwar reconstruction, and the industrial intervention of the Bank of England, 1921–91," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 62(s1), pages 80-100, August.
    2. 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.
    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. Crafts, Nicholas, 2011. "British Relative Economic Decline Revisited," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 42, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    5. David Chambers, 2009. "Gentlemanly capitalism revisited: a case study of the underpricing of initial public offerings on the London Stock Exchange, 1946–861," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 62(s1), pages 31-56, August.
    6. Degner, Harald, 2010. "Windows of technological opportunity: do technological booms influence the relationship between firm size and innovativeness?," FZID Discussion Papers 15-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    7. David Chambers, 2006. "Gentlemanly capitalism revisited: a case study of the underpricing of Initial Public Offerings on the London Stock Exchange, 1946-86," Working Papers 6016, Economic History Society.
    8. Turner, John D., 2024. "Three centuries of corporate governance in the UK," QUCEH Working Paper Series 24-01, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's University Centre for Economic History.
    9. Steven Toms & John Wilson, 2012. "Revisiting Chandler on the Theory of the Firm," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 22, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Alan Booth, 2003. "The manufacturing failure hypothesis and the performance of British industry during the long boom," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 56(1), pages 1-33, February.
    11. Nicholas Crafts, 2013. "Returning to growth: lessons from the 1930s," Working Papers 13010, Economic History Society.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General
    • B2 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925
    • O52 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Europe

    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:wpaper:22381. 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: LSERO Manager on behalf of EH Dept. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chlseuk.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.