Were British Cotton Entrepreneurs Technologically Backward? Firm-Level Evidence on the Adoption of Ring-Spinning

Federico Ciliberto

MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: I study the slow adoption of ring-spinning in Great Britain's cotton industry at the end of the 19th century, which has been used as evidence of British entrepreneurs' declining efficiency and conservatism (Musson [1959], Aldcroft, [1964], Lazonick [1981, 1981b]). To this purpose I use firm-level data from all of Lancashire's cotton firms over several years. The data are from the Worrall's Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Directories for the years 1885, 1886-1887, 1890, 1894, 1902, and 1910. First, I show that the vertical organization of the industry, with its firms specializing in spinning or weaving, did not act as an impediment to the adoption of the ring-spinning technology, as was argued by Lazonick. In particular, I show the following: i) non-integrated firms were the first to adopt rings in Great Britain; ii) the large majority of firms that adopted rings were incumbents; iii) vertically integrated firms that were spinning only either twist or weft yarn were still in existence in 1910; and iv) only a negligible number of firms changed their organizational structure upon adopting ring spinning. I also show that a large fraction of firms installed very small numbers of ring spindles upon the adoption of ring spinning, suggesting that firms were slowly adopting ring spindles to replace old mule spindles rather than transitioning over to ring spinning at a single point in time. Then, I show that the rate at which vertically integrated firms adopted rings suddenly accelerated after 1902. I interpret this as evidence that British entrepreneurs were fully aware of the technological complementarities between rings and automatic looms. These complementarities could only be fully exploited by vertically integrated firms.

Keywords: Ring Spinning; Technology Adoption; Cotton Industry; Lancashire; Vertical Integration; Specialization. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: L22 L67 N63 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009-11-10
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-his
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18533/1/MPRA_paper_18533.pdf original version (application/pdf)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24884/1/MPRA_paper_24884.pdf revised version (application/pdf)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/38632/1/MPRA_paper_38632.pdf revised version (application/pdf)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/38645/1/MPRA_paper_38645.pdf revised version (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Were British cotton entrepreneurs technologically backward? Firm-level evidence on the adoption of ring spinning (2010)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:18533

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joachim Winter ().