New Answers to Old Questions: Transport Costs and the Slow Adoption of Ring Spinning in Lancashire
Tim Leunig
No _022, Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers from University of Oxford, Department of Economics
Abstract:
It has been argued that the additional cost of transporting ring yarn in the vertically and geographically specialised Lancashire cotton industry was sufficiently high to deter spinners from adopting rings. The absence of a transition to large scale vertically integrated plants is seen as a form of entrepreneurial failure. In this paper we use new evidence to show that the majority of yarn could have been woven within the district in which it was spun, and, further, that in such areas, the average distance between spinners and weavers was a matter of yards. Transport costs were no more important for these firms that for vertically integrated ones. This yields a testable hypothesis: vertically specialised firms located in this areas should have been as read to adopt rings as were integrated firms. We test this proposition and find it to be correct: co-located independent, vertically specialised firms were as likely to adopt rings as were vertically integrated firms. As such the industrys failure to move to large scale vertically integrated production cannot be characterised as a form of entrepreneurial failure.
Date: 1998-02-01
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (27)
Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/economics/history/
Related works:
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:oxf:esohwp:_022
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers from University of Oxford, Department of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Anne Pouliquen ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).