The british cotton industry and international competitive advantage: The state of the debates

Business History

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 1990, Pages 9-65

  Mass, William ^a   Lazonick, William ^a  

^a Program on US Russia Relations at Columbia s Harriman Institute   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE; COTTON INDUSTRY; ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; PRODUCTIVE RESOURCES; TWENTIETH CENTURY;

JAPAN; UK;

EID: 0025535773     PISSN: 00076791     EISSN: 17437938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00076799000000143     Document Type: Article

References (253)

1. The main contributions to the debate have been L. Sandberg, Lancashire in Decline (Columbus, 1974);
2. W. Lazonick, ‘Competition, Specialisation, and Industrial Decline,’ Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLI No.1 (1981);
3. idem, ‘Factor Costs and the Diffusion of Ring Spinning Prior to World War I,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.XCVI No.1 (1981);
4. idem, ‘Industrial Organisation and Technological Change: The Decline of the British Cotton Industry,’ Business History Review, Vol.LVII No.2 (1983);
5. W. Lazonick and W. Mass, ‘The Performance of the British Cotton Industry, 1870–1913’, Research in Economic History, Vol.IX (1984);
6. L. Sandberg, ‘The Remembrance of Things Past: Rings and Mules Revisited,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.XCIX, No.1 (1984);.
7. W. Lazonick, ‘Rings and Mules in Britain: Reply,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.XCIX No.1 (1984);
8. G. Saxonhouse and G. Wright, ‘New Evidence on the Stubborn English Mule and the Cotton Industry, 1878–1920,’ Economic History Review, second series, Vol. 37 No.4 (1984);
9. W. Lazonick, ‘The Cotton Industry,’ in B. Elbaum and W. Lazonick (eds.), The Decline of the British Economy (Oxford, 1986);
10. W. Lazonick, ‘Stubborn Mules: Some Comments,’ Economic History Review, second series, Vol.XL No.1 (1987);
11. G. Saxonhouse and G. Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules and Vertical Integration: The Disappearing Constraint?’ Economic History Review, second series, Vol.XL No.1 (1987);
12. G. Clark, ‘Why Isn't the Whole World Developed?: Lessons from the Cotton Mills,’ Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLVII No.1 (1987);
13. M. Wilkins, ‘Efficiency and Management: A Comment on Gregory Clark's “Why Isn't the Whole World Developed?”’ Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLVII No.4 (1987);
14. G. Clark, ‘Can Management Develop the World?: Reply to Wilkins’, Journal of Economic History, Vol. XLVIII No.1 (1988).
15. See also B. Elbaum, ‘Cumulative or Comparative Advantage?: British Competitiveness in the Early Twentieth Century’, World Development, forthcoming 1990.
16. For an admirable summary of the more general debate on entrepreneurial performance in Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see P.L. Payne, British Entrepreneurship in the Nineteenth Century, (2nd ed. 1988), pp.43-60.
17. For elaborations of our perspective, see W. Lazonick, Business Organisation and the Myth of the Market Economy (Cambridge, 1991), Ch.1;
18. W. Mass, ‘Mechanical and Organisational Innovation: The Drapers and the Automatic Loom’, Business History Review, Vol. LXIII No. 4 (1989);
19. W. Mass, ‘Decline of a Technological Leader: Capabilities, Strategy, and Shuttleless Weaving, 1945–1974’, Business and Economic History, second series, Vol.XIX (1990).
20. S. Pollard, The Genesis of Modern Management (Harmondsworth, 1968);
21. W. Lazonick, Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), Ch.1.
22. Lazonick, Competitive Advantage, Chs.3-4.
23. See D.A. Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market, 1815–96 (Oxford, 1979), Chs.2 and 8.
24. On the nineteenth-century development of the British cotton industry more generally, see the excellent synthesis in S. D. Chapman, The Cotton Industry in the Industrial Revolution, (2nd ed., 1987), and the select bibliography therein.
25. For recent research on labour and labour relations in British textiles, see J.A. Jowitt and A.J. McIvor (eds.), Employers and Labour in the English Textile Industries, 1850–1939 (1988).
26. K. Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations (1975), Ch.4;
27. Lazonick, Competitive Advantage, Ch.3-5.
28. Only in the United States did another national industry receive and make use of large numbers of British cotton workers. But in the United States, the occupational and geographic mobility of workers with industrial skills and the (consequent) managerial search for skill-displacing machine technologies meant that a specialised labor force did not reproduce itself in particular localities as was the case in Britain. See W. Lazonick, ‘Production Relations, Labor Productivity, and Choice of Technique: British and US Cotton Spinning,’ Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLI No.3 (1981).
29. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules’;
30. G. Saxonhouse and G. Wright, ‘Rings and Mules Around the World: A Comparative Study in Technological Change’, in G. Saxonhouse and G. Wright (eds.), Technique, Spirit and Form in the Making of Modern Economies (Greenwich, Conn., 1984);
31. D.A. Farnie, ‘The Textile Machine-Making Industry and the World Market, 1870–1960’, Business History, Vol. 32 No.4 (1990).
32. Farnie, English Cotton, Ch.2;
33. F.E. Hyde, B.B. Parkinson and S. Marriner, ‘The Cotton Broker and the Rise of the Liverpool Cotton Market’, Economic History Review, Vol.VIII (1955–56).
34. See also M.M. Edwards, The Growth of the British Cotton Trade, 1780–1815 (Manchester, 1967), Chs.5-6.
35. Lazonick and Mass, ‘Performance of the British Cotton Industry’.
36. P. Deane and W.A. Cole, British Economic Growth, 1688–1959 (Cambridge, 2nd ed. 1969), pp.31-32;
37. B.R. Mitchell, Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1962), pp.60, 188, 284, 305.
38. Farnie, English Cotton, Ch.3;
39. S.D. Chapman, ‘The International Houses: The Continental Contribution to British Commerce 1800-1860,’ Journal of European Economic History, Vol.VI No.1 (1977);
40. S.D. Chapman, ‘British Marketing Enterprise: The Changing Roles of Merchants, Manufacturers, and Financiers, 1700-1860’, Business History Review, Vol.LIII No.2 (1979).
41. On the early nineteenth-century development of Manchester, see R. Lloyd-Jones and M.J. Lewis, Man Chester and the Age of the Factory (1988). See also Edwards, British Cotton Trade, Chs.3,4, 7, 8.
42. M.T. Copeland, The Cotton Manufacturing Industry of the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1912), pp.365-70;
43. R. Robson, The Cotton Industry of Great Britain (1955), pp.80-91.
44. A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, (9th ed. 1961), Chs.9-10.
45. Farnie, English Cotton, Ch.6-7.
46. J. Lyons, ‘Vertical Integration in the British Cotton Industry, 1825-1850: A Revision’, Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLV No.2 (1985);
47. Farnie, English Cotton, pp.313-17;
48. J. and S. Jewkes, ‘A Hundred Years of Change in the Structure of the Cotton Industry’, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.IX (1966);
49. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’, pp. 199–203.
50. A. Marshall, Industry and Trade (1919), pp.600-1. See more generally, Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’.
51. Farnie, English Cotton, Ch.1.
52. Sandberg, Lancashire, pp.4–5.
53. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘Rings and Mules’, p.272.
54. Ibid., p.294.
55. Clark, ‘Why Isn't’, p.171.
56. D.N. McCloskey, Econometric History (1987), pp.26-7.
57. Ibid., p.27. If McCloskey had conducted his ‘conversation’ with not only economists but also historians such as Farnie (whose book is not cited in McCloskey's survey), he might have been more confident in taking a position on the importance of external economies of scale in the rise to dominance of the British cotton industry.
58. C.K. Harley and D.N. McCloskey, ‘Foreign Trade: Competition and the Expanding International Economy’, in R. Floud and D. McCloskey (eds.), The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Vol.II (Cambridge, 1981), pp.53-6.
59. Ibid., p.54.
60. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations (New York, 1937), Book I, Ch.3;
61. A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (1961), Book IV, Ch.9-11;
62. N. Kaldor, ‘Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth in the United Kingdom’, and ‘The Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics’, in N. Kaldor, Further Essays on Economic Theory (New York, 1978), Chs.4 and 8.
63. See Lazonick, Business Organization, Ch.8 for an elaboration, including Kaldor's failure to consider the shift in historical importance from external to internal economies of scale in generating economic growth.
64. See also B. Elbaum, ‘The Steel Industry before World War I’, in Elbaum and Lazonick, Decline of the British Economy, for the case of British steel.
65. Harley and McCloskey, ‘Foreign Trade’, p,68.
66. See also D.N. McCloskey, ‘The Industrial Revolution 1780-1860: A Survey’, in Floud and McCloskey, Economic History of Britain, Vol.I, pp.112ff.
67. On the development of ring spinning, see T. Navin, The Whitin Works Since 1831 (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), Ch.10; Mass, ‘Mechanical’, See also note 8 above.
68. W. Mass, ‘Technological Change and Industrial Relations: The Diffusion of Automatic Weaving in the United States and Britain’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boston College, 1984), especially Ch.5;
69. A. Fowler, ‘Trade Unions and Technical Change: The Automatic Loom Strike, 1908’, North West Group for the Study of Labour History, Bulletin No.6 (1977).
70. Robson, Cotton Industry, p.356.
71. Mass, ‘Technological Change’, Ch.5.
72. See also M.B. Rose, The Gregs of Quarry Bank Mill (Cambridge, 1986), Ch.5.
73. Lazonick and Mass, ‘Performance of the British Cotton Industry’, pp.5-9; R.E. Tyson, ‘The Cotton Industry’, in Derek H. Aldcroft (ed.), The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition (1968), pp.104-18.
74. Lazonick and Mass, ‘Performance of the British Cotton Industry’, p.6.
75. D. McCloskey and L. Sandberg, ‘From Damnation to Redemption: Judgments on the Late Victorian Entrepreneur’, Explorations in Economic History, second series, Vol.IX No.1 (1971), p.108.
76. Sandberg, Lancashire, p.10.
77. Ibid., pp.21–2.
78. Ibid., Chs.2-3. Sandberg's analysis of the choice of spinning technique originally appeared as ‘American Rings and English Mules: The Role of Economic Rationality’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 83 No.1 (1969).
79. Sandberg, Lancashire, pp.46-7.
80. Lazonick, ‘Factor Costs’.
81. Ibid., pp.90-1;
82. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’, pp.232-36;
83. Lazonick, ‘Rings and Mules’, pp.396-8.
84. J. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development (New York, 1934), Chs. 1–2.
85. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’, p.232-6.
86. For their uses of Schumpeter, see D.H. Aldcroft and H.W. Richardson, The British Economy, 1870–1939, (1969), pp.59, 195, 202, 209;
87. D.S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus (Cambridge, 1969), pp.232, 481.
88. Landes, ibid., p.354.
89. Aldcroft, ibid., p. 34.
90. Sandberg, Lancashire, p.21.
91. Ibid., p.10.
92. Tyson, ‘Cotton Industry’, p.100.
93. G.T. Jones, Increasing Return (Cambridge, 1933), p.55.
94. Ibid., p.53.
95. Sandberg, Lancashire, p.96.
96. Lazonick and Mass, ‘Performance of the British Cotton Industry’.
97. Ibid. See also Lazonick, ‘Production Relations’.
98. A.J. Marrison, ‘Great Britain and Her Rivals in the Latin American Cotton Piece Goods Market, 1880–1914’, in B. Ratcliffe (ed.), Great Britain and Her World, 1750–1914 (Manchester, 1975).
99. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules’, pp.89-90.
100. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘New Evidence’, p.518;
101. Lazonick and Mass, ‘Performance of the British Cotton Industry’, pp.1-5.
102. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules’, pp.89-90.
103. See Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘Rings and Mules’, p.294.
104. Lazonick and Mass, ‘Performance of the British Cotton Industry’, p.33.
105. Clark, ‘Why Isn't’, p.143.
106. Lazonick, ‘Factor Costs’;
107. Lazonick, ‘Production Relations’.
108. Clark also cites M. Frankel, ‘Obsolesence and Technological Change in a Maturing Economy’, American Economic Review, Vol.XLV No.3 (1955).
109. For Lazonick's own critique of Frankel, see ‘Industrial Organization’, pp.230-2
110. ‘Stubborn Mules’, p.84n.
111. Clark, ‘Why Isn't’, pp. 143–4.
112. Ibid., p.144.
113. Ibid., pp.146, 150.
114. Ibid., p.151. Of the countries in Clark's list, only Greece had a lower machine-worker ratio than India, China, and Japan.
115. Ibid., pp.151-2.
116. Ibid., pp.166–7.
117. Ibid., p.168.
118. Clark failed to cite a previous comparative study on the cotton industry that showed how labour productivity could vary across social contexts, even holding the quality of the labour force and the basic machine technology constant. See Lazonick, ‘Production Relations’.
119. K. Seki, The Cotton Industry of Japan (Tokyo, 1956), p.389.
120. For a thorough analysis of the changes in market shares during the 1910s and 1920s, see F. Utley, Lancashire and the Far East (1931).
121. A.S. Pearse, The Cotton Industry of India (Manchester, 1930), pp. 11–14.
122. Ibid., p.11.
123. Ibid. See also ibid., p.129;
124. Clark, ‘Why Isn't’, p.172.
125. Pearse, Cotton Industry of India, p.11;
126. C.K. Moser, The Cotton Textile Industry of Far Eastern Countries (Boston, 1930), pp.13-14.
127. T. Izumi, ‘Transformation and Development of Technology in the Japanese Cotton Industry’, Project on Technology Transfer, Transformation and Development: The Japanese Experience, The United Nations University, Working Paper HSDRJE-25/UNUP-91 (Tokyo, 1980), p.81.
128. See also Utley, Lancashire and the Far East, pp. 204–229.
129. Clark, ‘Why Isn't’, p.152.
130. Clark, ‘Can Management’, p.144.
131. Ibid., p.146.
132. See Sandberg, Lancashire, pp.213-14;
133. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘New Evidence’, p.519;
134. Clark, ‘Why Isn't’, p. 151;
135. J. Singleton, ‘Planning for Cotton, 1945–1951,’ Economic History Review, second series, Vol.XLIII No.1 (1990), p.63.
136. In contrast, see the explicit comparison of Japan and India in, K. Otsuka, G. Ranis and G. Saxonhouse, Comparative Technology Choice in Development: The Indian and Japanese Cotton Textile Industries (1988), p.204: ‘the analytical lessons of economic history … illuminate the importance of differences in institutional and organisational environments’ in the choice of technology
137. For a critique of the comparative analysis of Otsuka, Ranis, and Saxonhouse, see the review of their book by M.D. Morris in Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol.XV No.1 (1989), pp. 186–96.
138. R.M. Odell, Cotton Goods in China (Washington, 1916), p.33;
139. K. Chao, The Development of Cotton Textile Production in China (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), p.97;
140. B. Ellinger, ‘Lancashire's Declining Trade with China,’ Manchester Statistical Society (1927–28), p.13;
141. Pearse, Japan and China p.134.
142. Clark, ‘Why Isn't’, p.146.
143. A.S. Pearse, The Cotton Industry of Japan and China (Manchester, 1929), p.86.
144. See E. Tsurumi, ‘Female Textile Workers and the Failure of Early Trade Unionism in Japan’, History Workshop, No.18 (1984);
145. Y.A. Kidd, ‘Women Workers in the Japanese Cotton Mills: 1880-1920’, Cornell University East Asia Papers No.20 (1978);
146. G.R. Saxonhouse, ‘Country Girls and Communication among Competitors in the Japanese Cotton-Spinning Industry’, in H. Patrick (ed.), Japanese Industrialization and Its Social Consequences (Berkeley, 1976);
147. Pearse, Japan and China, pp.91-112;
148. Utley, Lancashire and the Far East, Chs.6-7;
149. Moser, Textile Industries of Far Eastern Countries, pp.14-16.
150. Clark, ‘Can Management’, p.146.
151. Moser, Textile Industries of Far Eastern Countries, p.16.
152. Ibid., p.13.
153. See Seki, Cotton Industry of Japan, pp.57-59;
154. Izumi, ‘Transformation and Development of Technology’, p.10;
155. T. Yanagihara, ‘Development of Cotton Textile Industry and Textile Machinery in Prewar Japan’, photocopy, Institute of Developing Economies (Tokyo, 1979), pp.20-3.
156. See also Otsuka, Ranis, and Saxonhouse, Comparative Technology Choice, Ch.3, where the emphasis is on the importance of cotton-mixing to the Japanese adoption of ring spinning over mule spinning.
157. Pearse, Japan and China, p.134;
158. Moser, Textile Industry of Far Eastern Countries, p.6.
159. More generally, see S. Yonekawa, ‘University Graduates in Japanese Enterprises before the Second World War’, Business History, Vol.XXVI No.2 (1984);
160. H. Morikawa, ‘The Increasing Power of Salaried Managers in Japan's Large Corporations’, in W.D. Wray (ed.), Managing Industrial Enterprise: Cases from Japan's Prewar Experience (Cambridge, Mass., 1989).
161. S. Yonekawa, ‘The Growth of Cotton Spinning Firms: A Comparative Study’, in A. Okochi and S. Yonekawa (eds.), The Textile Industry and Its Business Climate (Tokyo, 1982);
162. D.A. Farnie and S. Yonekawa, ‘The Emergence of the Large Firm in the Cotton Spinning Industries of the World, 1883–1938’, Textile History, Vol.XIX No.2 (1988), pp.194-7, 205–7.
163. R. Minami and F. Makino, ‘Conditions for Technological Diffusion: Case of Power Looms’, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Vol.XXIII No.2 (1983), p.5.
164. See also S. Sugiyama, ‘Textile Marketing in East Asia, 1860-1914’, Textile History, Vol.XIX No.2 (1988).
165. R. Minami and F. Makino, ‘Choice of Technology: A Case Study of the Japanese Cotton Weaving Industry, 1902–1938’, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Vol.XXVII No.2 (1986), pp. 114–5;
166. Yanagihara, ‘Development of Cotton Textile Industry’, pp.25-26, 43;
167. Izumi, ‘Transformation and Development of Technology’, pp.15-22.
168. Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota: A History of the First Fifty Years (Aichi, 1988), pp.27-35.
169. Izumi, ‘Transformation and Development of Technology’, p.18ff;
170. Minami and Makino, ‘Choice of Technology’, p.125;
171. Yanagihara, ‘Development of Cotton Textile Industry’, p.40ff.
172. See also W. Mass, ‘Mechanical’.
173. Izumi, ‘Transformation and Development of Technology’ p.22;
174. Robson, Cotton Industry, p.356;
175. Seki, Cotton Industry of Japan, p.385.
176. Yanagihara, ‘Development of Cotton Textile Industry’, pp.43-45.
177. Chao, Cotton Textile Production in China, p.97.
178. Pearse, Japan and China, pp. 102–111;
179. Minami and Makino, ‘Choice of Technology’, p.125.
180. Izumi, ‘Transformation and Development of Technology’, pp.3-14, 23-27;
181. Yanagihara, ‘Development of Cotton Textile Industry’, pp. 18–23;
182. Utley, Lancashire and the Far East, pp.201-204.
183. Pearse, Japan and China, pp.45-6;
184. Moser, Textile Industries of Far Eastern Countries, p.18.
185. Pearse, ibid., pp.43-50;
186. Moser, ibid., pp. 35–7;
187. Seki, Cotton Industry of Japan, pp.123-7.
188. Copeland, Cotton Manufacturing Industry of the United States, pp. 180–4
189. Lazonick, ‘Production Relations’;
190. Lazonick and Mass, ‘Performance of the British Cotton Industry’.
191. Pearse, Japan and China, p.48;
192. Seki, Cotton Industry of Japan, p.61.
193. S. Sugiyama, ‘Textile Marketing in East Asia, 1860–1914,’ p.288.
194. Ibid., pp.287-9, 295;
195. Chao, Cotton Textile Production in China, pp.98-102.
196. Toyota, First Fifty Years, pp.30-36;
197. Moser, Textile Industries of Far Eastern Countries, pp.5-6;
198. T. Kuwahara, ‘The Business Strategy of Japanese Cotton Spinners: Overseas Operations 1890 to 1931’, in Okochi and Yonekawa, The Textile Industry, pp.142–145.
199. Ellinger, ‘Lancashires' Declining Trade with China’, p.33.
200. Ibid., pp.30-8.
201. H. Shimuzu, ‘Rise and Fall of Japan as a Principal Supplier of Cotton Manufactures for Turkey: The Inter-War Period,’ Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.XXI No.1 (1985), pp.21-2.
202. Yonekawa, ‘University Graduates’.
203. Yonekawa, ‘Growth’, p.22.
204. A.D. Chandler, Jr., Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, Mass., 1990).
205. Sandberg, Lancashire, p.216.
206. J.M. Keynes, ‘Industrial Reorganisation: Cotton’, in D. Moggridge (ed.), The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol.19, Pt.II (Cambridge, 1981).
207. Sandberg, Lancashire, p.217.
208. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules’, p.92;
209. see also Jewkes and Jewkes, ‘Hundred Years of Change’, p.130n.
210. Seki, Cotton Industry of Japan pp. 304–7.
211. Ibid., pp.336-9;
212. Yonekawa, ‘Growth’, pp.6, 8, 13, 15.
213. Seki, Cotton Industry of Japan, p.304, 312–3, 338.
214. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules’, p.92.
215. Pearse, Japan and China, p.128.
216. For the technological and economic benefits of this industry-wide planned co-ordination in the Japanese cotton industry of more recent times, see R. Dore, Flexible Rigidities (Stanford, 1987), Chs.7-9.
217. More generally, see M. Best, The New Competition (Cambridge, 1990), Chs.5-8.
218. Sandberg, Lancashire, pp. 182–97.
219. Ibid., p.179.
220. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’
221. idem, ‘The Cotton Industry’.
222. Sandberg, Lancashire, p.205.
223. Ironically, in his study of the resistance of Lancashire to a reduction of surplus capacity and organisational change in the interwar period, Kirby cited Sandberg to argue that the British cotton industry had begun the rapid adoption of ring spinning for the production of coarse counts prior to the war, and hence that the industry was not technologically laggard during the interwar period. M.W. Kirby, The Decline of British Economic Power Since 1870 (1981). p.11;
224. idem, ‘The Lancashire Cotton Industry in the Inter-War Years: A Study on Organisational Change’, Business History, Vol.XVI No.2 (1974), pp. 152–3.
225. But, as we have seen, Sandberg overestimated the diffusion of ring spinning on coarse counts before the war. See Lazonick, ‘Factor Costs’, pp.96-9.
226. In his article, Kirby provided a useful overview of the difficulty of organisational change in the inter-war period but betrayed any understanding of the relation between vertical integration and technological change. In his limited discussion of the costs and benefits of vertical integration as inherently the result of ‘market failure,’ Kirby cited the work of John Jewkes, a long-time proponent of the efficacy of market co-ordination in the British cotton industry and in British industry in general.
227. See J. Jewkes, ‘Factors in Industrial Integration,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.XLIV (1930);
228. idem, ‘Is British Industry Inefficient?’, Manchester School, Vol.XIV No.1 (1946);
229. Jewkes and Jewkes, ‘Hundred Years of Change’.
230. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’, pp.211-2;
231. A. Ormerod, ‘The Prospects of the British Cotton Industry’, Yorkshire Bulletin of Economic and Social Research, Vol.XV (1963).
232. Sandberg, Lancashire, p.211.
233. Ibid., p.206.
234. J.H. Bamberg, ‘The Rationalisation of the British Cotton Industry in the Interwar Years’, Textile History, Vol.XIX No.1 (1988).
235. See also Kirby, ‘Lancashire Cotton’, pp. 149–52.
236. J. Ryan, ‘Combination in the Cotton Trade’, Journal of the National Federation of Textile Works Managers' Associations, Vol.VIII (1928–29), p.24.
237. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules’, pp.87-8.
238. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘New Evidence’, pp.516-7;
239. idem, ‘Stubborn Mules’, pp.90-2.
240. For the critique of the ‘paper tubes’ argument
241. see Lazonick, ‘Stubborn Mules’, pp.81-3.
242. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’.
243. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘New Evidence’, p.519.
244. Ibid., p.515.
245. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’;
246. Mass, ‘Mechanical’;
247. Lazonick and Mass, ‘Performance of the British Cotton Industry’. Despite their focus on choice of technology in Japan and their discussion of both spinning and weaving, Otsuka, Ranis, and Saxonhouse ‘Comparative Technology Choice’ Ch.3, did not raise the issue of the interrelatedness of the two processes in achieving high-throughput production.
248. Lazonick, ‘Factor Costs’, p.102.
249. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’, p.209.
250. Saxonhouse and Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules’.
251. Ibid., p.89.
252. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organization’, p.229.
253. Robson, Cotton Industry, p.355.