The sources of innovation in the woollen and worsted industry of eighteenth-century Yorkshire

Business History

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 1-15

  Smail, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY; INDUSTRIAL HISTORY; INNOVATION; MANUFACTURING; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

UNITED KINGDOM; YORKSHIRE;

MANAGEMENT; TEXTILE HISTORY; WOOL INDUSTRY;

EID: 0032965515     PISSN: 00076791     EISSN: 17437938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00076799900000199     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Included is evidence pertaining to the three main branches of the trade: broad woollen cloth, both coloured and white, made in the triangle between Leeds, Wakefield and Huddersfield; narrow woollen cloth, such as kerseys, woven around Halifax and Huddersfield; and finally worsted cloth, made of combed rather than carded wool, that was made around Halifax and Bradford. For a fuller treatment of the issues raised here, see J. Smail, Merchants, Markets and Manufacture: The English Wool Textile Industry in the Eighteenth Century (Basingstoke, in press).
2. Such innovations are often termed Schumpeterian or process innovations: J. Mokyr, The Lever of Riches (New York, 1992), pp.4-6. It is, however, important to emphasise that the dominance of process innovations involving machines and steam power was only established after a long drawn out process of 'combined and uneven' development. The literature making this point emphasises organisational as well as technical changes, the importance of product differentiation, the continuity of manual labour, skilled and unskilled, into the age of steam power, and regional and sectoral variations in the pace and nature of economic change: M. Berg, The Age of Manufactures (2nd edn., 1994); P. Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (London, 1992); M. Daunton, Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain, 1700-1850 (Oxford, 1995); and M. Berg and P. Hudson, 'Rehabilitating the Industrial Revolution', Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol.XLV (1992), pp.24-50.
3. Such innovations are often termed Schumpeterian or process innovations: J. Mokyr, The Lever of Riches (New York, 1992), pp.4-6. It is, however, important to emphasise that the dominance of process innovations involving machines and steam power was only established after a long drawn out process of 'combined and uneven' development. The literature making this point emphasises organisational as well as technical changes, the importance of product differentiation, the continuity of manual labour, skilled and unskilled, into the age of steam power, and regional and sectoral variations in the pace and nature of economic change: M. Berg, The Age of Manufactures (2nd edn., 1994); P. Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (London, 1992); M. Daunton, Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain, 1700-1850 (Oxford, 1995); and M. Berg and P. Hudson, 'Rehabilitating the Industrial Revolution', Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol.XLV (1992), pp.24-50.
4. Such innovations are often termed Schumpeterian or process innovations: J. Mokyr, The Lever of Riches (New York, 1992), pp.4-6. It is, however, important to emphasise that the dominance of process innovations involving machines and steam power was only established after a long drawn out process of 'combined and uneven' development. The literature making this point emphasises organisational as well as technical changes, the importance of product differentiation, the continuity of manual labour, skilled and unskilled, into the age of steam power, and regional and sectoral variations in the pace and nature of economic change: M. Berg, The Age of Manufactures (2nd edn., 1994); P. Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (London, 1992); M. Daunton, Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain, 1700-1850 (Oxford, 1995); and M. Berg and P. Hudson, 'Rehabilitating the Industrial Revolution', Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol.XLV (1992), pp.24-50.
5. Such innovations are often termed Schumpeterian or process innovations: J. Mokyr, The Lever of Riches (New York, 1992), pp.4-6. It is, however, important to emphasise that the dominance of process innovations involving machines and steam power was only established after a long drawn out process of 'combined and uneven' development. The literature making this point emphasises organisational as well as technical changes, the importance of product differentiation, the continuity of manual labour, skilled and unskilled, into the age of steam power, and regional and sectoral variations in the pace and nature of economic change: M. Berg, The Age of Manufactures (2nd edn., 1994); P. Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (London, 1992); M. Daunton, Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain, 1700-1850 (Oxford, 1995); and M. Berg and P. Hudson, 'Rehabilitating the Industrial Revolution', Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol.XLV (1992), pp.24-50.
6. Such innovations are often termed Schumpeterian or process innovations: J. Mokyr, The Lever of Riches (New York, 1992), pp.4-6. It is, however, important to emphasise that the dominance of process innovations involving machines and steam power was only established after a long drawn out process of 'combined and uneven' development. The literature making this point emphasises organisational as well as technical changes, the importance of product differentiation, the continuity of manual labour, skilled and unskilled, into the age of steam power, and regional and sectoral variations in the pace and nature of economic change: M. Berg, The Age of Manufactures (2nd edn., 1994); P. Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (London, 1992); M. Daunton, Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain, 1700-1850 (Oxford, 1995); and M. Berg and P. Hudson, 'Rehabilitating the Industrial Revolution', Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol.XLV (1992), pp.24-50.
7. The emphasis on process innovations is particularly evident in the recent work of E.A. Wrigley and J. Mokyr: E.A. Wrigley, Continuity, Chance and Change: The Character of the Industrial Revolution in Britain (Cambridge, 1988); J. Mokyr, Lever of Riches , and idem, 'Editor's Introduction' in J. Mokyr (ed.), The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.1-131. See also E. Jones, 'Patterns of Growth in History', in J. James and M. Thomas (eds.), Capitalism in Context: Essays on Economic Development and Cultural Change in Honor of R.M. Hartwell (Chicago, 1994), pp.25-6; and D. Landes, 'The Fable of the Dead Horse: Or, the Industrial Revolution Revisited', in J. Mokyr (ed.). The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.132-70.
8. The emphasis on process innovations is particularly evident in the recent work of E.A. Wrigley and J. Mokyr: E.A. Wrigley, Continuity, Chance and Change: The Character of the Industrial Revolution in Britain (Cambridge, 1988); J. Mokyr, Lever of Riches , and idem, 'Editor's Introduction' in J. Mokyr (ed.), The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.1-131. See also E. Jones, 'Patterns of Growth in History', in J. James and M. Thomas (eds.), Capitalism in Context: Essays on Economic Development and Cultural Change in Honor of R.M. Hartwell (Chicago, 1994), pp.25-6; and D. Landes, 'The Fable of the Dead Horse: Or, the Industrial Revolution Revisited', in J. Mokyr (ed.). The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.132-70.
9. The emphasis on process innovations is particularly evident in the recent work of E.A. Wrigley and J. Mokyr: E.A. Wrigley, Continuity, Chance and Change: The Character of the Industrial Revolution in Britain (Cambridge, 1988); J. Mokyr, Lever of Riches , and idem, 'Editor's Introduction' in J. Mokyr (ed.), The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.1-131. See also E. Jones, 'Patterns of Growth in History', in J. James and M. Thomas (eds.), Capitalism in Context: Essays on Economic Development and Cultural Change in Honor of R.M. Hartwell (Chicago, 1994), pp.25-6; and D. Landes, 'The Fable of the Dead Horse: Or, the Industrial Revolution Revisited', in J. Mokyr (ed.). The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.132-70.
10. The emphasis on process innovations is particularly evident in the recent work of E.A. Wrigley and J. Mokyr: E.A. Wrigley, Continuity, Chance and Change: The Character of the Industrial Revolution in Britain (Cambridge, 1988); J. Mokyr, Lever of Riches , and idem, 'Editor's Introduction' in J. Mokyr (ed.), The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.1-131. See also E. Jones, 'Patterns of Growth in History', in J. James and M. Thomas (eds.), Capitalism in Context: Essays on Economic Development and Cultural Change in Honor of R.M. Hartwell (Chicago, 1994), pp.25-6; and D. Landes, 'The Fable of the Dead Horse: Or, the Industrial Revolution Revisited', in J. Mokyr (ed.). The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.132-70.
11. The emphasis on process innovations is particularly evident in the recent work of E.A. Wrigley and J. Mokyr: E.A. Wrigley, Continuity, Chance and Change: The Character of the Industrial Revolution in Britain (Cambridge, 1988); J. Mokyr, Lever of Riches , and idem, 'Editor's Introduction' in J. Mokyr (ed.), The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.1-131. See also E. Jones, 'Patterns of Growth in History', in J. James and M. Thomas (eds.), Capitalism in Context: Essays on Economic Development and Cultural Change in Honor of R.M. Hartwell (Chicago, 1994), pp.25-6; and D. Landes, 'The Fable of the Dead Horse: Or, the Industrial Revolution Revisited', in J. Mokyr (ed.). The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective (Boulder, CO, 1993), pp.132-70.
12. To the work of Mokyr and Wrigley, cited above, one should also add N. Crafts, 'Macro-Inventions, Economic Growth, and "Industrial Revolution" in Britain and France', Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol.XLVIII (1995), pp.591-98. Here I am supporting David Landes' recent argument against an 'accidental' Industrial Revolution: 'What Room for Accident in History?: Explaining Big Changes by Small Events', Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol.XLVII (1994), pp.637-56.
13. To the work of Mokyr and Wrigley, cited above, one should also add N. Crafts, 'Macro- Inventions, Economic Growth, and "Industrial Revolution" in Britain and France', Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol.XLVIII (1995), pp.591-98. Here I am supporting David Landes' recent argument against an 'accidental' Industrial Revolution: 'What Room for Accident in History?: Explaining Big Changes by Small Events', Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol.XLVII (1994), pp.637-56.
14. Here I am seeking to refine Ken Sokoloff s argument about markets and innovation: 'Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLVIII (1988), pp.813-47; and K. Sokoloff and B.Z. Khan, "The Democratization of Invention During Early Industrialization: Evidence from the U.S., 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.L (1990), pp.363-78. On product innovation, the work of Maxine Berg is particularly important: Age of Manufactures, pp.28-30, and 'Revisions and Revolutions: Technology and Productivity Change in Manufacture in Eighteenth-Century England', in P. Mathias and J. Davis (eds.), Innovation and Technology in Europe: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present Day (Oxford, 1991), pp.43-64. D.C. Coleman has pointed out the importance of product innovation in the textile industry but has not extended the analysis to ask how new products shaped the subsequent potential for growth: 'Textile Growth', in N.B. Harte and K.G. Ponting (eds.), Textile History and Economic History: Essays in Honour of Miss Julia de Lacy Mann (Manchester, 1973), pp.1-21. The same is true of T. Griffiths, P. Hunt and P. O'Brien, 'Inventive Activity in the British Textile Industry, 1700-1800', Journal of Economic History, Vol.LII (1992), pp.881-906.
15. Here I am seeking to refine Ken Sokoloff s argument about markets and innovation: 'Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLVIII (1988), pp.813-47; and K. Sokoloff and B.Z. Khan, "The Democratization of Invention During Early Industrialization: Evidence from the U.S., 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.L (1990), pp.363-78. On product innovation, the work of Maxine Berg is particularly important: Age of Manufactures, pp.28-30, and 'Revisions and Revolutions: Technology and Productivity Change in Manufacture in Eighteenth-Century England', in P. Mathias and J. Davis (eds.), Innovation and Technology in Europe: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present Day (Oxford, 1991), pp.43-64. D.C. Coleman has pointed out the importance of product innovation in the textile industry but has not extended the analysis to ask how new products shaped the subsequent potential for growth: 'Textile Growth', in N.B. Harte and K.G. Ponting (eds.), Textile History and Economic History: Essays in Honour of Miss Julia de Lacy Mann (Manchester, 1973), pp.1-21. The same is true of T. Griffiths, P. Hunt and P. O'Brien, 'Inventive Activity in the British Textile Industry, 1700-1800', Journal of Economic History, Vol.LII (1992), pp.881-906.
16. Here I am seeking to refine Ken Sokoloff s argument about markets and innovation: 'Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLVIII (1988), pp.813-47; and K. Sokoloff and B.Z. Khan, "The Democratization of Invention During Early Industrialization: Evidence from the U.S., 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.L (1990), pp.363-78. On product innovation, the work of Maxine Berg is particularly important: Age of Manufactures, pp.28-30, and 'Revisions and Revolutions: Technology and Productivity Change in Manufacture in Eighteenth-Century England', in P. Mathias and J. Davis (eds.), Innovation and Technology in Europe: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present Day (Oxford, 1991), pp.43-64. D.C. Coleman has pointed out the importance of product innovation in the textile industry but has not extended the analysis to ask how new products shaped the subsequent potential for growth: 'Textile Growth', in N.B. Harte and K.G. Ponting (eds.), Textile History and Economic History: Essays in Honour of Miss Julia de Lacy Mann (Manchester, 1973), pp.1-21. The same is true of T. Griffiths, P. Hunt and P. O'Brien, 'Inventive Activity in the British Textile Industry, 1700-1800', Journal of Economic History, Vol.LII (1992), pp.881-906.
17. Here I am seeking to refine Ken Sokoloff s argument about markets and innovation: 'Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLVIII (1988), pp.813-47; and K. Sokoloff and B.Z. Khan, "The Democratization of Invention During Early Industrialization: Evidence from the U.S., 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.L (1990), pp.363-78. On product innovation, the work of Maxine Berg is particularly important: Age of Manufactures, pp.28-30, and 'Revisions and Revolutions: Technology and Productivity Change in Manufacture in Eighteenth-Century England', in P. Mathias and J. Davis (eds.), Innovation and Technology in Europe: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present Day (Oxford, 1991), pp.43-64. D.C. Coleman has pointed out the importance of product innovation in the textile industry but has not extended the analysis to ask how new products shaped the subsequent potential for growth: 'Textile Growth', in N.B. Harte and K.G. Ponting (eds.), Textile History and Economic History: Essays in Honour of Miss Julia de Lacy Mann (Manchester, 1973), pp.1-21. The same is true of T. Griffiths, P. Hunt and P. O'Brien, 'Inventive Activity in the British Textile Industry, 1700-1800', Journal of Economic History, Vol.LII (1992), pp.881-906.
18. Here I am seeking to refine Ken Sokoloff s argument about markets and innovation: 'Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLVIII (1988), pp.813-47; and K. Sokoloff and B.Z. Khan, "The Democratization of Invention During Early Industrialization: Evidence from the U.S., 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.L (1990), pp.363-78. On product innovation, the work of Maxine Berg is particularly important: Age of Manufactures, pp.28-30, and 'Revisions and Revolutions: Technology and Productivity Change in Manufacture in Eighteenth-Century England', in P. Mathias and J. Davis (eds.), Innovation and Technology in Europe: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present Day (Oxford, 1991), pp.43-64. D.C. Coleman has pointed out the importance of product innovation in the textile industry but has not extended the analysis to ask how new products shaped the subsequent potential for growth: 'Textile Growth', in N.B. Harte and K.G. Ponting (eds.), Textile History and Economic History: Essays in Honour of Miss Julia de Lacy Mann (Manchester, 1973), pp.1-21. The same is true of T. Griffiths, P. Hunt and P. O'Brien, 'Inventive Activity in the British Textile Industry, 1700-1800', Journal of Economic History, Vol.LII (1992), pp.881-906.
19. Here I am seeking to refine Ken Sokoloff s argument about markets and innovation: 'Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.XLVIII (1988), pp.813-47; and K. Sokoloff and B.Z. Khan, "The Democratization of Invention During Early Industrialization: Evidence from the U.S., 1790-1846', Journal of Economic History, Vol.L (1990), pp.363-78. On product innovation, the work of Maxine Berg is particularly important: Age of Manufactures, pp.28-30, and 'Revisions and Revolutions: Technology and Productivity Change in Manufacture in Eighteenth-Century England', in P. Mathias and J. Davis (eds.), Innovation and Technology in Europe: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present Day (Oxford, 1991), pp.43-64. D.C. Coleman has pointed out the importance of product innovation in the textile industry but has not extended the analysis to ask how new products shaped the subsequent potential for growth: 'Textile Growth', in N.B. Harte and K.G. Ponting (eds.), Textile History and Economic History: Essays in Honour of Miss Julia de Lacy Mann (Manchester, 1973), pp.1-21. The same is true of T. Griffiths, P. Hunt and P. O'Brien, 'Inventive Activity in the British Textile Industry, 1700-1800', Journal of Economic History, Vol.LII (1992), pp.881-906.
20. J. Mokyr, 'Demand vs Supply in the Industrial Revolution', Journal of Economic History, Vol.XXXVII (1977), pp.981-1008, and also The Lever of Riches, pp.151-2. For a partial critique from a micro-economic perspective, see R. Szostak, The Role of Transportation in the Industrial Revolution: A Comparison of England and France (Montreal, 1991), pp.39-40.
21. J. Mokyr, 'Demand vs Supply in the Industrial Revolution', Journal of Economic History, Vol.XXXVII (1977), pp.981-1008, and also The Lever of Riches, pp.151-2. For a partial critique from a micro-economic perspective, see R. Szostak, The Role of Transportation in the Industrial Revolution: A Comparison of England and France (Montreal, 1991), pp.39-40.
22. J. Mokyr, 'Demand vs Supply in the Industrial Revolution', Journal of Economic History, Vol.XXXVII (1977), pp.981-1008, and also The Lever of Riches, pp.151-2. For a partial critique from a micro-economic perspective, see R. Szostak, The Role of Transportation in the Industrial Revolution: A Comparison of England and France (Montreal, 1991), pp.39-40.
23. B. Fine and E. Leopold, 'Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution', Social History, Vol.15 (1990), pp. 151-79. Of course the Smithian model does recognise the importance of gains from trade but does so in an ahistorical way: W. Lazonick, Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy (Cambridge, 1991), pp.2-3.
24. B. Fine and E. Leopold, 'Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution', Social History, Vol.15 (1990), pp. 151-79. Of course the Smithian model does recognise the importance of gains from trade but does so in an ahistorical way: W. Lazonick, Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy (Cambridge, 1991), pp.2-3.
25. The advantages of conducting the analysis at the level of the firm emerges very clearly in A.D. Chandler's book, Scale and Scope (Cambridge, MA, 1990).
26. Put in this fashion, my argument has affinities with an important body of literature that has attempted to explore the economics of technological and organisational change in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to the point made above about working at the level of the firm, two features of this work are of particular importance. First, Rosenberg's concept of a 'focusing device' indicates how this body of work has examined how producers respond to market incentives. Second, the term 'path-dependency' indicates the emphasis in this work on the historical contingency of economic change: N. Rosenberg, Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge, MA, 1976); idem, Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History (New York, 1994); W. Lazonick, 'Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case of the Self Acting Mule', Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.3 (1979), pp.231-62; idem, Business Organization; G. Dosi, R. Giannetti and P.A. Toninelli (eds.), Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective (Oxford, 1992); R. Nelson and S. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA, 1982); Chandler, Scale and Scope.
27. Put in this fashion, my argument has affinities with an important body of literature that has attempted to explore the economics of technological and organisational change in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to the point made above about working at the level of the firm, two features of this work are of particular importance. First, Rosenberg's concept of a 'focusing device' indicates how this body of work has examined how producers respond to market incentives. Second, the term 'path-dependency' indicates the emphasis in this work on the historical contingency of economic change: N. Rosenberg, Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge, MA, 1976); idem, Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History (New York, 1994); W. Lazonick, 'Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case of the Self Acting Mule', Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.3 (1979), pp.231-62; idem, Business Organization; G. Dosi, R. Giannetti and P.A. Toninelli (eds.), Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective (Oxford, 1992); R. Nelson and S. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA, 1982); Chandler, Scale and Scope.
28. Put in this fashion, my argument has affinities with an important body of literature that has attempted to explore the economics of technological and organisational change in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to the point made above about working at the level of the firm, two features of this work are of particular importance. First, Rosenberg's concept of a 'focusing device' indicates how this body of work has examined how producers respond to market incentives. Second, the term 'path-dependency' indicates the emphasis in this work on the historical contingency of economic change: N. Rosenberg, Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge, MA, 1976); idem, Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History (New York, 1994); W. Lazonick, 'Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case of the Self Acting Mule', Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.3 (1979), pp.231-62; idem, Business Organization; G. Dosi, R. Giannetti and P.A. Toninelli (eds.), Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective (Oxford, 1992); R. Nelson and S. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA, 1982); Chandler, Scale and Scope.
29. Put in this fashion, my argument has affinities with an important body of literature that has attempted to explore the economics of technological and organisational change in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to the point made above about working at the level of the firm, two features of this work are of particular importance. First, Rosenberg's concept of a 'focusing device' indicates how this body of work has examined how producers respond to market incentives. Second, the term 'path-dependency' indicates the emphasis in this work on the historical contingency of economic change: N. Rosenberg, Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge, MA, 1976); idem, Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History (New York, 1994); W. Lazonick, 'Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case of the Self Acting Mule', Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.3 (1979), pp.231-62; idem, Business Organization; G. Dosi, R. Giannetti and P.A. Toninelli (eds.), Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective (Oxford, 1992); R. Nelson and S. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA, 1982); Chandler, Scale and Scope.
30. Put in this fashion, my argument has affinities with an important body of literature that has attempted to explore the economics of technological and organisational change in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to the point made above about working at the level of the firm, two features of this work are of particular importance. First, Rosenberg's concept of a 'focusing device' indicates how this body of work has examined how producers respond to market incentives. Second, the term 'path-dependency' indicates the emphasis in this work on the historical contingency of economic change: N. Rosenberg, Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge, MA, 1976); idem, Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History (New York, 1994); W. Lazonick, 'Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case of the Self Acting Mule', Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.3 (1979), pp.231-62; idem, Business Organization; G. Dosi, R. Giannetti and P.A. Toninelli (eds.), Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective (Oxford, 1992); R. Nelson and S. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA, 1982); Chandler, Scale and Scope.
31. Put in this fashion, my argument has affinities with an important body of literature that has attempted to explore the economics of technological and organisational change in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to the point made above about working at the level of the firm, two features of this work are of particular importance. First, Rosenberg's concept of a 'focusing device' indicates how this body of work has examined how producers respond to market incentives. Second, the term 'path-dependency' indicates the emphasis in this work on the historical contingency of economic change: N. Rosenberg, Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge, MA, 1976); idem, Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History (New York, 1994); W. Lazonick, 'Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case of the Self Acting Mule', Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.3 (1979), pp.231-62; idem, Business Organization; G. Dosi, R. Giannetti and P.A. Toninelli (eds.), Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective (Oxford, 1992); R. Nelson and S. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA, 1982); Chandler, Scale and Scope.
32. Put in this fashion, my argument has affinities with an important body of literature that has attempted to explore the economics of technological and organisational change in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to the point made above about working at the level of the firm, two features of this work are of particular importance. First, Rosenberg's concept of a 'focusing device' indicates how this body of work has examined how producers respond to market incentives. Second, the term 'path-dependency' indicates the emphasis in this work on the historical contingency of economic change: N. Rosenberg, Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge, MA, 1976); idem, Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History (New York, 1994); W. Lazonick, 'Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case of the Self Acting Mule', Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.3 (1979), pp.231-62; idem, Business Organization; G. Dosi, R. Giannetti and P.A. Toninelli (eds.), Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective (Oxford, 1992); R. Nelson and S. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA, 1982); Chandler, Scale and Scope.
33. There is also a considerable secondary literature. The standard history is H. Heaton, The Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries (Oxford, 2nd edn. 1965); more recent works include, R.G. Wilson, Gentlemen Merchants: The Merchant Community in Leeds, 1700-1830 (Manchester, 1971); P. Hudson, The Genesis of Industrial Capital (Cambridge, 1986); A. Randall, Before the Luddites (Cambridge, 1991); and D.T. Jenkins, The West Riding Wool Textile Industry (Edington, Wiltshire, 1975). Though useful, none of these accounts address the question posed here. What has survived is patchy and cannot be easily augmented with other kinds of sources, such as trade directories and probate evidence. Thus there are places in the following argument where I have had to base my conclusions upon a limited number of examples; however the internal coherence of the picture which I have been able to reconstruct through a judicious reading of these surviving sources lends confidence to the results.
34. There is also a considerable secondary literature. The standard history is H. Heaton, The Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries (Oxford, 2nd edn. 1965); more recent works include, R.G. Wilson, Gentlemen Merchants: The Merchant Community in Leeds, 1700-1830 (Manchester, 1971); P. Hudson, The Genesis of Industrial Capital (Cambridge, 1986); A. Randall, Before the Luddites (Cambridge, 1991); and D.T. Jenkins, The West Riding Wool Textile Industry (Edington, Wiltshire, 1975). Though useful, none of these accounts address the question posed here. What has survived is patchy and cannot be easily augmented with other kinds of sources, such as trade directories and probate evidence. Thus there are places in the following argument where I have had to base my conclusions upon a limited number of examples; however the internal coherence of the picture which I have been able to reconstruct through a judicious reading of these surviving sources lends confidence to the results.
35. There is also a considerable secondary literature. The standard history is H. Heaton, The Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries (Oxford, 2nd edn. 1965); more recent works include, R.G. Wilson, Gentlemen Merchants: The Merchant Community in Leeds, 1700-1830 (Manchester, 1971); P. Hudson, The Genesis of Industrial Capital (Cambridge, 1986); A. Randall, Before the Luddites (Cambridge, 1991); and D.T. Jenkins, The West Riding Wool Textile Industry (Edington, Wiltshire, 1975). Though useful, none of these accounts address the question posed here. What has survived is patchy and cannot be easily augmented with other kinds of sources, such as trade directories and probate evidence. Thus there are places in the following argument where I have had to base my conclusions upon a limited number of examples; however the internal coherence of the picture which I have been able to reconstruct through a judicious reading of these surviving sources lends confidence to the results.
36. There is also a considerable secondary literature. The standard history is H. Heaton, The Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries (Oxford, 2nd edn. 1965); more recent works include, R.G. Wilson, Gentlemen Merchants: The Merchant Community in Leeds, 1700-1830 (Manchester, 1971); P. Hudson, The Genesis of Industrial Capital (Cambridge, 1986); A. Randall, Before the Luddites (Cambridge, 1991); and D.T. Jenkins, The West Riding Wool Textile Industry (Edington, Wiltshire, 1975). Though useful, none of these accounts address the question posed here. What has survived is patchy and cannot be easily augmented with other kinds of sources, such as trade directories and probate evidence. Thus there are places in the following argument where I have had to base my conclusions upon a limited number of examples; however the internal coherence of the picture which I have been able to reconstruct through a judicious reading of these surviving sources lends confidence to the results.
37. There is also a considerable secondary literature. The standard history is H. Heaton, The Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries (Oxford, 2nd edn. 1965); more recent works include, R.G. Wilson, Gentlemen Merchants: The Merchant Community in Leeds, 1700-1830 (Manchester, 1971); P. Hudson, The Genesis of Industrial Capital (Cambridge, 1986); A. Randall, Before the Luddites (Cambridge, 1991); and D.T. Jenkins, The West Riding Wool Textile Industry (Edington, Wiltshire, 1975). Though useful, none of these accounts address the question posed here. What has survived is patchy and cannot be easily augmented with other kinds of sources, such as trade directories and probate evidence. Thus there are places in the following argument where I have had to base my conclusions upon a limited number of examples; however the internal coherence of the picture which I have been able to reconstruct through a judicious reading of these surviving sources lends confidence to the results.
38. The allusion to the title of Chandler's book is intentional, for his work explores - though in quite a different economic context - very similar questions about the firm's economic behaviour: how new production systems require new ways of thinking about the management of that production; how economies of scale and scope emerge out of attempts to manage the firm's resources and investments; how an increase in the scale and/or scope of a firm's products require new marketing techniques - all questions, significantly, whose causality works equally well in either direction.
39. J. Smail, 'Manufacturer or Artisan?: The Relationship Between Economic and Cultural Change in the Early Years of Eighteenth-Century Industrialization', Journal of Social History, Vol.25 (1992), pp.791-814; and idem, The Origins of Middle-Class Culture (Ithaca, NY, 1994), esp. chap. 3.
40. J. Smail, 'Manufacturer or Artisan?: The Relationship Between Economic and Cultural Change in the Early Years of Eighteenth-Century Industrialization', Journal of Social History, Vol.25 (1992), pp.791-814; and idem, The Origins of Middle-Class Culture (Ithaca, NY, 1994), esp. chap. 3.
41. P. Hudson, 'Proto-industrialization: The Case of the West Riding Wool Textile Industry in the 18th and Early 19th Centuries', History Workshop Journal, Vol.12 (1981), pp.34-61.
42. Leeds University, Brotherton Library, Lupton/1, /2; Ibbetson and Koster ledgers. John Brearly's notebooks also indicate these kinds of changes: West Yorkshire Archeological Society (hereafter WYAS), Leeds, Ace 1444, Brearly memorandum book, vol.1, fol. 135, and vol.2, unpaginated.
43. Smail, 'Manufacturer or Artisan'. Since most of the kersey manufacturers concentrated their efforts in the Dutch trade, it is quite probable that these individuals initially moved into manufacturing to exploit the favourable conditions created in the Dutch markets by the fiscal pressures of William's wars: D.W. Jones, War and Economy in the Age of William III and Marlborough (Oxford, 1988).
44. Smail, 'Manufacturer or Artisan'. Since most of the kersey manufacturers concentrated their efforts in the Dutch trade, it is quite probable that these individuals initially moved into manufacturing to exploit the favourable conditions created in the Dutch markets by the fiscal pressures of William's wars: D.W. Jones, War and Economy in the Age of William III and Marlborough (Oxford, 1988).
45. This paragraph and the one following are adapted from chapter 3 of Smail, The Origins of Middle-Class Culture © 1994 by Cornell University and used by permission of the publisher, Cornell University Press.
46. WYAS, Calderdale, MISC:8/117/1, Holroyd letter book, letter to Peter Michelez, 10 Dec. 1706.
47. Turn of the century probate inventories from Halifax reveal this quite clearly. Even the largest of the domestic clothiers would have only 15 to 25 per cent of their assets in the form of stock in trade. In contrast, most manufacturers had upwards of 50 per cent of their total assets in the textile trade; for details see Smail, 'Manufacturer or Artisan'.
48. WYAS, Calderdale, FH/396, Stansfield letter book, letters to Henry Hermans, 15 March 1727/8, 24 May 1728, and 12 Sept. 1729.
49. WYAS, Calderdale, FH/396, letter to John and Peter Dorville, 11 Aug. 1730; WYAS, Calderdale, MISC:8/117/2; Samuel Hill letterbook, letters to Hendrick and Peter Kops, 31 Jan. 1737/8, William Preston, 3 Feb. 1737/8, and Mr. Vander Veit, 10 Feb. 1737/8.
50. Wilson, Gentlemen Merchants, pp.46-51. The effect of this change is evident in the Ibbetson and Koster account books of the late 1740s and early 1750s; Leeds University, Brotherton Library, Lupton/1, /2.
51. WYAS, Calderdale, FH/441, Samuel Hill letterbooks, letters from John Lozer of London re the Spanish trade, 20 July 1749 and after, from Abel Fonnereau of London re the Russia trade, 15 April 1749 and after; and WYAS, Calderdale, FH/442, Samuel Hill letterbooks, letter from Abraham Van Broyel re the Portugal trade, 29 Aug. 1749.
52. WYAS, Calderdale, MISC:8/117/2; Hill letterbook, letter to Hendrich and Peter Kops, 31 Jan. 1737/8.
53. B. Lemire, Fashion's Favourite: The Cotton Trade and the Consumer in Britain, 1660-1800 (Oxford, 1991); A. Ribeiro, Dress in Eighteenth Century Europe: 1715-1789 (New York, 1984).
54. B. Lemire, Fashion's Favourite: The Cotton Trade and the Consumer in Britain, 1660-1800 (Oxford, 1991); A. Ribeiro, Dress in Eighteenth Century Europe: 1715-1789 (New York, 1984).
55. Lemire, Fashion's Favourite; L. Weatherill, Consumer Behaviour and Material Culture in Britain, 1660-1760 (London, 1988); A. Vickery, 'Women and World of Goods', in J. Brewer and R. Porter (eds.), Consumption and the World of Goods (London, 1993), pp.274-301.
56. Lemire, Fashion's Favourite; L. Weatherill, Consumer Behaviour and Material Culture in Britain, 1660-1760 (London, 1988); A. Vickery, 'Women and World of Goods', in J. Brewer and R. Porter (eds.), Consumption and the World of Goods (London, 1993), pp.274-301.
57. Lemire, Fashion's Favourite; L. Weatherill, Consumer Behaviour and Material Culture in Britain, 1660-1760 (London, 1988); A. Vickery, 'Women and World of Goods', in J. Brewer and R. Porter (eds.), Consumption and the World of Goods (London, 1993), pp.274-301.
58. The Norwich trade in fancy worsteds was an important intermediary between Spitalfields and Yorkshire. Yorkshire's entry into the fashion trade coincided with shift to new designs and colors, particularly a decline in the popularity of large bold patterns in favour of more delicate designs with naturalistic or oriental motifs: Lemire, Fashion's Favourite, p.7.
59. WYAS, Kirklees, DD/TO/11, Toison letters, 5 Aug. 1780.
60. The root problem, of course, is that the supply-demand way of modelling reality assumes movement towards a static equilibrium; since new goods represent departures from the equilibrium, they cannot be explained from within the model. For a critique, see Nelson and Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, and for an historian's use of this critique, see S. Usselman, 'IBM and its Imitators: Organization, Capabilities and the Emergence of the International Computer Industry', Business and Economic History, Vol.22 (1993), pp.1-35.
61. The root problem, of course, is that the supply-demand way of modelling reality assumes movement towards a static equilibrium; since new goods represent departures from the equilibrium, they cannot be explained from within the model. For a critique, see Nelson and Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, and for an historian's use of this critique, see S. Usselman, 'IBM and its Imitators: Organization, Capabilities and the Emergence of the International Computer Industry', Business and Economic History, Vol.22 (1993), pp.1-35.
62. This kind of analysis builds upon the notion of 'path dependency' (see Rosenberg, Exploring the Black Box, pp.9-23 and the sources cited there) and also the evolutionary approach to economic change advanced by Nelson and Winter and by Dosi and others: Nelson and Winter, Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change; Dosi et al., Technology and Enterprise.
63. This kind of analysis builds upon the notion of 'path dependency' (see Rosenberg, Exploring the Black Box, pp.9-23 and the sources cited there) and also the evolutionary approach to economic change advanced by Nelson and Winter and by Dosi and others: Nelson and Winter, Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change; Dosi et al., Technology and Enterprise.
64. This kind of analysis builds upon the notion of 'path dependency' (see Rosenberg, Exploring the Black Box, pp.9-23 and the sources cited there) and also the evolutionary approach to economic change advanced by Nelson and Winter and by Dosi and others: Nelson and Winter, Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change; Dosi et al., Technology and Enterprise.
65. WYAS, Calderdale, FH/440, Hill Despatch book. Such worsted stuffs made up a minuscule proportion of Hill's annual turnover of around £30,000: WYAS, Calderdale, FH/439/1, Hill invoice book.
66. G. Jackson, Hull in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1972), p.54. Hull's export statistics cannot stand in for production figures in the Yorkshire trade, for they do not measure either London exports or the domestic trade, but a jump of this magnitude is certainly suggestive.
67. PRO/C.108/101; Chancery masters' exhibits, Homer and Turner letterbook and accounts. The firm was active in the 1780s and 1790s, but the business exemplifies patterns of production and trade characteristic of the 1760s and after. Richard Hill (Samuel Hill's son) compiled and extensive pattern book for a merchant in Boulogne: WYAS, Calderdale, Misc 588/1, Hill pattern book, 1770. George Stansfield junior of Halifax also employed a traveller: WYAS, Calderdale, FH/461a.
68. WYAS Kirklees DD/TO/8-12, Tolson family letters, 1770s-1783.
69. WYAS, Kirklees, DD/TO/11, 5 Aug., 12 Aug, and 8 Nov. 1780 on finding new patterns; Ibid, DD/TO/12, 20 Jan., 24 Feb., 28 March, and 4 April 1781 on the push to get sales out of a new pattern of spotted cloth woven 'in the weft way'; and DD/TO/11, 5 Aug., and 19 Aug. 1780, with reports on the activities of their competitors. For examples of novelty being touted by the firm of Horner and Turner see PRO, C.108/101, letterbook of 1787-88, 14 July 1787, and letterbook of 1795, 4 March 1795, fol. 27.
70. Several letters in the Tolson correspondence refer to such makers who had clearly carved out a niche for themselves: WYAS, Kirkless, DD/TO/11, 20 Oct. 1780. John Brearly's commonplace book abounds with remarks illustrating the active interest of small clothiers in innovations of this kind: WYAS, Leeds, Acc 1444.
71. Though as Chris MacLeod pointed out to me, such pressures clearly lie behind the development and spread of the Jaquard loom in the early nineteenth century.
72. For example, Peter Tolson wrote to his brother that he had difficulty 'putting out the spots' because of the low price they wrote to sell for: WYAS, Kirkless, DD/TO/11, 13 Sept. 1780.
73. WYAS, Kirkless, DD/TO/11, 14 and 20 Oct. 1780. WYAS, Leeds, ACC 1444, vol. 1, fol. 115.
74. The notion of the market shaping innovation is Rosenberg's original point, the sense that such 'focusing' might change the economic environment is how such an observation works in the eighteenth century context: Perspectives in Technology.
75. Liverpool University Library, Ms 10.53, Hudson letterbook.
76. WYAS, Leeds, H3, Hollywood letter book, 1783-1827, and H1, Holroyd ledger, 1783-1790s. Printed copies of price fixing agreements between the larger Leeds dyers found in the records of Daniel Glover indicate that the Holroyds were one of a number of such concerns: PRO, Chancery masters exhibits, C.114/103, Glover order book, 1790s.
77. PRO, Chancery masters exhibits, C.114/103, Glover order book, 1790s.
78. Jan de Vries, 'Between Purchasing Power and the World of Goods' m J. Brewer an R. Porter (eds.), Consumption and the World of Goods (1993), pp.85-133.