Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:16:12.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Creative Destruction and Partial Obsolescence in American Economic Development*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

W. Paul Strassmann
W. Paul Strassmann
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the growing emphasis on structural change and Schumpeterian innovation in economic development, the paradoxical concept “creative destruction” has come into wide use among economists and economic historians. It is an appealing concept because it recalls the death and birth cycles of nature and various tribal myths of gods shuttling between ferocity and compassion. But the concept has been applied to economic situations rather casually. This paper suggests that “creative destruction” is not an apt description of the way dominant production methods succeeded one another in the United States from 1850 to 1914, even though the term is applled to this era more than to any other. Data are presented to show that apparently obsolete methods survived and grew in the face of novel competition. An explanation of the staying power of partially outdated production methods is attempted.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 1959 , pp. 335 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The rain-gods, Jupiter and Thor, once made fields grow and yet hurled their thunderbolts. Demeter, goddess of grain and harvests in Greece, every winter abandoned her daughter Persephone, to Pluto, king of the multitudinous dead. The Hindu goddess Shakti is personified both as Uma, a smiling mother offering help to all creatures, and as Kali, goddess of floods, earthquakes, and epidemics, wearing a garland of skulls and shown in temple images with blood dripping from her mouth.

2 Schumpeter, Joseph A., “The Creative Response in Economic History,” The Journal of Economic History, VII (Nov. 1947), 154.Google Scholar

3 Schumpeter, Joseph A., The Theory of Economic Development, Redvers Opie, trans. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934) pp. 129–136Google Scholar; Schumpeter, Joseph A., Business Cycles (2 vols., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1939), I, 130–57.Google Scholar

4 Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (2d. ed., New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947), p. 68.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., p. 83.

6 Ibid., pp. 84, 88.

7 Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufactures: 1905, Part IV (Washington, D. C, Government Printing office, 1908), pp. 622–25.Google Scholar

8 Hunter, Louis C., “Influence of the Market upon Technique in Western Pennsylvania up to 1860,” Journal of Economic and Business History, I, (Feb. 1929), 241–81.Google Scholar

9 Swank, James M., History of the Manufacture of Iron in All Ages (2d. ed., Philadelphia: The American Iron and Steel Association, 1892), pp. 415, 440.Google Scholar

10 Clark, Victor S., History of Manufactures in the United States (3 vols., Washington, D. C, Carnegie Institution, 1929), II, 79, 260.Google Scholar

11 Swank, Iron in All Ages, p. 413.

12 Clark, History of Manufactures, II, 68–69.

13 Burns, Arthur F., Production Trends in the United States since 1870 (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1934), pp. 288–91.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., pp. 288–89, 300–01.

15 U. S. Census Bureau, Census of Manufactures: 1914, Part II (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1919), p. 37.Google Scholar

16 Charles H. Fitch, “Report on the Manufactures of Interchangeable Mechanism,” Report on the Manufactures of the United States, U. S. Census office, Tenth Census, 1880 (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1883), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

17 Engineering, XXI (June 2, 1876), 454.Google Scholar

18 Engineering, XXI (May 26, 1876), 3.Google Scholar

19 Burns, Production Trends in the United States, pp. 290–93.

20 Bulletin of the American Iron and Steel Association, XXXVI (May 10, 1902), 65.Google Scholar

21 Draper, William F., Recollections of a Varied Career (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1908)Google Scholar; Navin, Thomas R. Jr, “Innovation and Management Policies, The Textile Machinery Industry: Influence of the Market on Management,” Bulletin of the Business Historical Society, XXIV (Mar. 1950), 15–30Google Scholar; Navin, Thomas R. Jr, The Whitin Machine Works Since 1831, A Textile Machinery Company in an Industrial Village (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950), pp. 273–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Cole, Arthur H., The American Wool Manufacture (2 vols., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), II, 88–91.Google Scholar

23 Hubbard, Guy, “The Development of Machine Tools in New England,” American Machinist, LXI (July 21, 1924), 197–98Google Scholar; Roe, Joseph Wickham, English and American Tool Builders (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1916), pp. 176 ff.Google Scholar; Mitman, Carl W., “Christopher Spencer,” Dictionary of American Biography, (20 vols., New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1929), XVII, 446–47.Google Scholar

24 Cf. Burns, Production Trends in the United States, pp. 140–45.