Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:06:45.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British and World Shipbuilding, 1890–1914: A Study in Comparative Costs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Sidney Pollard
Sidney Pollard
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relative stagnation of British industry during what has been called the climacteric of the 1890's did not extend to shipbuilding, though that industry, producing capital goods and depending on a substantial foreign market, shared many of the characteristics of the industries most affected by foreign competition. The purpose of this article is to discuss the comparative success of British shipbuilding. In the first two sections, the conditions of shipbuilding in Britain and in the countries that rivaled her are briefly described, and in the remainder of the paper the factors influencing comparative costs are examined.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1957 , pp. 426 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1957

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 For example, the discussion summarized in Coppock, D. J., “The Climacteric of the 1890's” Manchester School, XXIV (1956), 1–31,Google Scholar and the literature quoted there; cf. also Jones, G. T., Increasing Return (Cambridge: University Press, 1933)Google Scholar.

2 Lloyd's Register; Tariff Commission, Reports (London: King, 1904–1909), IV, par. 95Google Scholar.

3 Lloyd's Register; Annual Abstract of Statistics (London: H.M.S.O.); The Statist (London), Aug. 16, 1884Google Scholar. Transfers to foreign flags were not always genuine: British vessels were transferred to Turkish, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian, Belgian, and other flags, while remaining in effective British ownership, in order to gain subsidies, to be subject to fewer safety regulations, or to gain a lower tonnage rating. At the same time several large fleets continued to fly the British flag after having come into the possession of the Americans (e.g., the Leyland, Atlantic Transport, the Red Star Lines, the North Atlantic Steam Ship Co., the New York and Pacific Steam Ship Co., the Chesapeake and Ohio Steam Ship Co., the Pacific Mail, the United Fruit Co., and Merritt & Chapman), or of the Germans. First Report of the Select Committee on Steam Ship Subsidies (London: H.M.S.O., 1901, VIII)Google Scholar [here, as in subsequent references to official documents, the roman numeral within the parentheses is that of the volume of the Parliamentary Papers that the source cited is to be found in], evidence A. N. Hill, QQ. 2033–36; Second Report (1902, IX), p. xviii,Google Scholar and evidence R. Giffen, Q. II; Pirrie, QQ, 1805–6, 2012–13; evidence of Steam Ship Owners' Association to Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade (London: H.M.S.O., 1886, XXII), QQ. 10916–20Google Scholar; Report of Select Committee on Foreign Ships (London: H.M.S.O., 1905, VII), App. 12, p. 104Google Scholar.

4 Cf. The Economist (London), Dec. 1, 1900;Google ScholarStatist, Jan. 6, Apr. 29, 1899; Syren and Shipping (London), Feb. 24, 1897, Nov. 6, 1904Google Scholar.

5 By 1900 the managerial personnel was largely German: “Die früher zahlreichen Engländer und Schotten sind fast ganz verschwunden.” Halle, “Die volkswirthschaftliche Entwicklung des Schiffbaues in Deutschland und den Hauptländern,” Jahrbücher der schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft [henceforth ]ahrb. schiffbaut. Ges.], III (1902), 214Google Scholar.

6 Haack, R., “Development of German Shipbuilding,” Engineering Magazine (London), Aug. 1899;Google ScholarSchroedter, E., “The Ironmaking and Shipbuilding Industries in Germany,” Jahrb. schiffbaut. Ges., III (1902), 26–28;Google Scholar J. Lange, “Die Stettiner Maschinenbau-Aktien-Gesellschaft Vulkan,” ibid., VIII (1907), 469–70; Halle, , in Jahrb. schiffbaut. Ges., III (1902), 208–9Google Scholar.

7 Much useful information on this period will be found in the historical volume of the Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (New York, 1945)Google Scholar. Cf. also Schwarz, T., “Der amerikanische Schiffbau im letzten Jahrzehnt,” Jahrb, schiffbaut. Ges., III (1902), 226–29;Google ScholarDunmore, W. T., Ship Subsidies (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1907), pp. 28, 32;Google Scholar Schwarz and Halle, Schiffbauindustrie, II 178–79; de Russet, E. W., “Recent Developments in Cargo and Intermediate Steamers,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, CLVIII (1903–1904), 163;Google ScholarMosely Industrial Commission to the United States of America, October–December 1902, Report of the Delegates (Manchester, 1903), p. 79Google Scholar (D. C. Cummings, Secretary of the Boilermakers' Society), pp. 92, 96 (Alex. Wilkie, Secretary of the Shipwrights' Society).

8 Cf. Economist, Dec. 8, 1900, June 15, 1901, June 21, 1902; Statist, Oct. 7, 1899, Feb. 26, 1901; Syren and Shipping, Jan. 4, 1899.

9 Mosely Commission, pp. 79, 81. “The equipment of the [Camden] works was costly,” Cummings noted shrewdly, “and the returns under the system adopted may be a sorry speculation for the shareholders… The methods at Camden, so much belauded and advertised, are certainly those that no level-headed American or British shipbuilder would dream of adopting.”

10 Select Committee on Steam Ship Subsidies, Second Report, App. 4, p. 218; Ambroise Colin, La Navigation commerciale au XIXe siècle (Paris: Rousseau, 1901), pp. 185–86; Schwarz and Halle, Schiffbauindustne, II, 178–79.

11 Russo, Col. G., “50 Years' Progress of Shipbuilding in Italy,” Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects, LIII (1911), II, 255–70;Google ScholarMeeker, R., History of Shipping Subsidies (New York: Macmillan, 1905), p. 100Google Scholar.

12 Terano, S. and Yukawa, M., “The Development of Merchant Shipbuilding in Japan,” Trans. Inst. Nav. Arch., LIII (1911), II, 138–45Google Scholar; Orchard, J. E., Japan's Economic Position (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1930), p. 86Google Scholar; Syren and Shipping, Dec. 16, 1896, Mar 10, 1897, Aug. 31, 1904.

13 In 1913, 46 per cent of British tonnage engaged in the home trade and 75 per cent of British steamer tonnage trading between foreign ports were of the tramp class. Fayle, C. E., History of the World's Shipping Industry (London: Allen & Unwin, 1933), 272,Google Scholar and The War and the Shipping Industry (London: Oxford University Press, 1927), p. 14;Google ScholarHaji, S. N., Economics of Shipping (Bombay: Haji, 1924), p. 53;Google ScholarKreuter, A., Preisbildung in der Linienreederei (Munich: doctoral thesis, 1909), p. 15;Google ScholarReport of the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings (London: H.M.S.O., 1909, XLVII), p. 34;Google ScholarGregg, E. S., “Decline in Tramp Shipping,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, XL (1926), 339;Google ScholarCrammond, E., The British Shipping Industry (London: Constable, 1917), p. 16;Google ScholarMichon, G., Les Grandes compagnies anglaises de navigation (Paris: Rousseau, 1913), p. 19Google Scholar.

14 Statist, Dec. 5, 1908; Lang, W. V., “Some Details of a Cargo Steamer,” Transactions of the Institute of Marine Engineers, XXI (1909–1910), 53;Google ScholarLubbock, D., Arctic Whalers (Glasgow: Brown, Son & Ferguson, 1937), p. 472Google Scholar.

15 “Intermediate” liners were liners that sacrificed the extremely costly last three or four knots of speed in return for comfort and cheapness. Holmes, G. C. V., Ancient and Modern Ships (2 vols.; London: H.M.S.O., 1906), II, 91;Google ScholarFry, Henry, History of the North Atlantic Steam Navigation (London: Sampson Low, 1896), p. 215;Google ScholarCorson, F. R., The Atlantic Ferry in the 20th Century (London: Sampson Low, 1930), pp. 4, 20–22, 81Google Scholar.

16 Sievewright, G. W., “The Development of the ‘Well-Deck’ Cargo Steamer,” Transactions of the North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, V. (1888–1889), 151;Google Scholar S. O. Kendall, “Turret-Deck Cargo Steamers,” ibid., XI (1894–95), 209; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1945 ed., art. “Ship”; Holmes, Ancient and Modern Ships, II, 118–22; Report of the Load Line Committee (London: H.M.S.O., 1899, LXXVIII), evidence of Robt. Ropner, Jr., QQ. 2858, 2879, 2916–60Google Scholar; Smith, J. W. and Holden, T. W., Where Ships Are Born (Sunderland: Reed, 1946), p. 39;Google ScholarSyren and Shipping, Mar. 10, 1879, Jan. 1, 1902, Jan. 2, 1907, Nov. 4, 1911, July 3, 1912; Shipping (London), Oct. 1, 1896Google Scholar.

17 Cf. Pollock, D., Modern Shipbuilding (London: Spon, 1884), p. 162;Google Scholar Wm. Denny & Bros., Ltd., Denny, Dumbarton, 1844–1932 (Dumbarton, 1932), pp. 24–25;Google Scholar Alex. Stephen & Sons, A Shipbuilding History, 1750–1932 (London and Cheltenham, 1932), p. 110;Google ScholarSwan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson, Wallsend and Walker on Tyne (1906), p. 18;Google Scholar Dickenson & Go. Ltd., Hundred Years of Progress (Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1947), p. 3;Google ScholarJohn Readhead & Sons, Ltd. (South Shields, 1948)Google Scholar; Syren and Shipping, Oct. 27, 1915.

18 Tariff Commission, IV. pars. 92, 500, 529.

19 Even their competitive position was doubtful: Mosely Commission Report, pp. 79, 92.

20 Flamm, O., in Stahl und Eisen (Düsseldorf), Sept. 1, 1897, pp. 921–22;Google Scholar Schwarz and Halle, II, 50, 143–53, 186–87; John, T. G., “Shipbuilding Practice of the Present and Future,” Trans, lnst. Nav. Arch., LVI (1914), 293–94.Google Scholar Much useful information about technical equipment may be gleaned from articles in the professional journals, e.g., Fairburn, W. A., “Methods of Handling Materials over Shipbuilding Berths in American Shipyards,” Trans, lnst. Nav. Arch., XLIV (1902), 229;Google Scholar A. Murray “The Introduction of Cranes in Shipyards,” ibid., XLVIII (1906), 179; Babcock, W. I., “Portable Pneumatic Riveters in Shipbuilding,” Trans. Soc. Nav. Arch, and Mar. Eng., VI (1898), 29;Google Scholar H. G. Gillmor, “Notes on Recent Improvements in Foreign Shipbuilding Plants,” ibid., VIII (1900), 167; Price, J., “The Use of Machinery in Construction,” Trans. N. E. Coast lnst., V (1888–1889), 43;Google Scholar W. C. Mountain, “Transmission of Power for Electricity,” ibid., XI (1894–95), 113; C. Scholefield, “Pneumatic Tools as Applied to Ship Construction,” ibid., XXII (1905–6), 15; J. B. Duckitt, “The Electrical Equipment of Cranes,” ibid., XXV (1908–9), 47; Wallace, W. C., “Electrical Transmission of Power in Shipyards,” Transactions of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, XXXVIII (1894–1895), 181;Google ScholarWhite, W. H., “Presidential Address,” Proc. lnst. Civ. Eng., CLV (1903–1904), 2Google Scholar.

21 Estimates of comparative wage rates differ widely, but rates of 25–33 Per cent above the British were given most often. See, e.g., Dickie, Geo. W., “Some Obstacles to Shipbuilding and Owning in this Country,” Trans. Soc. Nav. Arch, and Mar. Eng., II (1894), 37;Google Scholar and “Can the American Shipbuilders Under Present Conditions Compete?” ibid., VIII (1900), 173, and discussion following; Schwarz, T., in Jahrb. schiffbaut. Ges., III (1902), 231;Google Scholar W. T. Dunmore, Ship Subsidies, p. 48; Grantham, J., “Ocean Steam Navigation,” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., XXIX (1869–1870), 129;Google ScholarMcKechnie, James, “Shipbuilding … in Great Britain,” Engineering Magazine (London, 1897), p. 952Google Scholar.

22 Schwarz and Halle, II, p. 158; The Shipbuilder, No. 3 (1908); Open Letter from the Board of Trade to the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, in Shipbuilding Trades Agreement (London), June 3, 1910Google Scholar.

23 R. C. on the Depression of Trade, evidence of J. Price, QQ. 10978–85, 11013–18; J. Scott, QQ. 11878–79, 11902, 11976–77, 12005–16, 12051; Robert Knight, QQ. 14761–63, 14774, 14785–810; App. A.1., p. 342; Bell, Lowthian, Principles of the Manufacture of Iron and Steel (London: Routledge, 1884), pp. 503, 706Google Scholar; Statist, Nov. 25, 1885; Moseley Commission, p. 95.

24 Evidence of J. Price and J. Scott to R. C. on Depression of Trade, quoted above.

25 Departmental Committee on Shipping and Shipbuilding after the War (London: H.M.S.O., 1918, XIII), p. 41;Google ScholarJones, J. H., Is Unemployment Inevitable? (London: Macmillan, 1924), p. 286;Google ScholarJeans, J. S., Iron Trade of Great Britain (London: Methuen, 1906), pp. 131–32;Google ScholarR. C. on Depression, App. A.1. (Lowthian Bell); Halle, in Jahrb. schiffbaut. Ges., III (1902), 217;Google ScholarNeumann, J., Volkswirtschaftliche … Bedeutung … der Schiffbauindustrie (Leipzig: Brandstetter, 1910), p. 74Google Scholar.

26 Economist, Aug. 8, 1900; Statist, Mar. 19, 1898, Jan. 28, 1899, May 4, Dec. 28, 1901; Jeans, Iron Trade, p. 160; J. Neumann, Volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung, p. 78; Dunmore, Ship Subsidies, pp. 42–43.

27 Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, XVII (1883), 835;Google ScholarLaeisz, C. F., “Shipbuilding in Germany,” Trans. Inst. Nav. Arch., XXXIX (1897), 17;Google ScholarDepartmental Committee on Shipping, pp. 24–25, App. A, pp. 43–45; Tariff Commission, I, pars. 205, 262, 544, 1187; IV, pars. 453. 502, 780–81, 789; Committee on Industry and Trade (London: H.M.S.O., 1928)Google Scholar, Fourth Report, p. 371; Neumann, Volkswirtsch. Bedeutung, pp. 40 n., 78 n.; Ch. Furness, The American Invasion (London: Simpkin, Marshall, 1902), p. 14;Google ScholarEconomist, Jan. 8, 1910, Jan. 15. 1913; Statist, Sept. 28, 1912; Fairplay (London), Jan. 28, 1910Google Scholar.

28 The association of a shipyard with one of the five firms in the armor-plate “ring” was a different matter: the cartel's control over armor-plate capacity assured it of shares in profitable warship contracts.

29 Cf. League of Nations, Memorandum on Shipbuilding (Geneva, 1927), p. 29;Google Scholar Glasgow University, Industrial Survey of South-West Scotland (London: H.M.S.O., 1932), p. 39;Google ScholarThe Engineer (London), July 10, 1896;Google ScholarHamilton, R. V., Naval Administration (London: Bell, 1896), p. 178Google Scholar.

30 Belfast drew much of its skilled labor and steel from the Clyde.

31 Rents were probably a less important cause of this migration; no reliable figures for British yards at that time can be obtained, but in Germany rent accounted for about 1 per cent of the costs of production. Tralau, G., Über den Standort der Schiffbauindustrie (Rostock: Hinstorff, 1927), p. 9Google Scholar.

32 The lack of a local tradition may also help to explain the failure of South Wales to attract a shipbuilding industry, as the area was favorably placed in many respects and had some flourishing ship repair firms.

33 Schwarz and Halle, Schiffbauindustrie, II, 184; Cormack, W. S., “An Economic History of Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering” (unpub. thesis; Univ. of Glasgow, [c. 1930]), p. 239Google Scholar.

34 Schwarz and Halle, Schiffbauindustrie, II, 184; Statist, July 12, 1902; White, W. H., “Presidential Address,” Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (1899), 156Google Scholar.

35 Schwarz and Halle, Schiffbauindustrie, II, p. 185; Colin, Navigation, pp. 178, 183–84; R. Meeker, History of Shipping Subsidies, p. 46; H. Fry, History, p. 242; Associated Shipwrights' Society, Quarterly Reports, 1891, First Quarter.