Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T23:20:33.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Geography of Invention in the American Glass Industry, 1870–1925

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2012

Naomi R. Lamoreaux  and
Kenneth L. Sokoloff
Naomi R. Lamoreaux
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Economics and Department of History, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1477, and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research
Kenneth L. Sokoloff
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1477, and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Geographic clustering in inventive activity has often been attributed to clustering in production. For the glass industiy, we find that despite a general association between location of invention and production, there were significant deviations. Centers of production were not always centers of invention, and some of the most inventive areas, such as southern New England, had very limited production. We hypothesize that the growth of a market for technology facilitated a geographic division of labor between invention and commercial exploitation and stimulated inventive activity in places where there were institutions capable of mediating among inventors, suppliers of capital, and firms seeking new technologies.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 700 - 729
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2000

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

REFERENCES

Alchian, Armen. “Reliability of Progress Curves in Airframe Production”. Econometrica 31 (10 1963): 679–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. “The Economic Implications of Learning By Doing”. Review of Economic Studies 29 (06 1962): 155–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Pearce.The Development of the American Glass Industry. New York: Russell & Russell, 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Directory of the Glass Trade or American Glass Trade Directory. Assorted issues.Google Scholar
Fairfield, E. William.Fire & Sand… The History of the Libbey-Owens Sheet Glass Company. Cleveland, OH: Lezius-Hiles, 1960.Google Scholar
Gilfillan, S. C.The Sociology of Invention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970 [orig. pub. 1935].Google Scholar
Glass Factory Directory. Assorted issues.Google Scholar
Higgs, Robert. “American Inventiveness, 1870–1920”. Journal of Political Economy 79 (05/ 06 1971): 661–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Thomas J., and Schmitz, James A. Jr “A Theory of Entrepreneurship and its Application to the Study of Business Transfers”. Journal of Political Economy 98 (04 1990): 265–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Adam B., Trajtenberg, Manuel, and Henderson, Rebecca. “Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced By Patent Citations”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (08 1993): 577–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sukkoo. “Expansion of Markets and the Geographic Distribution of Economic Activities: The Trends in U.S. Regional Manufacturing Structure, 1860–1987”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (08 1995): 881–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, Paul.Geography and Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “Patents and the Market for Technology in the Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century United States”. (Unpublished paper (1995)).Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “Long-Term Change in the Organization of Inventive Activity”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93 (12 11 1996): 12686–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “Intermediaries in the U.S. Market for Technology, 1870–1920”. Unpublished paper (1998).Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “The Geography of the Market for Technology in the Late-Nineteenth- and Early- Twentieth Century United States”. In Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Growth, 11, edited by Libecap, Gary D., 67–122. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., and Sokoloff, Kenneth L. “Inventors, Firns, and the Market for Technology in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries”. In Learning by Firms, Organizations, and Countries, edited by Lamoreaux, Naomi R., Raff, Daniel M. G., and Temin, Peter, 19–57. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “Inventive Activity and the Market for Technology in the United States, 1840–1920”. NBER Working Paper No. W7107 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, David S.Revolution in Time. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Leamer, Edward E.Sources of International Comparative Advantage. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred.Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan/Royal Economic Society, 1961 [orig. pub. 1890].Google Scholar
Mokyr, Joel.The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
National Glass Budget. Assorted issues.Google Scholar
Pred, Allan R.Urban Growth andthe Circulation of Information. The United States System of Cities, 1790–1840. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmookler, Jacob.Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scoville, Warren C.Revolution in Glassmaking: Entrepreneurship and Technological Change in the American Industry, 1880–1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, Kenneth L. “Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790–1846”. This JOURNAL 48, no. 4 (1988): 813–50.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Productivity of Labor in the Glass Industry, Bulletin No. 441. Washington, DC: GPO, 1927.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office. The General Statistics of Manufactures in Each State and Territory at the Census of 1870. Washington, DC: GPO, 1872.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office. Report on the Manufactures of the United States at the Tenth Census. Washington, DC: GPO, 1883.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office. Report on Manufacturing Industries in the United States at the Eleventh Census:1890. Washington, DC: GPO, 1895.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office.Twelfth Census of the United States: Manufactures, Part 3, Special Reports on Selected Industries. Washington, DC: GPO, 1902.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910, Vol. 10, Manigfactures, 1909, Reports for Principal Industries. Washington, DC: GPO, 1913.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States: Manufactures, 1929, Vol. 2, Reports by Industries. Washington, DC: GPO, 1933.Google Scholar
U.S. Commissioner of Patents. Annual Reports. Assorted years.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. The Glass Industry: Report on the Cost of Production of Glass in the United States, Misc. Series No. 60. Washington, DC: GPO, 1917.Google Scholar
U.S. Patent Office, Roster of Registered Attorneys Entitled to Practice Before the United States Patent Office. Assorted years.Google Scholar
Young, Alwyn. “Learning By Doing and the Dynamic Effects of International Trade”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (05 1991): 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar