Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T23:36:09.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Induced Innovation and Economic Performance in Late Victorian British Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

William H. Phillips
William H. Phillips
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Economics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous “new” economic history research on late Victorian Britain often assumes that technology was exogenous to British entrepreneurs. Foreign innovations were available for inspection, and if they were not found suitable, there was no way to adapt new techniques to the British situation. Alternatively, one can assert that technological failure is a key issue in any study of retarded economic performance. A test for the presence of induced innovation—an endogenous theory of technological change—is applied to the British pig iron and cotton textile industries. Results are compared to other technological studies of British and American industry.

Type
Papers Presented at the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 97 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1982

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 de Vries, Jan, “Is There an Economics of Decline?” this JOURNAL, 38 (03 1978), 256–58.Google Scholar

2 Among many, I note Allen, Robert C., “International Competition in Iron and Steel, 1850–1913,” this JOURNAL, 39 (12 1979), 911–37;Google ScholarBerck, Peter, “Hard Driving and Efficiency: Iron Production in 1890,” this JOURNAL, 38 (12 1978), 879–900;Google ScholarCrafts, N. F. R., “Victorian Britain Did Fail,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 32 (11 1979), 533–37;Google Scholar and Webb, Steven B., “Tariffs, Cartels, Technology, and Growth in the German Steel Industry, 1879 to 1914,” this JOURNAL, 40 (06 1980), 309–29.Google Scholar

3 On the possible importance of the structure of industrial organization, see Lazonick, William, “Competition, Specialization, and Industrial Decline,” this JOURNAL, 41 (03 1981), 31–38;Google Scholar and Webb, “Tariffs, Cartels, and Growth,” 318–26. On the unique development of the limited liability concept in the United Kingdom, see Kennedy, William P., “Notes on Economic Efficiency in Historical Perspective: The Case of Britain, 1870–1914” (manuscript, 1981), 9–30.Google Scholar

4 Kennedy, William P., “Economic Growth and Structural Change in the U.K. 1870–1914” (University of Essex Discussion Paper No. 112, 1978), 58–79;Google Scholar or Berck, “Hard Driving,” 889–94.Google Scholar

5 Eichengreen, Barry J., “The Proximate Determinants of Domestic Investment in Victorian Britain” (manuscript, 1981);Google Scholar and Kennedy, William P., “Foreign Investment, Trade and Growth in the United Kingdom, 1870–1913,” Explorations in Economic History, 11 (Summer 1974), 415–44.Google Scholar

6 A more detailed discussion of this topic and of the estimation procedure that follows is given in Phillips, William H., “The Economic Performance of Late Victorian Britain: Traditional Historians and Growth” (manuscript, 1981), which can be obtained from the author.Google Scholar

7 Binswanger, Hans P., Ruttan, Vernon W. et al. , Induced Innovation: Technology, Institutions and Development (Baltimore, 1978);Google ScholarStevenson, Rodney, “Measuring Technological Bias,” American Economic Review, 70 (03 1980), 162–73.Google Scholar

8 A description of all data used and a presentation of the detailed regression results are left to an appendix available from the author.Google Scholar

9 σij = 0 implies λij = –Si Sj.Google Scholar

10 Blaug, Mark, “The Productivity of Capital in the Lancashire Cotton Industry during the Nineteenth Century,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 13 (04 1961), 358–81;Google ScholarHenderson, W. O., The Lancashire Cotton Famine (Manchester, 1934).Google Scholar

11 To avoid linear dependence in this simultaneous-equation system, one factor (the residual) must be dropped from the system. The regression coefficients for this factor are not recoverable unless the production function is homogeneous.Google Scholar

12 Phillips, “Economic Performance of Britain,” 20–28;Google Scholar and Cain, Louis P. and Paterson, Donald G., “Factor Biases and Technical Change in Manufacturing: The American System, 1850–1919,” this JOURNAL, 41 (06 1981), 341–60.Google Scholar