Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:14:21.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant Size and Efficiency in the Steel Industry: an International Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Jonathan Aylen
Jonathan Aylen*
Affiliation:
University of Salford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Steel is the basic material of industrialisation; and also of war. For Britain in the eighteenth century, iron and steel was the cornerstone of the industrial revolution; for Germany, a century later, the steel industry was the foundation of the militarism of Bismarck. Both countries supplied steel rails for America's westward expansion in the third quarter of the nineteenth century, before the emergence of America's own steel industry. Until the 1880s the British iron and steel industry was dominant. By the turn of the century both America and Germany had overtaken Britain as a steel producer. Today Britain has the smallest of the three industries. In 1979, a relatively good year, 21.5 million tonnes of crude steel were made in Britain, compared with 46 million in Germany and 123.3 in America.

Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 100 , May 1982 , pp. 65 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

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.)

Footnotes

(1)

This study was undertaken as part of the Institute's research programme on international comparisons of pro ductivity (see Productivity and Industrial Structure. by S. J. Prais, A. Daly, D. T. Jones and K. Wagner, Cambridge, 1982), and was supported in part by the Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society to whom thanks are due.

Steelmakers and plant suppliers in Britain, Germany and America were exceptionally helpful. The author owes much to the patient advice of Mike Brown, Jane Francis, Dan Jones, Hugh McCormick and Peter Morris and the guidance of Professor Prais. The author alone is responsible for the final draft.

References

[1]For convenience we refer to West Germany as Germany and the United States of America as America throughout.Google Scholar
[2]Cockerill, A.J. with Silberston, A., The Steel Industry, Cambridge University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
[3]See Leckie, A.H. and Morris, A.J., ‘Effects of plant and works scale on costs in the iron and steel industry’, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, vol. 206, May 1968, pp. 442–52.Google Scholar
[4]Including Krupp Stahl at Duisburg-Rheinhausen, Mannesmann Hüttenwerke at Duisburg-Huckingen and the huge Thyssen complex in North Duisburg.Google Scholar
[5]34 per cent in 1979, compared with 25 per cent in America and 14 per cent in Germany.Google Scholar
[6]Including Manchester Steel at Beswick, Manchester and Bidston, Merseyside and Sheerness Steel in Kent.Google Scholar
[7]See Alan Pike, ‘Special steels industry: a doomsday message’, Financial Times, 5 August, 1981.Google Scholar
[8]George McManus, ‘American Steel doesn't lag in technology … just in capital’, Iron Age, 11 September 1978.Google Scholar
[9]See Jonathan Aylen, ‘Innovation in the British Steel Industry’, in Technical Innovation and British Economic Performance, (ed.) Pavitt, K., London: Macmillan, 1980, chapter 12.Google Scholar
[10]See Jonathan Aylen, ‘Memorandum on the British Steel Corporation and Technical Change’, in First Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Session 1977-8, The British Steel Corporation, volume III, London: HMSO, 1978, appendix 23.Google Scholar
[11]See Stone, J.K., ‘Will Government aid cure steel industry woes?’, Steel Times, December 1979, pp. 73–4.Google Scholar
[12]Productivity Team on Iron and Steel (op. cit.).Google Scholar
[13]See Gerhard Meinshausen, ‘Konzentration und Ausbau der Roheisen-und Rohstahlerzeugung der Fried. Krupp Hüttenwerke’, Stahl und Eisen, vol. 97, 1977, no. 3, 10 February, pp. 109–17.Google Scholar
[14]Department of Trade and Industry, Steel: British Steel Corporation: Ten Year Development Strategy, Cmnd 5226, London: HMSO, 1973.Google Scholar
[15]Iron and Steel Sector Working Party, Report from the Appleby-Frodingham Study Team and Report of the Clydebridge Study Team, London: National Economic Development Office, 1979.Google Scholar
[16]The Sidmar/Llanwern Manning Report (September 1975) is a confidential internal document of the British Steel Corporation. It was the subject of a BBC Television Panorama programme the following year. After the report was completed, the Sidmar workforce went on strike for six weeks in spring 1976. A wit at the British Steel Corporation's Head Office is said to have telexed Llanwern: ‘Sidmar on strike—they heard about your manning levels’.Google Scholar
[17]See Peter Bowen, Social Control in Industrial Organisations: Industrial Relations and Industrial Sociology, A Strategic and Occupational Study of British Steelmaking, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976; Smith, E. Owen, Productivity Bargaining: A Case Study in the Steel Industry, London : Pan, 1971, and a classic study by Scott, W.H., Banks, J.A., Halsey, A.H. and Lupton, T., Technical Change and Industrial Relations, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1956.Google Scholar
[18]See Musgrave, P.W., Technical Change, the Labour Force and Education: A Study of the British and German Iron and Steel Industries 1860-1964, Oxford: Pergamon, 1967, and Erickson, C., British Industrialists: Steel and Hosiery, 1850-1950, Cambridge University Press, 1959.Google Scholar