Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:14:15.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British Myopia and the Collapse of Indian Textile Demand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Susan Wolcott
Susan Wolcott
Affiliation:
The author is Assistant Professor of Economics, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Britain's textile industry contracted sharply in the interwar period due to the growth of domestic industries in many of its export markets. Lazonick and Mass argue that, because this growth was inevitable, British entrepreneurs should not have focused on the less developed countries. This article questions whether the interwar growth of the Indian textile industry was inevitable. A quantitative study of Indian import demand and production techniques suggests that the rapid growth of the industry was due to exogenous events—postwar British inflation and change in the Indian political regime—rather than to the natural evolution of Indian productivity.

Type
Papers Presented at the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 367 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1991

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

Much of this article is drawn from Chapter 3 of my dissertation. I would especially like to thank my advisers, Gavin Wright and Gregory Clark, and also the participants of the 1990 Cliometrics Meeting for a useful discussion.Google Scholar

1 Sandberg, Lars, Lancashire in Distress (Columbus, 1974), p. 4.Google Scholar

2 McCloskey, Donald and Sandberg, Lars, “From Damnation to Redemption: Judgments on the Late Victorian Entrepreneur”, Explorations in Economic History, 9 (Fall 1971), p. 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Lazonick, William and Mass, William, “The Performance of the British Cotton Industry 1870–1913”, Research in Economic History, 9, p. 37.Google Scholar See also Lazonick, William, “Industrial Organization and Technological Change:The Decline of the British Cotton Industry”, Business History Review, 57 (Summer 1983), pp. 195–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Clark, Gregory, “Why Isn't the World Developed? Lessons from the Cotton Mills”. this JOURNAL, 47 (03. 1987), pp. 141–73.Google Scholar

5 Note that blaming the postwar inflation is equivalent to faulting the overvalued currency.Google Scholar

6 Lazonick and Mass, “Performance”, p. 5;Google Scholarand Sandberg, Lancashire, p. 184.Google Scholar

7 Due to the increase in silver prices during the Mexican Revolution, the rupee, a silver coin, began to appreciate relative to the gold-based pound. In response, the official rupee value was changed from 1 shilling, 4 pence to 1 shilling, 6 pence.Google Scholar

8 Contrary to what one might have guessed, the war had not led to a surge in Indian production. India relied on imported textile machinery. The war limited imports of textile machinery just as it limited imports of textiles.Google Scholar

9 Another possibility is that there was a fall in total demand, due to either a fall in income or an exogenous shift in preferences. Indian income, however, was stable across the war. And there is no statisticalevidence of an exogenous shift.Google Scholar

10 The sources are the same as in Table 1. The Indian prices are from Mehta, S. D., The Indian Cotton Textile Industry (Bombay, 1953), pp. 146–47;Google Scholarand Rutnager, S. M.Bombay Industries: The Cotton Mills (Bombay, 1927), pp. 398–99.Google Scholar

11 Bagchi, Amiya Kumar, Private Investment in India 1900–1929 (London, 1972), p. 240;CrossRefGoogle Scholarand Pearse, Arno S., The Cotton Industry of India (Manchester, 1930). p. 213. Note that the 45 percent drop in imports of bleached goods between1913 and 1924 was thus equivalent to a equal drop in total consumption, further support for my assertion the drop in imports was due to a shrinking of the total piece goods market.Google Scholar

12 In Britain the distribution of across the three categories appears to have been relatively stableacross the war. Great Britian Commitee on Industry and Trade (Balfour Report) (London, 1927–1928), summary table B.Google Scholar

13 The source is the same as for Table 1.Google Scholar

14 The data are the same as for Table 1. The change in the nominal wage is derived by modifying the increase in piece rates by the 13.5 percent decline in hours discussed in “Wages in the Lancashire Cotton Industry”, International Cotton Bulletin, 11, p. 404. Note that the average British worker received considerably less than the average full-time wage due to the industry's reliance on “short time.” Moreover, even this increase represented a drop in real wages. The per week increase in wages was only 54 percent, though the price of food rose 71 percent.Google Scholar

15 Clark “Why Isn't the Whole World Developed?” p. 149.Google Scholar

16 See the discussion of Indian technology in Otsuka, Keijiro, Ranis, Gustavand Saxonhouse, Gary, Comparative Technology Choice in Development (New York, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 After the war the shift was reduced from 12 or 11 to 10 hours, in accordance with the Indian Factories Act of 1922. Rutnager, Bombay Industries, p. 476.Google Scholar

18 Otsuka et al., Comparative Technology Choice, figs. 4.2, 4.3.Google Scholar

19 Moggridge, DonalBritish Monetary Policy, 1924–1931: The NormanConquest of $4.86 (Cambridge, 1972), is the basic siurce for British monetary policy.Google ScholarOne source for India is Bagchi, Private Investment, chap. 2.Google Scholar

20 A change in institutional arrangements could alter the interest rate paid, regardless of the market rate. It appears that any change of this sort would have favored British industrialists. The Indian government did not institute policies to assist businesses with financing until the thirties, and even then it was on a very small scale. See Bagchi, Private Investment, chap. 2. On the other hand, due to the general difficulties of the British economy, banks became more involved and more lenient toward their industrialist customers.Google ScholarSee the discussion in Jewkes, John and Gray, E. M., Wages and Labour in the Lancashire Cotton Spinning Industry (Manchester, 1935).Google Scholar

21 Great Britain Balfour Report vol. 3, pp. 36–38;Google Scholarand Daniels, G. and Jewkes, J., “The Post-War Depressionin the Lancashire Cotton Industry,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 91 (1928).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Utley, Freda, Lancashire and the Far East (London, 1931), p. 49.Google Scholar

23 Political and Economic Planning, Report on the British Cotton Industry (London, 1935), p. 63.Google Scholar

24 “Statistical Information Concerning Cotton Sprinning in India,” International Cotton Bulletin, 6 (1927/1928), p. 785.Google Scholar

25 Hurd, John M., “Railways,” The Cambridge Economic History of India, series 2, vol. 9 (Cambridge, 1983), table 8.7.Google Scholar

26 Daniels, G. and Jewkes, J., “The Post-War Depressionin the Lancashire Cotton Industry,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 91 (1928), pp. 754–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Utley, Lancshire and Far East, p. 49.Google Scholar

28 Ellinger, Barnard, C.B.E. and Eillnger, Hugh “Japanese Competition in the Cotton Trade,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 93 (1930), p. 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 The report's author concluded that these charges are similar to the packing and shipping charges of the Cotton Yarn Associations estimates.Google ScholarGreat Britain Balfour Report, vol. 3, p. 132.Google Scholar

30 Metha, S. D., The Cotton Mills of india: 1845 to 1954 (Bombay, 1954), p. 169.Google Scholar

31 Aggregate Financial Data for the Bombay mills, 1923–1927 are found in India, Report of the Bombay Strike Enquiry Committee 1928/29, vol. 1 (Bombay, 1929).Google ScholarSimilar data for 1928 are in Pearse, The Cotton Industry, p. 65.Google Scholar

32 Mehta, Textile Industry, p. 152. Note that of the almost 54 million working days lost duestrikes in India between 1921 and 1930, 91 percent were lost in Bombay.Google ScholarOf Bombay' 401 labor disputes, 79 percent occurred in textile mills. Pearse, The Cotton Industry, p. 95.Google Scholar

33 Ellinger, Barnard, C.B.E. and Eillnger, Hugh “Japanese Competition in the Cotton Trade,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 93 (1930), pp. 166–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMehta, (Mills, p. 170) also believes the advantage of the upcountry mills derived almost entirely from low wages.Google ScholarBagchi (Private Investment, p. 252) takes the same view. He points Out that in the period following World War II, when these wage differentials had declined, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur, and Cawnpore faced higher labor costs per unit than did Bombay.Google Scholar

34 Throughout this discussion, I am relying on the following sources (in order of importance): Tomlinson, B. R., The political Economy of the Raj (Cambridge, 1979);Google ScholarRobb, Peter, The Government of India and Reform: Policies Towards politics and the Constitution 1916–1921 (Oxford, 1972);Google ScholarRobb, Peter, “The British Cabinet and Indian Reform 1917–1919,” Journal of Commonwealth and Imperial History, 4 (1976), pp. 318–34;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Dewey, Clive “The End of the Imperialism of Free Trade: The Eclipse of the Lancashire Lobby and the Concession of Fiscal Autonomy to India,” in Dewey, Clive and Hopkins, A. G. eds. The Imperial Impact: Studies in the Economic History of Africa and India (London, 1978).Google Scholar

35 See chapters titled “Industry, I” and Industry, II” in Chandra, Bipan, The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India: Economic Policies of Indian National Leadership,1880–1905 (New Delhi, 1966).Google Scholar

36 Tomlinson, Political Economy of the Raj, p. 28.Google Scholar

37 Dodwell, H. H., “The Indian Empire 1858–1918,” in Dodwell, H. H. ed. The Cambridge History of India, vol. 6 (Cambridge, 1932), p. 476.Google Scholar

38 Bagchi, Private Investement, p. 45.Google Scholar

39 The repeal of the excise tax in 1925 was not a test of protectionist sentiments. The government had promised in 1917 to remove the tax when it was fiscally possible. The difficulties of the Bombay firms and the projected fiscal surplus in 1926 compelled it to keep its promise.Google Scholar

40 Bagchi, Private Investment, p. 241;Google ScholarTomlinson, Political Economy of the Raj, pp. 123–25;Google Scholarand Redford, Arthur, Manchester Merchants an Foreign Trade, Volume 2 1850–1939 (Manchester, 1956), p. 280.Google Scholar

41 Redford, Manchester Merchants, p.280.Google Scholar

42 Sir Chadwick, David T., “The Work of the Indian Tariff Board,” Journal of the Royal Society of the Arts (Jan 13, 1928), pp. 199–10.Google Scholar

43 Tomlinson, Political Economy of the Raj, p. 64.Google Scholar

44 Redford, Manchester Merchants, p. 280.Google Scholar

45 Bagchi, Private Investment, p. 241.Google Scholar

46 In 1931 the yen fell 26 percent relative to the rupee. It fell another 25 percent in 1932. The Statistical Yearbook of the League of Nations (Geneva, 1937/1938), table 122.Google Scholar

47 Sandberg,Lancashire, chap. 6.Google ScholarHowever, he also believes that there could have been a more efficient use of the existing stock of ring spindles had it not been for the industries' policy of working short time, a policy supported by the unions (see pp. 125–27)Google Scholar