Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:38:00.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Spinning Jenny: A Fresh Look

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2011

Robert C. Allen*
Affiliation:
Professor of Economic History, Department of Economics, Oxford University, Nuffield College, New Road, Oxford OX1 1NF, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected].

Extract

In “The Industrial Revolution in Miniature,” I calculated that the spinning jenny was profitable to install in England in the 1780s but not in France.1 My calculations assumed that a spinner using a wheel in a domestic setting worked a total of 100 days per year and spun 100 pounds of coarse cotton (one pound per day). The jenny raised labor productivity to three pounds per day in the “most likely” scenario. I showed that it would have been cheaper to spin 100 pounds per year with a jenny than with a wheel in England, while the reverse would have been true in France. Hence, the jenny was installed in England rather than France. Ugo Gragnolati, Daniele Moschella, and Emanuele Pugliese have pointed out that this argument assumes that output was kept at 100 pounds per year, and the effect of the jenny was to reduce the spinner's work year to only 33–1/3 days per year.2 They suggest that it was more likely that the spinner would have continued to work 100 days per year and produce 300 pounds of yarn instead. In that case, they argue, it would have been profitable to install the jenny in France as well as England. Profitability would have increased in both countries under these assumptions because capital costs would have been cut by a third if three times as much output was produced from the same capital (although profitability was still much higher in England). Hence, they conclude that economic considerations do not explain the diffusion of the jenny.

Type
NOTES
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2011

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

Allen, Robert C.“The Great Divergence in European Wages and Prices from the Middle Ages to the First World War.” Explorations in Economic History 38, no. 4 (2001): 411–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Robert C.The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Robert C.“The Industrial Revolution in Miniature: The Spinning Jenny in Britain, France, and India.” The Journal of Economic History 69, no. 4 (2009b): 901–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Robert C., and Weisdorf, Jacob Louis. “Was There an 'Industrious Revolution' Before the Industrial Revolution? An Empirical Exercise for England, c. 1300–1830.” Economic History Review. Early View (23 September 2010), available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2010.00566.x/pdf.Google Scholar
Baines, Edward. History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain. London: H. Fisher, R. Fisher, and P. Jackson, 1935.Google Scholar
De Vries, Jan. “The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution.” The Journal of Economic History 54, no. 2 (1994): 249–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gragnolati, Ugo, Moschella, Daniele, and Pugliese, Emanuele (2011). “The Spinning Jenny and the Industrial Revolution: A Reappraisal.” The Journal of Economic History 71, no. 2 (2011): 458–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, C. K.“Cotton Textile Prices and the Industrial Revolution.” Economic History Review 51, no. 1 (1998): 4983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, David. The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Thomson, James K. J.“Transferring the Spinning Jenny to Barcelona: An Apprenticeship in the Technology of the Industrial Revolution.” Textile History 34, no. 1 (2003): 2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar