The spinning jenny: A fresh look

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)461-464
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Economic History
Volume71
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2011

Fingerprint

England
France
Profitability
Wheel
Labour Productivity
Economics
Costs
1780s
Scenarios
Industrial Revolution
Cotton
Cut
Labour productivity
Industrial revolution
Capital cost

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History
  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)

Cite this

The spinning jenny : A fresh look. / Allen, Robert (Bob).

In: Journal of Economic History, Vol. 71, No. 2, 01.06.2011, p. 461-464.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{089bcd49254e43e6b47de9084e936daa,
title = "The spinning jenny: A fresh look",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Allen, {Robert (Bob)}",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0022050711001616",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "71",
pages = "461--464",
journal = "Journal of Economic History",
issn = "0022-0507",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The spinning jenny

T2 - A fresh look

AU - Allen, Robert (Bob)

PY - 2011/6/1

Y1 - 2011/6/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958783261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958783261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0022050711001616

DO - 10.1017/S0022050711001616

M3 - Review article

VL - 71

SP - 461

EP - 464

JO - Journal of Economic History

JF - Journal of Economic History

SN - 0022-0507

IS - 2

ER -