Humphries & Schneider (2019) — Spinning the Industrial Revolution

Citation. Humphries, Jane, and Benjamin Schneider. “Spinning the Industrial Revolution.” Economic History Review 72(1), 2019: 126–155.

Summary

A direct challenge to Robert Allen’s high-wage thesis at its most strategically important point: cotton spinning, the lead sector of the early Industrial Revolution. Humphries and Schneider construct an entirely new wage series for hand spinners — predominantly women and children — from the late 16th to the early 19th century, drawing on wage payments documented in textile-firm archives, parish records, household accounts, and other primary sources. The data show that hand spinning was throughout this period a low-productivity, low-wage activity. Wages did not rise substantially in advance of the introduction of the spinning jenny and water frame.

The implication is decisive: if mechanization of spinning happened despite low wages, Allen’s account that mechanization was induced by high wages cannot be correct, at least for this lead sector. The paper closes with the formulation: “the route to mechanization and factory production was a response to low not high wages.” Allen has responded (Allen 2020, Economic History Review) and Humphries and Schneider have responded back, with the dispute remaining live.

Key claims

• Hand spinning was a major employment in early modern Britain, performed predominantly by women and children, and a leading sector of pre-industrial textile production.
• Wages and productivity in hand spinning were low across the entire 1500–1800 period, with no clear upward trend prior to the mechanization of the late 18th century.
• The mechanization of spinning was therefore not driven by rising labour costs but by the persistent low productivity of hand spinning that mechanized capital could exceed.
• This finding undermines Allen’s high-wage / induced-innovation thesis at its most economically important sectoral application.
• Wage histories of the Industrial Revolution that focus only on adult male skilled-trade wages systematically misrepresent the actual wage distribution and the actual incentive structure facing employers.