fulfilled by the report of the 1885 Gohin Country Fair mentioned

to be fulfilled by the report of the 1885 Gohin Country Fair mentioned above and by the records made by Kikuchi Kyozo and

Taniguchi Naosada of their trip to England for the purchase of

spinning machines.31

The second condition is the state of the market facing the managers in Japan: production was of 16-·18 count yarn using Japanese or

Chinese raw cotton; they had to compete with imports of English and

Indian cotton yarn; and there were rich potential supplies of cheap

labour in Japan. As was indicated above, the choice of the ring frame

was consistent with these conditions, and moreover thoroughly rational, given the characteristics of the two types of spinning machine.

This point requires a little more explanation. As was mentioned above,

for coarse and medium yarn below 40s, the capital productivity

(indicated as Y/K in Fig. 4.3) of the ring frame was greater than that

of the mule in terms of output per spindle: according to 1890 data,

the ring frame produced 95.8 momme per spindle per single-shift per

day, whereas the mule produced 74.1 momme per spindle per shift

per day (figures are standardized in terms of 16s). Furthermore, calcuhitions of the capital-labour ratio for both spinning machines show 

that the ring frame was 10-30 per cent more labour"intensive, as had

been claimed. Although there was almost no difference in the number

of spindles operated by an attendant of either machine, the higher

labour-intensity of the ring frame stemmed from the large numbers

of unskilled workers occupied in doffing and other simple tasks. In

fact, 1890 figures show clearly that the number of spindles per worker

(not per attendant) was lower for ring frames:32 for mules the number

of spindles was 15.4, whereas for ring frames it was 11.8 (male workers are converted into female workers using the male-female wage

differential). Despite the higher labour-intensity of the ring frame,

its labour productivity (Y/L) was equal to, or even slightly higher

than, that of the mule, because of the differences in the capital productivity of the two machines (in 1890 the output of the mule per

worker per shift· was 1140.4 momme, whereas the output of the ring

frame per worker per shift was 1132.4 momme, and in 1893 for the

ring frame it was 1184.9 momme). As is shown in Figure 4.3,33 the

ring frame can be interpreted as a technological innovation, because

the technique using the ring frame was located at R, which corresponds to a shift from M when there is neutral technological progress

in Solow's sense. Thus, the choice of the ring frame was extremely

rational. 34

It should be stressed that the environment which made possible

such a technologically rational decision is highly important. For example, from early on, the Japanese spinning industry accorded ample

authority to university graduate engineers. Indeed, not only were

their opinions on various technological issues well respected, but they

were also allowed to participate in planning at the highest decisionmaking level of the mill. The high status given to these engineers was

certainly not a natural phenomenon in developing countries, as the

case of India has shown. Considering the authority and respect given

to engineering managers like Kikuchi Kyozo, Saito Tsunezo, Hattori

Shun'ichi, Yamanobe Takeo and Takatsuji Narazo, it seems that not

only was there an early splitting of ownership and management, but

a sense of business pragmatism that valued technological rationality

had taken firm root. It is no exaggeration that these aspects were one

of the unique features of the Japanese cotton-spinning industry.35

Furthermore, the high level of competence and ability of the

Japanese university graduate engineers meant that the Japanese

cotton-spinning industry was able to eliminate reliance on foreign

engineers and became technologically independent at a very early

stage. For example, it was necessary to have the help of fitters sent 

by the foreign textile machinery manufacturer when installing machines in the mills, but as soon as the machine was up and running,

the assistance of the foreign fitters was no longer needed.36 At first

glance, this aspect might appear to be of little importance, but it did

mean that each mill could manage its own technological and managerial adaptations from a long-term perspective whilst paying attention to the domestic yarn market and labour market conditions; its

importance should not be ignored.