however, to distinguish between the factors that

It is important, however, to distinguish between the factors that

impinged on decision-making when choosing between technologies

and the process of adaptation to the technology that followed once

the decision had been made. Hence, it is first necessary to identify

clearly when the preference for ring frames over mules emerged.

As already indicated, the switch occurred in about 1889 at the

latest. The reasons for choosing this date are, first, that the last expansion of mules (on an operational base) was in 1890 and therefore

the decision to use mules must have taken place at least one or two

years prior to that date;5 and second, that the mule would certainly

not have been chosen for producing coarse yarn after 1890. So, the

aim of this analysis is to establish the factors that were crucial to the

decision to use ring frames. To this end, we shall provide a comparative analysis of the production structure in two different years:

1884, when the mule was dominant; and 1893, when the ring frame

technology had become firmly established following the switch. In

the case of the Japanese cotton-spinning industry, the transmission

of technical information was fast and there was a marked ability

to adapt to newly chosen technology. It is therefore possible to gain

some understanding of the reasons for the choices that were made

by examining the developments in the industry as a whole, as well as

by studying individual cases.

The main statistical sources used in this analysis are Komukyoku

Aichi BOsekijo (ed.), Meiji 17-nen 12-gatsu Kakuchi Bosekijo Eigyo

likkyo Ichiranhyo (Monthly Report Table of the Actual Performance

at Each Spinning Mill, December 1884), and Dainippon Menshi BOseki

Dogyo Rengokai (ed.), Rengo Menshi Bosekigaisha Eigyo likkyo

Hokoku Geppyo Meiji 23-nen 12-gatsu-bun (Monthly Report Table

of the Actual Performances at the Cotton-Spinning Member Companies, December 1890), and ibid, Meiji 26-nen 12-gatsu-chi:t Rengo

KakubOsekigaisha Eigyo likkyo Ichiranhyo (Monthly Report Table 

of the Actual Performance of Each Spinning Member Company,

December 1893). Several adjustments and additions have been made

to account for missing data and to convert from Japanese to Western

yarn counts.6

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MULE AND THE RING

FRAME

Before investigating the main factors and stimuli that impinged on

the choice of technology, it is necessary to describe the performance

of the mules and ring frames that were available in the 1890s. The

automatic (self-acting) mule was made possible in 1830 with the

development of the quadrant winding mechanism by Roberts, and

it was around that time that the technology of the self-acting mule

was completed. The first steps in the development of the ring frame

were taken in America when Thorp and Jencks added the traveller

to the Danforth-type throstle frame in the 1830s. It was not until the

1870s, however, that the ring frame became a practical proposition.

The prototype of todays ring frame was created with the revolutionary developments in spindle technology made by Sawyer in 1871 and

Rabbeth in 1878. After that, new models of the Sawyer-Rabbeth

spindle and improved separators? appeared in succession. Consequently, the performance of the ring frame was greatly improved

during the 1880s and 1890s. It should be remembered that it was just

at this time that the Japanese cotton-spinning industry started developing in earnest.

The mule and the ring frame differed fundamentally in their respective modes of operation. The mule used an intermittent spinning

technique in which the draughting-twisting process and the winding

process were repeated alternately. In contrast, the ring frame used a

continuous spinning technique in which the draughting, twisting and

winding processes were all performed at the same time. Consequently

the amount spun in a given time by the ring frame was naturally

greater than the amount spun by the mule. A conservative estimate

suggests that an 1890s ring frame surpassed the efficiency of the mule

by about 10 per cent for 30s yarn and 15 per cent for 20s yarn.8 The

difference in efficiency was even greater when warp was being spun.

At that time the ring frame could spin yarn up to a count of 60

or 80. The lower the count, the greater the relative efficiency, and

at least up to 40s (40 count) yarn the efficiency of the ring frame

surpassed that of the mule. In other words, although the mule was

capable of producing anything between very coarse yarn and 300s, it

only had a comparative advantage in spinning 60s (or 40s) or finer

yarn. The mule was also more suited than the ring frame to spinning

lOs or even coarser yarn and waste fibre yarn.9 Because of the different twisting mechanisms used in the two machines, the mule was

capable of producing a yarn of a more even and softer quality. On

the other hand, this meant that ring-spun yarn was stronger with

more of a twist, and so it was more suited for warp.l0 Ring-spun yarn

was used mainly as warp even in England from relatively early on. It

is important to note, however, that in Asian markets there was a

distinct preference for the stronger ring-spun yarn, even for use as

weft. This point can be confirmed upon inspection of the Kobe

cotton yarn market reports and country fair (kyoshinkai) reports.ll

While the mule was to a certain extent automated, it was the widelyheld view that its operation required remarkable skill.12 With the

outward run of the carriage the roving was drawn and twisted; then

just before the inward run, the spindle was reversed for a few seconds

in the process that was known as backing-off; and with the inward

run came the winding stage. These operations were repeated continually. Consequently, specific skills were demanded for parts of the

operation such as timing the stopping of the rollers before starting

the backing-off process; controlling the backing-off process itself;

guiding the yarn on to the cop before winding; and controlling the

speed of the inward run.