in terms of the spindle productivity

are taken into consideration, the operating costs of the ring frame

were 10-20 per cent lower than those of the mule. It was commonly

held at the time that the overall cost of producing one unit of output

(coarse or medium count yarn) using the ring frame was 15-50 per

cent lower than using a mule, once the differences in the output

amounts and the unit prices had been included in the calculation.

We can conclude that, in terms of the spindle productivity of the

equipment alone, the ring frame was clearly superior to the mule

It can be surmised that before 1890, the Japanese cotton-spinning

industry already had an accurate knowledge of the characteristics of

the ring frame and the mule discussed above. As early as 1890, the

Rengo B6seki Geppo published an abridged translation of an article

from The Textile Recorder in the May edition: the article explained

the advantages of using ring frames instead of mules by giving a comparison of the balance sheets for a mill of 20 000 spindles equipped

with either mules or ring frames. In 1891, articles that explained the

superiority of the ring frame appeared in the February, July, September and October issues of the Boshoku Geppo.19 Thus, it is plausible

to assume that the engineers in the mills which were competing to

introduce the latest equipment had a reasonable knowledge of the

ring frame before these instructive articles appeared?O It is interesting to note that even Ishikawa Masatatsu, who initially advised on

the construction of mule mills, was fully aware of the superiority of

the ring frame. This fact probably holds the key to understanding

why mules were chosen initially.21

Having described the characteristics of the mule and ring frame

above, let us now move on to the arguments regarding the reasons

(listed earlier) that are used to explain why the Japanese cottonspinning industry chose the ring frame or why it switched rapidly

from the mule to the ring frame. First, as is clear from the timing of

the switch, it is rather pointless to explain the adoption of the ring

frame as being the result of the firm structure that was common

at the time. It is certainly evident that use of the ring frame was

advantageous for mills that combined spinning and weaving. Upon

inspection of the actual path of development of the Japanese cottonspinning industry, it also is undeniable ex post that adoption of both

the ring frame and the combination mill system occurred particularly

early on compared with England and India. As already indicated,

however, the decision to adopt ring frames had already been made

by about 1889. The combination mill system of production did not

take proper hold until the turn of the century. Thus an explanation

based on the combination mill system is not effective in explaining

the switch to ring frames. Rather, it is more natural to explain the

establishment of the combination mill system as being the result of

technological and managerial adaptations to market conditions that

arose after the decision to adopt ring frames. Whatever the reasons

for combining weaving and spinning, it was not a decisive factor in

the choice to use ring frames. I would like to add the following: it is

no more persuasive to argue that the British cotton-spinning industry's long adherence to the mule was a result of the separation between spinning and weaving in Britain.

Next, let us examine the hypothesis that the ring frame was adopted

in the 1890 because it was more productive and because it facilitated

the use low-wage female labour. This explanation implies that if the

slump had not occurred, the ring frame would not have been adopted,

or its adoption would have been delayed, even though it was the

more efficient machine. The facts that were discussed above show

that such could not be the case. Also the major spinning companies

had already decided to switch to the ring frame by 1890 at the latest;

information and knowledge of the technological advantages of the

ring frame had permeated the industry by then, and after 1890 the

mule was not chosen again. In other words it is pure chance that

the year when all the companies decided to shift to the ring frame

happened to coincide with the 1890 slump. Indeed, it is quite possible

that the expansion in spindles between 1890 and 1892 was slowed by

the recession. Whatever the details, one thing is clear: it is not possible

to designate the slump as the being the impetus for the switch to the

ring frame, since the timing is not right.

Third, the view that it was the close business relationship between

Platt Brothers and Co. and the Mitsui Trading Co. that encouraged

the adoption of the ring frame does have some plausibility at first

glance. A study of the brand names of spinning machines bought

after 1889-90 shows that virtually all of them were Platt Brothers

machines bought through Mitsui Trading, apart from some exceptions such as the purchase of Samuel & Brooks machines by