Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:25:03.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Innovation Becomes Inefficient: Reexamining Britain's Radio Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2014

Peter Scott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I examine the factors underpinning the British radio-equipment sector's particularly poor interwar productivity performance relative to the United States. Differences in socio-legal environments were crucial in allowing key players in the British industry to derive higher monopoly rents than their American counterparts. Higher British rents in turn, had the unintended outcome of stimulating innovation around restrictive patents, initiating a path-dependent process of technical change in favor of expensive multifunctional valves. These valves both raised direct production costs and prevented British firms from following the American path of broadening the radio market beyond the household's prime receiver.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 88 , Issue 3 , Autumn 2014 , pp. 497 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Maxcy, George and Silberston, Aubrey, The Motor Industry (London, 1959)Google Scholar; Jones, Daniel T. and Prais, Sigbert J., “Plant-Size and Productivity in the Motor Industry: Some International Comparisons,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 40 (1978): 131–51Google Scholar; Lewchuk, Wayne, American Technology and the British Vehicle Industry (Cambridge, U.K., 1987)Google Scholar.

2 Sturmey, S. G., The Economic Development of Radio (London, 1958)Google Scholar; Maclaurin, W. Rupert, Invention and Innovation in the Radio Industry (New York, 1949)Google Scholar. There are some excellent later studies aimed at more general audiences; for example, Geddes, Keith and Bussey, Gordon, The Setmakers: A History of the Radio and Television Industry (London, 1991)Google Scholar.

3 Broadberry, Stephen and Crafts, N. F. R., “Britain's Productivity Gap in the 1930s: Some Neglected Factors,” Journal of Economic History 52 (1992): 531–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 U.S. Department of Commerce, “Radio Markets—United Kingdom,” report, 30 Jan. 1934, 5, found in Gegevens radio (England), 811.2 + S14.2, Phillips Company Archives, Eindhoven, the Netherlands (hereafter, PCA).

5 Broadberry and Crafts, “Britain's Productivity Gap,” 542–43; Broadberry, Stephen, The Productivity Race: British Manufacturing in International Perspective, 1850–1990 (Cambridge, U.K., 1997), 28–30Google Scholar, 236. Herman De Jong and Pieter Woltjer have reassessed Rostas's calculations, though their figure for “radios” is based on all electrical engineering: “Depression Dynamics: A New Estimate of the Anglo-American Manufacturing Productivity Gap in the Interwar Period,” Economic History Review 64 (2011): 472–92Google Scholar.

6 Rostas, Lazlo, Comparative Productivity in British and American Industry (Cambridge, U.K., 1948)Google Scholar, 36, 178–82.

7 Ibid., 178–81.

8 Maclaurin, Invention and Innovation, 139; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940: Manufactures 1939, vol. 2, part 2 (Washington, D.C., 1942), 389Google Scholar; “Marketing Statistics and Sales . . . 1937,” Radio Retailing (Jan. 1938): 25–32, 27; “Set Sales,” Radio Retailing (Jan. 1936): 8.

9 Rostas, Comparative Productivity, 181; U.S. Department of Commerce, Sixteenth Census, vol. 2 2, part 2, 388; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Biennial Census of Manufactures, 1935 (Washington, D.C., 1938), 1109–10Google Scholar.

10 Rostas assumed that 1935 U.K. labor productivity on nonradio work was around 90 percent of that for wireless equipment (Comparative Productivity, 179–80). He estimated U.S. productivity for “phonographs, records, and other phonographic products” at around 93 percent of that for all radio and associated trades firms. Nonradio production constituted a larger proportion of the U.S. total, though this was partially offset by the addition of radio parts produced by firms in the communications equipment industry, with an estimated labor productivity equivalent to around 87 percent of that for in-sector wireless equipment production.

11 The 1935 study is probably the most reliable—based on a survey of 9,029 households from thirteen towns throughout Britain, weighted by region and socioeconomic class.

12 Source: “Marketing Statistics and Sales . . . 1937,” 25–32, 32.

13 Ibid., 26–27; U.K. Customs and Excise, Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom, 1939, vol. 3 (London, 1940), 160–61Google Scholar.

14 U.K. Board of Trade, Final Report on the Fifth Census of Production and the Import Duties Act Enquiry, 1935 (London, 1939)Google Scholar, part 2, 330; Final Summary Tables, 3.

15 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census, vol. 1, 19; vol. 2, 362 and 388.

16 Salter, W. E. G., Productivity and Technical Change (London, 1966), 151–52Google Scholar.

17 U.K. Board of Trade, Final Report on the Fifth Census of Production, part 2, 330.

18 Autolycus (pseud.), “The All-Electric Advertising Man: Richard Haigh, English Manager of the Gramophone Company, Talks to Us about Radio (and Records),” Advertising World 65, no. 4 (Apr. 1934): 181–82Google Scholar.

19 Vincent Z. de Ferranti to A. E. Cutforth, 12 Jan. 1932, Ferranti, 1996.10/10/1/1, Manchester Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester, U.K.

20 Manning, Caroline, “Fluctuations of Employment in the Radio Industry,” Bulletin of the Women's Bureau No. 83 (Washington, D.C., 1931), 32Google Scholar.

21 Wilson, John F., Ferranti, a History: Building a Family Business, 1882–1975 (Lancaster, U.K., 2000), 256Google Scholar; Lipman, Michael, Memoirs of a Socialist Businessman (London, 1980), 65–66Google Scholar.

22 Geddes and Bussey, Setmakers, 204.

23 Cones, Harold N. and Bryant, John H., Zenith Radio: The Early Years, 1919–1935 (Atglen, Penn., 1997), 50Google Scholar; Ramirez, Ron, Philco Radio, 1928–1942 (Atglen, Penn., 1993), 53Google Scholar; “July . . . a Month of Conventions,” Radio Retailing (Aug. 1935): 47.

24 Saunders, Christopher, Seasonal Variations in Employment (London, 1936), 262–63.Google Scholar

25 Graham, Margaret B. W., “The Threshold of the Information Age,” in A Nation Transformed by Information, ed. Chandler, Alfred D. Jr. and Cortada, James W. (Oxford, 2000), 163Google Scholar.

26 Thomas Eoyang, “An Economic Study of the Radio Industry in the United States of America,” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1936, 93–94.

27 U.S. Department of Commerce, Sixteenth Census, vol. 1, 1, 82 (covers wage earners, managers, and clerks in manufacturing); U.K. Board of Trade, Final Report on the Census of Production for 1948, vol. 4, Trade M, Radio and Telecommunications (London, 1952)Google Scholar, 3 (covers operatives, plus managerial, technical, and clerical employees).

28 Undated data sheet of U.K. radio output (units) for 1939, BT96/224, National Archives, Kew, London (hereafter NA); “1938 Radio Business at a Glance,” Radio Retailing (Jan. 1939): 12–13.

29 “Marketing Statistics and Sales . . . 1937,” 25–32, 26–27.

30 Nott, James J., Music for the People: Popular Music and Dance in Interwar Britain (Oxford, 2002), 40–41Google Scholar.

31 This was a recessionary year for the British radio industry. For example, Pye's production for 1937 was given as around 200,000 sets, compared to the 70,000 shown for 1938. Geddes and Bussey, Setmakers, 132.

32 Alfred D. Chandler Jr. with the assistance of Takashi Hikino and Andrew von Nordenflycht, Inventing the Electronic Century: The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries (New York, 2001), 24Google Scholar.

33 Maclaurin, Invention and Innovation, 107; Sobel, Robert, RCA (New York, 1986), 21–35Google Scholar.

34 Graham, “Threshold of the Information Age,” 148.

35 U.S. Department of Commerce, Radio Markets of the World, 1932 (Washington, D.C., 1932), 5Google Scholar.

36 Ibid., 95.

37 Chief Industrial Advisor's Office, “Electrical Industry—Exports—Position of Wireless Apparatus,” undated memorandum, 1929, BT56/23, NA.

38 Geddes and Bussey, Setmakers, 173–77.

39 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, “Radio Markets: United Kingdom,” report, 6 July 1936, 8, found in Gegevens radio (England), 811.2 + S14.2, PCA.

40 Vernon, John M. and Graham, Daniel A., “Profitability of Monopoly by Vertical Integration,” Journal of Political Economy 79 (1971): 924–25Google Scholar; Schmalensee, Robert, “A Note on the Theory of Vertical Integration,” Journal of Political Economy 81 (1973): 442–49Google Scholar; Warren-Boulton, Frederick R., “Vertical Control with Variable Proportions,” Journal of Political Economy 82 (1974): 783–802Google Scholar.

41 Williamson, Oliver E., Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (New York, 1975), 85Google Scholar; Warren-Boulton, “Vertical Control.”

42 Gilbert, Richard J. and Katz, Michael L., “Should Good Patents Come in Small Packages? A Welfare Analysis of Intellectual Property Bundling,” Journal of Industrial Organization 24 (2006): 931–52Google Scholar; Adams, William James and Yellen, Janet L., “Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 90 (1976): 475–98Google Scholar.

43 Sturmey, Economic Development, 215–19.

44 Sobel, RCA, 84.

45 Maclaurin, Invention and Innovation, 107–18.

46 Geddes and Bussey, Setmakers, 29.

47 Report on investigation of Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. by Price Waterhouse and Co. and Cooper Brothers, 20 Jan. 1927, folio section, 60–61, Marconi Manuscripts 588, Radcliffe Science Library, Oxford, U.K. (hereafter, RSL).

48 Sturmey, Economic Development, 166.

49 “Memorandum for Information of Directors of the Board of Associated Electrical Industries Ltd,” July 1929, Marconi 3024, RSL; Sturmey, Economic Development, 148, 167.

50 Harris, Nigel, Competition and the Corporate Society: British Conservatives, the State and Industry, 1945–1964 (London, 1972), 25Google Scholar.

51 Hannah, Leslie, The Rise of the Corporate Economy (London, 1976), 42–43Google Scholar.

52 Freyer, Tony, Regulating Big Business: Antitrust in Great Britain and America, 1880–1990 (Cambridge, U.K., 1992), 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 77.

53 Sturmey, Economic Development, 217.

54 “The Second Appeal,” Times (London), 19 June 1929, 5.

55 Broadberry and Crafts, “Britain's Productivity Gap,” 547.

56 Aitken, Hugh G. J., The Continuous Wave: Technology and American Radio, 1900–1932 (Princeton, 1985), 501Google Scholar.

57 “What Will the Tube Decision Mean to the Trade?” Radio Retailing (Mar. 1929): 52–53 and 83.

58 “Tube Suits Against RCA Settled by Cash and License Grants to 21 Claimants,” Radio Retailing (Oct. 1931): 66; Chandler, Inventing the Electronic Century, 20.

59 Sobel, RCA, 84–108; Maclaurin, Invention and Innovation, 132–36.

60 Kaplow, Louis and Carrier, Michael A., “Unraveling the Patent-Antitrust Paradox,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 150 (2002): 797–98Google Scholar.

61 Kaplow, Louis, “The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal,” Harvard Law Review 97 (1984): 1883–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 G. R. M. Garratt, “The Mullard Story: A Biography of S. R. Mullard and a History of Mullard Limited,” unpubl. ms., part 2, part 5, Box 18, 10–11, Gordon Bussey collection, Bodleian Library, Oxford, U.K. (hereafter, Bussey, Bodleian). See also, U.S. Department of Commerce, Radio Markets of the World, 1932, 23; Sturmey, Economic Development, 223.

63 Michael Mason, “The BVA, a Personal Memoir,” typescript, June 1986, 2, Box 17, Bussey, Bodleian.

64 Hannah, Rise of the Corporate Economy, 42.

65 Kraus, Jerome, “The British Electron-Tube and Semi-Conductor Industry, 1935–62,” Technology and Culture 9 (1968): 547Google Scholar.

66 See David, Paul A., “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY,” American Economic Review 75 (1985): 332–37Google Scholar; Arthur, W. Brian, “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events,” Economic Journal 99 (1989): 116–31Google Scholar.

67 Garratt, “The Mullard Story,” part 5, 10–11.

68 “Radio Valves,” draft memorandum, n.d. (ca. Mar. 1946), BT 64/279, NA; Ullswater Committeee paper no. 126, memorandum by Sir John Reith on broadcasting and the wireless trade, 19 Sept. 1936, POST 89/37, Royal Mail Archives, London.

69 “World Wireless Trade: Some Highlights of the Export and Import Sides,” Wireless and Electrical Trader (22 Oct. 1938): 115.

70 Sturmey, Economic Development, 220.

71 “Reduced Royalties in New Pool Licence,” Wireless and Gramophone Trader (22 July 1933): 74–75.

72 Sturmey, Economic Development, 224–26; Geddes and Bussey, Setmakers, 183; Wilson, Ferranti, 252–53.

73 Maclaurin, Invention and Innovation, 140, 249; Cones and Bryant, Zenith Radio, 25.

74 S. S. Eriks to O. M. E. Loupart, 23 Apr. 1932, “England—Mullard Ltd (Correspondence Loupart),” vol. 1, 882, PCA.

75 N. Gunn to H. F. Van Walsem, 27 Apr. 1935, “England—Mullard Ltd (Correspondence Loupart),” vol. 3, 882, PCA.

76 Mac D, W. (pseud.), “Radio's 20th Anniversary,” Radio Retailing (Nov. 1940): 13Google Scholar.

77 Ramirez, Philco Radio, 22; Emerson Radio and Phonograph Co., Small Radio: Yesterday and in the World of Tomorrow (New York, 1943)Google Scholar.

78 Ramirez, Philco Radio, 21–22.

79 Emerson Radio and Phonograph Co., Small Radio, 31–32.

80 Ibid., 34–36.

81 Technical Committee, IRE, “Radio Progress during 1936: Part III—Report by the Technical Committee on Radio Receivers,” Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers 25 (1937): 186Google Scholar.

82 Maclaurin, Invention and Innovation, 145.

83 Emerson Radio and Phonograph Co., Small Radio, 6, 38–41.

84 S. S. Eriks to O. M. E. Loupart, 18 June 1932, “England—Mullard Ltd (Correspondence Loupart),” vol. 1, 882, PCA.

85 “The Menace of the Midget,” Wireless and Gramophone Trader (6 Jan. 1934): 1; “Still Too Many American Sets,” Wireless and Gramophone Trader (15 June 1935): 1.

86 Geddes and Bussey, Setmakers, 183.

87 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, “Radio Markets: United Kingdom,” report, 6 July 1936, 8.

88 Ullswater Committee paper no. 126, Memorandum by Sir John Reith.

89 Long, Joan, A First Class Job! The Story of Frank Murphy, Radio Pioneer, Furniture Designer and Industrial Idealist (Sheringham, U.K., 1985), 57Google Scholar.

90 Geddes and Bussey, Setmakers, 185.

91 Philco News, 15 July 1937, 10.

92 “American Firms Manufacturing in Great Britain,” file A, interview with Philco Radio Ltd., 5 Mar. 1954, J. H. Dunning collection, Museum of English Rural Life, University of Reading, U.K.

93 Philco News, 29 July 1937, 1.

94 Carleton Dyer, “Carl Dyer Speaks to You,” Philco News, 17 June 1937, 1.

95 Statement by Carleton Dyer, circulated to Philco shareholders, 18 Feb. 1938 and Philco annual report for year to 31 Dec. 1938 (20 Mar. 1939), bound volumes of London Stock Exchange company reports for 1938 and 1939, Guildhall Library, London.

96 U.S. Department of Commerce, Radio Markets of the World, 18.

97 Plummer, Alfred, New British Industries in the Twentieth Century (London, 1937), 50–56Google Scholar.

98 Christopher Beauchamp, “The Telephone Patents: Intellectual Property, Business, and the Law in the United States and Britain, 1876–1900,” Enterprise and Society 9 (2008): 599Google Scholar.

99 See Carlton, Dennis W. and Waldman, Michael, “The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries,” Rand Journal of Economics 33 (2002): 194–220Google Scholar.