Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:31:38.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth of the Rubber Industry of Great Britain and the United States*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

William Woodruff
William Woodruff
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Little more than a century ago India rubber was a curiosity. Today, it is vital to our existence. The purpose here is to examine the basic factors that have influenced the growth of the rubber industry in the United States and the United Kingdom. The method chosen is to review the industry's position before and after the introduction of the automobile, say at 1900 and 1950. Much of what is to be said might be compressed into current economic terminology. Neither disrespect for this procedure nor the inapplicability of many of its concepts to economic history has prevented this course from being adopted.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 1955 , pp. 376 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1955

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 Goodyear, Charles, Gum Elastic, I (New Haven, 1855), p. 117.Google Scholar

2 The story of their work is told in , Hancock'sPersonal Narrative (London, 1857)Google Scholar , and Biographical Memoir of Charles Macintosh by his son, Macintosh, George (privately printed, 1847)Google Scholar.

3 See an article by the author, “Origins of an Early English Rubber Manufactory,” Bulletin of Business History, XXV, No. 1 (March 1951).Google Scholar

4 31,500 long tons out of a world total of 52,500 long tons.

5 Consumption figures during the second half of the nineteenth century are as follows:

6 Barker, P. W., Rubber Statistics, Trade Promotion Series, No. 181, United States Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938).Google Scholar

7 “Selling Futures in the Rubber Trade,” India Rubber World, September 15, 1892 (New York).Google Scholar

8 United Kingdom imports from Africa increased almost tenfold between 1870 (10,369 cwts) and 1900 (101,739 cwts).

9 Markham, C. R., Peruvian hark (London, 1880).Google Scholar

10 Some of these differences such as the greater mechanization in garment production and the use of hot air for vulcanizing in preference to water and steam were noted by Hugh Cecil Birley, director of Chas. Macintosh and Company, on his tour of American rubber plants in 1882. Yet in his letter of October 23 he was able to conclude that “We are not nearly so much behind the age as I thought….”—Birley Papers.

11 “The New German Immigration,” India Rubber Journal, June 10, 1898 (London).Google Scholar

12 See an article by the author, “The American Origins of a Scottish Industry,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, II (March 1955)Google Scholar.

13 Referring to the attempts to set up a tight monopoly in the early tire industry, one of the pioneers, Litchfield, P. W. (Industrial Voyage, New York, 1954)Google Scholar , concluded that “The principle of free competition took quite a beating in those days…” Yet the story of the Goodyear organization (and the same is true of Firestone and others) is an account of how these attempts to restrict the trade were met and defeated.

14 Knopf, K. A., “The Location of the Rubber Tire and Inner Tube Industry” (unpublished doctoral thesis, Harvard University, 1949).Google Scholar

15 An interesting feature about the founding of the first Rubber Manufacturers Association of Great Britain in 1898 was the absence of some of the oldest and largest firms. See India Rubber World, May 1, 1900.Google Scholar

18 Gros, A. Du, Wheels of Fortune (London, 1938)Google Scholar ; also Dunlop, K., “The History of the Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.” (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Illinois, 1949)Google Scholar.

17 India Rubber Journal, December 10, 1900: “One cannot fail to be struck by the fact that very few of the really best rubber firms appear … in our patent pages. Is it because they have absolutely no faith whatever in the Office? It is generally the less experienced firms that indulge in the luxury of patents…”

18 Approximately 41 million in 1938 against 76 million in 1928.

19 The value of tires, footwear, and other products expressed as a percentage of total manufacture for selected years in the United States and the United Kingdom is as follows:

Censuses of Manufacturers (U.S.) 1930, 1940, 1947, and Census of Production (U.K.).

20 Rae, George, 9The Statistics of the Rubber Industry,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, CI, Part II, pp. 101, 317-75.Google Scholar

21 Intelligence Memorandum No. 322, Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers, June 17, 1955.

22 E. G. Holt, Special Circular No. 3500, Rubber Division, Rubber Industry Letter No. 11, December 1, 1933, United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.

23 Namely, the introduction during the twenties of the flat drum process of tire building which resulted in enormous saving of time. It also enabled semiskilled labor to be used.

24 Creamer, D., Capital and Output Trends in Manufacturing Industries, 1880-1948, Occasional Paper 41, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1954. The absence of comprehensive data dealing with the British industry makes a valid comparison of capital trends impossible. So far as the American industry is concerned the trends are what one would expect: the ratio of the value of capital, in this instance consisting chiefly of land, buildings, and equipment per wage earner, rose continuously (allowing for a slight fall 1919-1923, and a sharp decline 1929-1937) from 1879 t0 1948. The ratio of capital to the consumption of crude rubber has (with the exception of the period 1879-1914) fallen throughout these years. Capital data were drawn from the Census of Manufactures prior to 1919 and Statistics of Income since that time.Google Scholar

25 According to Rostas, in 1929, for the tire industry, horsepower installed per worker in the United States was one and a half times that in use in the United Kingdom. In 1939 it was slightly more than two and a half times. No figures are provided in the 1947-1948 censuses. See Rostas, L., Comparative Productivity in British and American Industry, Occasional Papers, No. 13, 1948. Horsepower per worker in rubber manufacture has been greater than the general average. Sec E. G. Holt, Special Circular No. 3481, Rubber Industry Letter No. 6, August 29, 1933, United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.Google Scholar

26 India Rubber World, February 1, 1931, p. 87.Google Scholar

28 The Economist (London), CXVIII, Part I (February 3, 1934), 247–48.Google Scholar

28 In the absence of a satisfactory price level deflator it is impossible to confirm these findings by value computations. An indication of these changes, however, is contained in the unweighted figures dealing with output per head comparisons by value set out below for selected years 1907 to 1948, computed from the censuses of manufacturers and production:

30 Wallace, G. L., “L'industrie caoutchoutiere de la Grand-Bretagne,” Soeiete Beige d'Etudes and d'expansion, Bulletin Bimestriel No. 163 (1954), 935.Google Scholar

31 E. G. Holt, Special Circular No. 3472, Rubber Division, Rubber Industry Letter No. 1, July 21, 1933, United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.

32 The Economist (London), CXXIII (April 4, 1936), 20–21Google Scholar . Peculiar to the British scene was the intense competition offered by foreign manufacturers from their branch factories in the United Kingdom.

33 Whitney, Simon N., “Errors in the Concept of Countervailing Power,” The Journal of Business, XXVI, No. 4 (1953)Google Scholar . The degree of countervailing power exerted by large buyers on large sellers in this industry is not known. What we do know is that there is a reluctance for large buyers and sellers to part company once they have come together, and that quality and delivery considerations have reduced the incentive to shift from one supplier to another i n order to save a few cents a tire.

34 E. G. Holt, Special Circular No. 3502, Rubber Section, Rubber Industry Letter No. 12, May 12, 1933, United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.

35 Such as Firestone's, H. S.Men and Rubber (New York, 1926)Google Scholar ; also Litchfield's, P. W.Industrial Voyage (New York, 1954)Google Scholar.

36 Reynolds, Lloyd G., “Competition in the Rubber-Tire Industry,” The American Economic Review, XXVIII, No. 3 (1938).Google Scholar