Skip to main content

Abstract

Immediately after the Second World War much of the machinery manufactured in the UK was ‘traditional’, and the manufacturers had no strong commitment to technical development. A Board of Trade working party recorded in 1946:

… in the last ten years textile machinery makers in other countries … have been spending money on research and development on a scale immensely greater than anything attempted in this country. (Cotton Industry Working Party, 1946)

This chapter draws heavily on information collected in an earlier and longer study (Rothwell, 1976).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 14.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Cotton Industry Working Party Report (London: HMSO, 1946).

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Investigation into the Cotton Textile Machinery Industry, Report (the Evershed Report) (London: HMSO, 1947).

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Trade and Industry, Report on the Census of Production: Textile Machinery, 1963 and 1973 (London: HMSO, 1968 and 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Industry, information supplied to the author (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Commodity Trade Statistics series C (Paris: published annually)

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment and Forecast, Technology Assessment and Forecast, Third Report, US Department of Commerce (Washington DC: USGPO, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Rothwell, ‘British Northrop: A Case of Decline and Renaissance’, Textile Institute and Industry (Nov. 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Rothwell, Innovation in Textile Machinery: Some Significant Factors in Success and Failure, Occasional Paper no. 2, Science Policy Research Unit (University of Sussex: SPRU, 1976a).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Rothwell, ‘Picanol Weefautomaten: A Case Study of a Successful Machine Builder’, Textile Institute and Industry (Mar. 1976b).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Rothwell, ‘Innovation in Textile Machinery: The Results of a Postal Questionnaire Survey’, R & D Management, vol. 6, no. 3 (June 1976c).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Rothwell, ‘Technological Innovation in Textile Machinery: The Role of Radical and Incremental Technical Change’, Textile Institute and Industry (Nov. 1976d).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Rothwell, ‘Users’ and Producers ‘Perceptions of the Relative Importance of Various Textile Machinery Characteristics’, Textile Institute and Industry (July 1977a).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Rothwell, ‘Innovation in Textile Machinery: The Czechoslovak Experience’, Textile Institute and Industry (Dec. 1977b).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Rothwell, ‘Some Problems of Technology Transfer into Industry: Examples from the Textile Machinery Sector’, IEEE Transacting on Engineering Management (Feb. 1978).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 1980 Science Policy Research Unit

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rothwell, R. (1980). Innovation in Textile Machinery. In: Pavitt, K. (eds) Technical Innovation and British Economic Performance. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06381-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics