Mr. Ager, what makes the introduction of the sewing machine interesting for economists?
Philipp Ager: The technology profoundly changed women’s lives in the 19th century. Sewing was
an everyday activity across all social strata – rich, poor, young, and old women on farms and in
cities. We look at the dual role of the sewing machine – as a manufacturing technology and as a
household appliance in Massachusetts.
What did you find?
Philipp Ager: In factories, the sewing machine revolutionized garment making, transforming it
from slow, handcrafted production to a booming mass-production industry. Many poor young
women started working in the textile industry until they married. They often delayed marriage
and had fewer children.
In wealthy households, Singer’s “New Family” model spread rapidly from 1865 onwards. For
these women, time savings did not lead to more female employment. Instead, women married
earlier and had more children. At the same time, wealthy women also used the time savings for
civic engagement. Evidence from women’s clubs suggests that the sewing machine facilitated a
shift toward organized social reform and community leadership. The bottom line is that the
same technology had divergent effects across socioeconomic groups.
Which lessons can we learn for the adoption of new technology today?
Philipp Ager: Technological change produces heterogeneous outcomes, especially across income
groups. Our study shows that the effects of new technologies can depend heavily on the social
and economic context as well as on existing social norms. While these findings cannot be
directly applied to today’s technologies, such as automation or AI, they suggest that it is
important to consider the potentially differing impacts on various social groups from the
beginning. When introducing AI in schools and businesses, it may therefore be advisable to take
into account the different circumstances and uses of various groups and to create appropriate
training and support programs.