Consider the following passage:
For decades, economic historians maintained that the rapid expansion of mid-nineteenth-century British railway networks directly generated the era's unprecedented domestic industrial growth by dramatically reducing freight costs. However, recent quantitative re-examinations challenge this central premise. Critics point out that during the initial two decades of railway expansion, over seventy percent of industrial freight continued to travel via coastal shipping and canal systems, which offered comparable rates for heavy raw materials like coal and iron ore. Defenders of the traditional view counter that while canals remained competitive for bulk transport, the velocity and reliability of rail transport permitted manufacturers to adopt flexible inventory strategies, thereby releasing vast amounts of liquid capital previously trapped in stockpiled inventory. Yet this rebuttal overlooks crucial financial records from major textile and metalworking firms of the era. These records demonstrate that working capital reserves remained virtually unchanged during the initial decade of rail adoption because supply chain unpredictability at regional terminals forced firms to maintain redundant safety stocks. Consequently, the claim that early railway networks catalyzed industrial growth primarily through capital efficiency gains via inventory reduction is unsubstantiated.
Evaluate the following statement based on the passage above:
The author neutralizes the defenders' argument regarding capital efficiency by introducing historical empirical evidence showing that supply chain unpredictability at regional terminals compelled firms to hold redundant safety stocks.
Cevap: Cevap