9 - Revolutions in Agriculture and Proto-Industry

What was the “Agricultural Revolution”?

A series of tech and institutional advances in agriculture that dramatically increased productivity and output

What are the 3 phases of the agricultural revolutrion?

• Yeoman’s Revolution(16C/17C)

• Landlord’s Revolution (18C0

• 19C Revolution (1800-1850)

What were the tech and institutional advances in the Agricultural Revolution?

• floating of water meadows

• The introduction of new fodder crops (clover, sainfoin and ryegrass)

• Application of new arable rotations (Norfolk 4 field rotation - wheat, turnips, barley, clover)

• Heavier use of manures (Guano and Coprolite)

• Regional specialisation (Hops, vegetables, fruit, pigs, poultry and cattle vs cereals)

• Animal husbandry (selective breeding)

• Intro of machines (self-binders, reapers, mowers, horse-rakes, seeders, harrows, ploughs, scrapers, rollers, cultivators, fanning mills, threshing machines, etc.)

• Consolidation of estates

• Large scale/capitalist farming

• Enclosure → privatising common wastes, pastures and open fields

What are the 2 view on enclosure?

Goths and the Vandals (barbarians) of open fields and the civilization of enclosures(Young, 1809)

What are the 2 important debates on enclosure?

1. Was enclosure good for growth and well being?

2. When did enclosure impact the economy?

Were enclosures good for growth and well-being?

• enclosure is one of the most debated events in British history

• Enclosure Acts (1750) greatly increased the rate and the spread of enclosure

• Some have argued that productive yeoman (peasant) farmers were pushed off their land by rent seeking landlords

• others argue that enclosure removed small (less productive) present farmers and squatters

• Were these landless poor the new labour force that became available for industrialisation → Marx used enclosure in his theory

• Timing of Enclosure Acts has linked the Agricultural Revolution with the IR

What is the pro-enclosure argument?

• enclosure leads to large farms → more farm output and less farm labour → more urbanization and growth od cities → more econ growth

Overton (1996) - 3 channels for enclosure to increase productivity

1. Layout of land allowed (demanded by parliament) for draining and proper irrigation

2. Consolidation of land meant arable land could be used for commercial agriculture (EoS) and not subsistence →more commercial use

3. Open field system used more fallow → enclosure removed fallow periods

Private property rights and sufficient economies of scale are needed to implement new techniques and innovations → flexible decision making and better incentives with enclosure

Garrett Hardin’s 1968 article “Tragedy of the Commons” attacked the system of common rights in open pastures:

• If everyone acted in self-interest they would deplete the common land since they ignore social welfare and assume others will do the same

• Private costs are necessary in order to deter the over use that leads to depletion

• Contemporaries observed that ppl allowed overgrazing disease to spread sinve they did not face the full costs of this personally

• There was also a problem with free riders → if someone undertook investment then others benefited without paying

What is the anti-enclosure argument?

Neeson (1993) argues that enclosure was more costly than productive:

• there was no “Tragedy of the Commons” → common land was already “policed” and privatisation was political

• Contemporaries rose up against enclosure where they could → property rights were exploited

• Neeson (1993) ignores average real wages and focuses on inequality → even if the pie got bigger it was more poorly distributed

• The value of being able to graze one cow had huge implications on health and well-being of peasants → half a years wages for a labourer

• Peasants also had the right to gather firewood on common land

What were the conclusions on enclosure?

• Neeson (1993) had no empirical evidence that policing was effective on the commons → Was there a “Tragedy of the Commons” or not

• Neeson (1993) was based on observations in Northamptonshire → enclosure movemnt was different elsewhere

• Overton (1996) argues that the data reveals that enclosed farms had more new crops, crop rotation and mixed farming → 18C people are rational

• Allen (2009) argues that enclosure did increase productivity but only marginally → gains by yeomen were greater

Enclosure should be judged by timing of gains in agriculture

When did the Agricultural Revolution start according to the Neo-revisionists?

Allen (2009)

• growth was fast before 18C → up to 1740

• Growth slowed down in the 18C → after 1740

• Suggests that advances were undertaken by peasant/yeomen framers (before 18C)

• implies the enclosure was either only important before the 18C or completely unimportant

• Puts the emphasis on the increasing scale of agriculture rather than enclosure per se

• Puts emphasis on irrigation, manures, regional specialisation → not the use of new crops (clover) and new rotations (4 field rotation)

When did the agricultural revolution begin according to the Counter - revisionist?

Overton(1996)

• growth was slow before the 18C → up to 1700

• Growth was accelerated in 18C → after 1700

• Suggests that advances did not take hold until after the main enclosure acts passed in later 18C

• Puts emphasis on the contemporary argument of enclosure in replacing inefficient peasant farmers and increasing productivity

• Puts emphasis on the reduction of the fallow land on enclosed farms

• Puts emphasis on the importance of probate inventories and local case studies

Why is there such a disagreement over when the Agricultural Revolution happened

The way they generate daya for the 18C

Dean and Cole (1962) and Overton (1996) follow the “population” methood

• assume constant consumption per person and back project food output from 19C

• Constrain the equation to Q = aN (output = constant*population) - assumes price elasticity, income elasticity and cross-price elasticity are 0

Jackson(1985) and Allen (1999) follow the “demand curve” method

• Assume entire demand curve must be estimated

• Elasticities based on 20C developing countries or 19C budgets

What does the Empirical evidence of enclosures show?

overton is right on enclosure → enclosure did increase output

• Allen admits that case studies and probate inventories show gains in the 18C

• Allen argues that these gains are far less than yeomen achieved

Was there a proto-industrial revolution?

IR is the Rise of Modern insutry not the rise of industry as such (Hicks 1969

“The Industrial Revolution” - fundamental deployment of labour from agriculture to industry where production was characterised by large scale factories using machines

Broadberry et al. (2011) and the Cambridge Population Group argue that growth in the industrial sector was underway well before the 18/19C IR

What happened btw 1500 and 1700?

Why did proto-industry spread?

• Industry expanded into the countryside

• Started selling to non-local (export) markets

• Often employed family labour

• Became regionally concentrated

• Remained decentralised → within homes rather than in factories

• Retained hand techniques → not engines

Did proto-industry drive productivity?

Proto-industry was relatively productive compared to agriculture during the agricultural revolution

Can the development of a proto-industry explain the IR?

3 main theories linking proto-industry to the IR

1. Demographic acceleration model - Mendels (1972) → Levine (1977)

2. Transition to capitalism model - Mendels (1972) → Kriedte et al. (1981)

3. Dualistic labour supply model - Mendels (1972) → Mokyr et al. (1976)

How did the demographic acceleration model link proto-industry to the IR?

• ppl were underemployed in agriculture → seasonal

• Proto-industry was a labour response to underemployment

• Proto-type industry allowed couples to marry sooner → work more

• Marriage rates were higher in proto-industry towns → higher fertility

• Pop growth was faster in proto-industrial towns → increase in cheap labour for factories

• Models of pop growth explain the transition MEG via proto-industrial regions

What was the effect of Proto-industry on Population?

Supporters (Levine 1977) of the theory show that:

• some proto-industrial regions (e.g.Shepshed) had lower FAFM → higher fertility

• Some agricultural regions (e.g. Bottesford) had higher FAFM → lower fertility

Critics (Coleman, 1983) of the theory show that:

• many agricultural regions had lower FAFM → higher fertility

• Many proto-industrial regions had higher FAFM → lower fertility

• The trend for a fall in the FAFM from 1700- 1800 was similar everywhere → increased population was not localised

• Proto-industrial areas

How did the transition to capitalism model link proto-industry to the IR?

• industry has 2 phases

  • 1. proto industry

  • 2. Modern industry

  • phase 1 → phase 2

• Proto-industrilisation was a natural response to seasonal employment → part of industrious revolution

• Reducing underemployment increased aggregate and per capita output → increase Aggregate demand

• Proto-industry created an entrepreneurial class with entrepreneurial skills and business training

• workers in industrial handicrafts were better trained and prepared for factory techniques

• proto-industry exports established trade in foreign markets (1st mover advantage)

Did proto-industry transition to capitalism

• Coleman (1983) argues proto-industrialisation did not cause industrialisation ( 6/10 proto-industrial regions deindustrialised)

• Other countries but didnt industrialise → China

• Other european economies had foreign markets and proto-industry → Belgium

• Many argue foreign markets for manufactures were small relative to domestic markets

• Capital came from a variety of sources (capital released from agriculture)

• Entrepreneurs came from agriculture and services ( not just proto-industry)

• Critics argue factory work required little skill just discipline (That is not provided by the proto-industry)

How did the dualistic Labour Supply Model link proto-industry to the IR?

• proto-industrial regions had high population growth and many workers were essentially filling in time between agricultural seasons

• Workers could be drawn out of cottages into factories without higher wages being demanded by the workers from the cottages

• this generated high profits (rents) in modern industry that allowed for an increase in K investment

• The main difference between cottage industries and large factories was K → Marginal product of labour (MPL) was low in cottage sector but high in the modern sector

Did Proto-industry generate labour for industrialisation?

• Williamson (1985) argues labour surplus model does not apply to England

• Timing of growth is also inconsistent with labour surplus model

• Workers must have come primarily from L release in agriculture given food constraints

• This is inconsistent with wage evidence → wages were high in the modern sector

• Remember Allen’s argument is that keeping wages low could be bad for industrialisation in the long run