|
|
Jack Goldstone raises the interesting issue that a big rise in
output could come in agriculture without any gain in efficiency through the
conversion of land from low intensity pastoral uses to high intensity
arable uses. He argues that the extension of the market in the 17th c. led
to just this change by producers in the "peripheral" regions of England.
Thus he favors George Grantham's idea that it is urban growth which is the
handmaid of rural progress, though unlike George he seems to think that
this is pure intensification.
Since farmers are going to make their decisions based on the prices
they see at the farm gate, the conditions for this mechanism to work have
to be that relative prices changed in big ways in the peripheral regions of
England in the 17th c. In particular the price of grain relative to the
price of labor should have increased (to make arable cultivation more
profitable) in outlying regions.
Through the work of Bowden in the AHEW we have regional price
indices going back to the 1640s for grains, sheep, oxen and cows. There is
a consistent pattern.
(1) There is little consistent regional difference in wheat, barley and rye
prices. The peripheral places have prices close to the national average
even in the 1640s. Oats are a bit cheaper in the North and North West
(hence their presence in the diet there). This makes sense since the more
expensive grains had high value relative to their transport costs.
(2) Animal prices again do not vary a huge amount, except that they are
much lower in the north and north west (Lancs, Westmoreland, Cumberland,
Northumberland, Durham). It looks like there is an abundant supply of
animal products in these areas, and hence low prices.
I know from looking at wages recently that these also are lower in the
north (there is little evidence for this period on the west).
So what were the incentives facing farmers in the peripheral regions, and
in particular in the north? Grain production would seem to be an attractive
activity even in 1640 in the north where output prices are high and labor
input costs low. Low intensity pastoral activities look less attractive
given the cheap labor and low animal prices in the north.
Why then would they only switch to arable agriculture in the 17th c.?
Relative prices are not changing much, so how do they get the signal?
Thus though Jack raises an interesting possibility, it is not
consistent
with the price signals that farmers in various parts of the country were
receiving. And indeed in general George Grantham's idea about urbanization
is an argument that changes in relative prices will lead to productive
agriculture. I do not think that in Britain these "urban" effects would be
powerful enough to explain much change after 1600.
Greg
______________________________________________________________
Gregory Clark
Professor
Department of Economics PHONE 530-752-9242
University of California FAX 530-752-9382
Davis, CA 95616
______________________________________________________________
|
|
|
 Send comments and questions to admin@eh.net
|
||