Manitoba did not have a dust bowl because it never suffered the drought to the same extent as the 'great American dessert' including Palliser's Triangle in the Canadian prairies.
It is true that this part of Canada was overpopulated relative to the long term agricultural sustainability of the land under intensive cultivation. (It probably should never have been settled for grain production in the first place.) The decade of settlement in the plains area of the prairies (as opposed to the park belt to the north which did not suffer the drought to the same extent) was one of high rainfall in the climatic cycle. Given the technology of the day, however, larger grain farms were not generally feasible. Also, the isolation that would have resulted would have been a tremendous barrier to settlement and the provision of public services (primarily schooling and medical personnel and facilities.) The drought and depression in grain prices did drive many farmers out of the most arid parts of the Canadian prairies during the thirties. But this had nothing to do with the distribution of property rights. Indeed, larger farms would have translated into larger mortgages and a higher rate of farm failure. This article, at superficial reading of the abstract, appears to me the kind of ideological application of new-institutional analysis that has given the rights approach a bad name. Is it not more sensible to suggest that lack of rain was responsible for the dust bowl? Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Date sent: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 18:54:04 -0800 From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:19305] Ideology and the Environment To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This article proposes that small farms are responsible for the > dust bowl, even though the patchwork of small farms is more > likely to create wind breaks. Any thoughts from Manitoba? > > "U.S. Land Policy, Property Rights, and the Dust Bowl of the > 1930s"
