I don't know the answer to that question. Southerners, however, certainly felt that one problem they were having was that the North set up the banking system in such a way as to make it difficult for southerners to acquire captial.
You might also argue that the South spent precious resources worrying about blacks. I don't have evidence for that though. Mitch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alypius Skinner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2002 3:28 pm Subject: Re: WWII Germany - Olson - American South > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > If I recall Mancur Olson suggests that one of the reasons that > post WWII > > West Germany did so well is that all of Germany's special interest > > groups were destroyed. > > > > I'm inclined to agree although I know that Germany had tremendous > > manufacturing ability even at the end of the war. However, why > did the > > South fare so poorly after the US Civil War? > > > Olson's "distributional coalitions" remained intact in the US, and > the South > was part of the US. Within a country, why do most major > industries and > financiers locate in one region of a country and not in another? > Why did > industrialists so rarely set up shop in Southern states? Why were > meatpacking, steel, and auto industries, among others, all originally > concentrated in the old Union states? While most of America's > cotton was > grown in the South, why was most textile manufacturing done in the > north? If > anyone has the answer to these questions, we might understand why the > post-War South was for so long impoverished. > > ~Alypius Skinner > > > > >
