>You should look at Philip T. Hoffman's "Growth in a Traditional Society:
>The French Countryside 1450-1815" which effectively demonstrates through
>econometrics that French agriculture, based on small peasant holdings, was
>just as productive as the English.
productive for whom? some unmentionable folks argue that because of the
success of the enclosure movement, English agriculture was mostly
productive for the growing class of commercial land-owners, whereas French
agriculture's surplus mostly allowed the peasantry there to prosper,
allowing them a lot of independence, which stifled the growth of commercial
agriculture in France.
While labor productivity and land yields are important, we need to focus on
the surplus-product (land rent, mixed with taxes, etc.)
Karl Marx would focus on how the surplus-product was produced and which
classes received it. Paul Baran would add the importance of how the
surplus-product was utilized.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
