Enclosure and the Yeoman: The Agricultural Development of the South Midlands 1450-1850, Robert C. Allen, Oxford University Press, 1992.
This book traces the shift from medieval to modern institutions in English agriculture. It explores their importance for productivity growth, income distribution, and the contribution of agriculture to British economic development. Robert C. Allen's pioneering study shows that, contrary to the assumption of many historians, small-scale farmers in the open-field system were responsible for a considerable proportion of the productivity growth achieved between the middle ages and the nineteenth century. The process of enclosure and the replacement of these yeomen by large-scale tenant farming relying on wage labour had relatively little impact on the agricultural contribution to economic development during the industrial revolution. Enclosures and large farms enriched landowners without benefiting consumers, workers, or farmers. Thoroughly grounded in the archival sources, and underpinned by rigorous economic analysis, Enclosure and the Yeoman is a scholarly and challenging reassessment of the history of English agriculture. It will be indispensable reading for all historians concerned with the making of modern Britain. Available in OSO: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/history/9780198282969/toc.html "Commons Sense: Common Property Rights, Efficiency, and Institutional Change." Gregory Clark, The Journal of Economic History / Volume 58 / Issue 01 /March 1998, pp 73-102 Common property rights were widespread in English agriculture for at least 600 years. Since privatizing common fields allegedly produced huge profits in the eighteenth century, common land owners seemingly squandered 15 percent of potential income for generations. Ingenious explanations have been produced for this market failure. This article argues for a simple, brutal resolution. Common fields survived because enclosure was generally unprofitable before 1750, when changing relative prices made private property rights marginally more efficient. Then people responded quickly to modest profits. The rich gains from enclosure existed only in the imaginings of wild-eyed eighteenth century agrarian reformers. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Searching Google Scholar for sources that cite the Hammonds turns up 200 > articles including this 1982 article: "THE EFFICIENCY AND DISTRIBUTIONAL > CONSEQUENCES OF EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ENCLOSURES," by Robert C. Allen, The > Economic Journal, [December 1982), 937-953. > > Again, searching for articles that cite Allen's article produces another > 132 articles. > > > http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cites=2682305908797385855&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en > > > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:32 AM, William Quimby <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Answers to some of your question (1) might be found in John and Barbara >> Hammond's "The Village Labourer 1760-1832", >> published in 1911. See especially the chapters The Village Before >> Enclosure, The Village After Enclosure, and the footnote >> suggestions to government reports. [In my very skimpy scanning I did see >> the suggestion that rural population growth was >> very slow at the time, preventing exhaustion of natural resources.] >> >> A downloadable pdf (not terribly easy to read, though) can be found on >> the Internet Archive at >> >> <http://archive.org/details/cu31924032427019><http://archive.org/details/cu31924032427019> >> >> - Bill >> >> >> >> On 05/19/2013 4:24 AM, Gar Lipow wrote: >> > I'm interested in two related question on UK enclosure of the >> > commons. >> > >> > 1) How well were the commons managed prior to enclosure? Was the >> > grazing land being exhausted or was it preserved through limitations >> > on use? What about forest a nd woods and wood lots used as sources >> > of firewood? Was firewood harvested from the same woods generation >> > after generation, or were the wood lots being exhausted? What are >> > the best sources on this? Is there controversy or is the story I >> > hear that the commons were successful in preserving resources across >> > generations widely agreed on? >> > >> > 2) After enclosure to what extent was grazing land maintained and to >> > what extent exhausted? And (for my purposes, more imortantly) to >> > what extent were wooded areas that had been preserved as sources of >> > fuel for generations exhausted, sometimes just for the wood, >> > sometimes to expand grazing land to raise more sheep and cattle? >> > >> > What are the most rigorous works that answer these question?. If >> > there is a serious controversy, what are the best works on both >> > sides? I >> > >> > -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis >> > web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: >> > http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: >> > http://www.nohairshirts.com >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
