Michael Kopsidis

Agricultural Productivity Across Prussia During the Industrial Revolution: A Thünen Perspective

This paper explores the pattern of agricultural productivity across 19th century Prussia to gain new insights on the causes of the OLittle DivergenceO between European regions. We argue that access to urban demand was the dominant factor explaining the gradient of agricultural productivity as had been suggested much earlier theoretically by von ThŸnen (1826) and empirically by Engel (1867). This is in line with recent findings on a limited degree of interregional market integration in 19th century Prussia.

Technical change in Westphalian peasant agriculture and the rise of the Ruhr, circa 1830–1880

Most questions about the sources of agricultural growth during the ‘first agricultural revolution’ are still debated. For the Prussian province of Westphalia, we estimated a translog production function to determine the contribution of intensification and technical change from 1830 to 1880. Additionally, we present evidence on the impact that neutral and biased technical change had on growth. Furthermore, we examine whether spatial differences can be identified concerning the sources of agricultural growth and whether they followed a von Thuenen pattern around the demand centre of the rising industrial belt on the Ruhr River. In addition, we explain why, under the conditions of pre-industrial agriculture, regions with the highest output growth did not necessarily have to exhibit the most dynamic TFP-growth, even if they contributed, on average, the most to output growth.

The French revolution and German industrialization: dubious models and doubtful causality

We challenge the ‘big-bang’ approach to economic history offered by Acemoglu et al. (2011). The creation story in dispute is the French Revolution and the subsequent French occupation of a very small portion of Germany. We show that the four institutional reforms claimed to have spurred German industrialization have been incorrectly dated. These corrections nullify any explanatory power of the ACJR econometric model. Moreover, even with the corrected vintages, their identification strategy is undermined by a flawed ‘explanatory’ variable – ‘years of reform’. We show that this variable simply enters their model as a year trend and explains nothing except the passage of time. We develop a fixed-effects model to capture the overlooked role of coal production that began in several regions shortly after 1840. This model offers a credible account of German industrialization and urbanization. Most economic change is, after all, continuous. Big-bang intrusions are of doubtful efficacy.

Where is the backward Russian peasant? Evidence against the superiority of private farming, 1883-1913

This contribution deals with agricultural dynamics in late-Imperial Russia. Based upon a comprehensive micro-level data set on annual yields between 1883 and 1913, we provide insight into regional differences of agricultural growth and the development prospects of Russian agriculture before WWI. Making use of the fact that contemporary Russian statistics distinguished between mostly communally governed open fields and privately owned land, we are able to test the implications of different land tenure systems for agricultural yield growth. In a broader sense, we seek to challenge the common narrative of Russia as an exception to the pan-European picture of economic development during the era of industrialization.

What Kind of Technological Change for Russian Agriculture? The Transition Crisis of 1991-2005 from the Induced Innovation Theory Perspective

This article explains the lasting transition crisis of Russian agriculture by applying Hayami & Ruttans theory of induced innovation. The empirical analysis uses Russian farm data. For various types of farms factor intensities and partial factor productivities are calculated to identify differences in productivity between them. We identify the mechanism through which institutional frictions in Russia influence the choice of technology and the adaptation of technological change. Finally, policy recommendations are derived to make technical change more consistent with relative factor supplies and prices, and improve productivity, especially of inefficient farm types. In our view nothing speaks in favour of expensive Western ‘high-tech’ machinery imports to enhance the efficiency of Russian farms (especially larger ones). Until now the poor operation of domestic markets in Russia has obstructed a sufficient supply of Russian technology consistent with relative scarcities.

Agricultural Output Growth in a Proto- and Early Industrial Setting: Evidence from Sharecropping in Western Westphalia and the Lower Rhineland, c. 1740–1860

An evidence-based time series on agricultural growth prior to 1850 only exists for very few German territories. Except for Saxony, there is no series available for the pre-1815 period. Based on sharecropping contracts from the estate of Anholt, we reconstruct the development of crop production for western Westphalia and the lower Rhineland c. 1740–1860. Our results show that parallel to Saxony, agricultural growth in this north-west German region was driven entirely by demand from a growing number of households engaged in proto-industrial and early industrial manufacture production. Fully commercialised land tenure systems dominated in Anholt from the beginning of the early modern period, and manorial institutions had little relevance for rural property relations. Hence, the radical French and Prussian agrarian reforms at the beginning of the nineteenth century had no effect on agricultural production. In a north-west European comparison, Anholts sharecroppers performed rather well during this decisive formation period culminating in early industrialisation.

Was Gerschenkron right? Bulgarian agricultural growth during the Interwar period in light of modern development economics

The classical view of BulgariaOs failed industrialization prior to the Second World War was established by Alexander Gerschenkron. According to his interpretation, an inherently backward small peasant agriculture and well-organized peasantry not only retarded growth in agriculture but obstructed any possible industrialization strategy. Following Hayami and Ruttan, we utilize the decomposition of farm labor productivity into land productivity, and land-to-man ratio to analyze the sources of growth in BulgariaOs agriculture 1887-1939. Our results show that BulgariaOs peasants did cross the threshold to modern growth during the Interwar period. Rich qualitative evidence supports the findings of our quantitative analysis that contrary to GerschenkronOs view and conventional wisdom, BulgariaOs peasants substantially contributed to the modernization of BulgariaOs economy and society. We interpret our results in light of modern development economics, and conclude that agriculture formed no impediment to BulgariaOs industrialization. The reasons that a Olarge industrial spurtO did not occur in Bulgaria until 1945 are not to be found in the agricultural sector.