The efficiency and distributional consequences of eighteenth century enclosures ( Britain).

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Examines the efficiency and distributional consequences of 18th century enclosure using data collected by Arthur Young in 1768-70. Only half of the surplus generated by open field farms accrued to the landlord as rent, hence introducing free competition into the farm lease market would approximately double rents and lower farmers' incomes. Enclosure did not raise efficiency: when differences in the characteristics (including common rights) of the land were incorporated it was possible to accept the statistical hypothesis that open and enclosed farms were equally efficient. The overall conclusion is that the major economic consequence of the enclosure of open field arable land in the 18th century was to redistribute the existing agricultural income, not to create additional income by increasing efficiency. This conclusion contradicts the conventional wisdom but is backed up by recent agricultural historians.-V.S.Mead

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)937-953
Number of pages17
JournalEconomic Journal
Volume92
Issue number368
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1982

Fingerprint

Farm
Income
18th century
Rent
Lease
Farmers
Economic consequences
Wisdom
Surplus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

The efficiency and distributional consequences of eighteenth century enclosures ( Britain). / Allen, Robert (Bob).

In: Economic Journal, Vol. 92, No. 368, 01.01.1982, p. 937-953.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1a1589d45e7847988260bdfce70670ae,
title = "The efficiency and distributional consequences of eighteenth century enclosures ( Britain).",
abstract = "Examines the efficiency and distributional consequences of 18th century enclosure using data collected by Arthur Young in 1768-70. Only half of the surplus generated by open field farms accrued to the landlord as rent, hence introducing free competition into the farm lease market would approximately double rents and lower farmers' incomes. Enclosure did not raise efficiency: when differences in the characteristics (including common rights) of the land were incorporated it was possible to accept the statistical hypothesis that open and enclosed farms were equally efficient. The overall conclusion is that the major economic consequence of the enclosure of open field arable land in the 18th century was to redistribute the existing agricultural income, not to create additional income by increasing efficiency. This conclusion contradicts the conventional wisdom but is backed up by recent agricultural historians.-V.S.Mead",
author = "Allen, {Robert (Bob)}",
year = "1982",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2307/2232676",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
pages = "937--953",
journal = "Economic Journal",
issn = "0013-0133",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "368",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The efficiency and distributional consequences of eighteenth century enclosures ( Britain).

AU - Allen, Robert (Bob)

PY - 1982/1/1

Y1 - 1982/1/1

N2 - Examines the efficiency and distributional consequences of 18th century enclosure using data collected by Arthur Young in 1768-70. Only half of the surplus generated by open field farms accrued to the landlord as rent, hence introducing free competition into the farm lease market would approximately double rents and lower farmers' incomes. Enclosure did not raise efficiency: when differences in the characteristics (including common rights) of the land were incorporated it was possible to accept the statistical hypothesis that open and enclosed farms were equally efficient. The overall conclusion is that the major economic consequence of the enclosure of open field arable land in the 18th century was to redistribute the existing agricultural income, not to create additional income by increasing efficiency. This conclusion contradicts the conventional wisdom but is backed up by recent agricultural historians.-V.S.Mead

AB - Examines the efficiency and distributional consequences of 18th century enclosure using data collected by Arthur Young in 1768-70. Only half of the surplus generated by open field farms accrued to the landlord as rent, hence introducing free competition into the farm lease market would approximately double rents and lower farmers' incomes. Enclosure did not raise efficiency: when differences in the characteristics (including common rights) of the land were incorporated it was possible to accept the statistical hypothesis that open and enclosed farms were equally efficient. The overall conclusion is that the major economic consequence of the enclosure of open field arable land in the 18th century was to redistribute the existing agricultural income, not to create additional income by increasing efficiency. This conclusion contradicts the conventional wisdom but is backed up by recent agricultural historians.-V.S.Mead

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0020386058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0020386058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2307/2232676

DO - 10.2307/2232676

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0020386058

VL - 92

SP - 937

EP - 953

JO - Economic Journal

JF - Economic Journal

SN - 0013-0133

IS - 368

ER -