Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:18:49.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inferring Yields from Probate Inventories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Robert C. Allen
Robert C. Allen
Affiliation:
Professor of Economics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Y2Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An improvement on Mark Overton's method of computing crop yields from probate inventories is proposed. Harvesting costs are explicitly allowed for and a new procedure for eliminating cost-of-production valuations is offered. Applying these methods to a sample of Oxfordshire probate inventories generates higher yields than Overton's investigation of East Anglian inventories. The finding lends support to the view that most of the yield increase in early modern England occurred in the seventeenth century rather than the eighteenth.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 1988 , pp. 117 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to thank Jane Cottis, Nick Crafts, Stanley Engerman, Sir John Habakkuk, Michael Havinden, Paul Hohenberg, Peter Lindert, Joel Mokyr, Cormac Ó Gráda, Mark Overton, Patrick O'Brien, and Michael Turner for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The remaining errors are my own. I thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support.

1 Overton, Mark, “Estimating Crop Yields from Probate Inventories: An Example from East Anglia, 1585–1735,” this Journal, 39 (06 1979), pp. 363–78.Google Scholar

2 Burn, Richard, Ecclesiastical Law (London, 1763), vol. 2, p. 646.Google Scholar

3 Burn, , Ecclesiastical Law, vol. 2, p. 652.Google Scholar

4 Intuitively, the expected yield should be estimated by dividing the average pre-harvest value per acre of standing grain by the average post-harvest value per bushel of grain in the barn. Overton derives his more complex formula from a nonparametric model of the joint sampling distribution of the two sets of values.

5 Overton, , “Estimating Crop Yields,” p. 373; and “Agricultural Productivity in Eighteenth Century England: Some Further Speculations,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 37 (05 1984), p. 250, fn. 37, mentions this problem but does not systematically deal with it.Google Scholar

6 Batchelor, Thomas, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Bedford (London, 1808), pp. 70–160.Google Scholar

7 Evans, Eric J., The Contentious Tithe (London, 1976), pp. 23–24.Google Scholar

8 Parker, William N. and Klein, Judith L. V., “Productivity Growth in Grain Production in the United States, 1840–60 and 1900–1910,” in Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States after 1800, National Bureau of Economic Research, Studies in Income and Wealth, vol. 30 (New York, 1966), p. 528, made the same assumptions in their classic study of the growth of labor productivity in American grain production.Google Scholar

9 Havinden read through the Oxfordshire probate inventories and extracted those that distinguished the acreages of the various crops. I have read the inventories for the people that he lists (in Havinden, Michael A., “The Rural Economy of Oxfordshire, 1580–1730,” [B. Litt. thesis, Oxford University, 1961])Google Scholar and recorded the acreages of the crops, their valuations, and the livestock owned by the farmers. (The inventories are now deposited at the Oxfordshire County Record Office, and I am grateful to its staff for expediting my access to them.) Sixteenth-century inventories were taken from the printed collection in Havinden, M. A., Household and Farm Inventories in Oxfordshire, 1550–1590 (Oxfordshire Record Society, 1965), vol. 44. The data sets analyzed here generally consist of all the relevant, usable inventories so obtained.Google Scholar

10 The wholesale prices were computed by linking (at their overlap in the 1640s) the national annual index numbers for wheat and barley/malt given in Thirsk, Joan, The Agrarian History of England and Wales (Cambridge, 1967), vol. 4, pp. 816–21, and vol. 5, pt. 2, pp. 828–31.Google Scholar To convert the indices to shillings per quarter, the average values for the south midlands for 1640–1749 were used as bases (Thirsk, , Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt. 2, pp. 864–66).Google Scholar

11 Why Tudor farmers valued corn at the price of the seed alone, while later farmers did not, is an interesting question. Although Tudor farmers were annually involved in the grain market, they were probably infrequently involved in land and labor markets. Consequently, the opportunity cost of seed sprang immediately to mind while the opportunity cost of the farmer's labor and land would have required more reflection. Later farmers more frequently involved in factor markets would have spontaneously thought of other costs.

12 Steer, Francis W., Farm and Cottage Inventories of Mid-Essex (Chelmsford, 1969), pp. 182, 205–6, 238;Google Scholar and Overton, , “Estimating Crop Yields”, p. 370.Google Scholar

13 Batchelor, , General View, pp. 70–160.Google Scholar

14 Thirsk, , Agrarian History, vol. 4, p. 864, and vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 877, reports winter wage rates for male agricultural laborers in Oxfordshire by decade from 1450 to 1750. Harvesting costs for each decade from 1550 to 1727 were computed by deflating Batchelor's harvesting costs by the ratio of Thirsk's winter wage for the decade to Batchelor's winter wage.Google Scholar

15 Titow, J. Z., Winchester Yields: A Study in Medieval Agricultural Productivity (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 121–35;Google Scholar and Bath, B. H. Slicher van, Yield Ratios, 810–1820, A.A.G. Bijdragen, No. 10 (1963).Google Scholar

16 Fussell, G. E., “Population and Wheat Production in the Eighteenth Century,” The History Teachers' Miscellany, 7 (05 1929), pp. 65–68, 84–88, 108–11, 120–27;Google ScholarAllen, Robert C. and Ó Gráda, Cormac, “On the Road Again with Arthur Young: English, Irish, and French Agriculture during the Industrial Revolution,” this Jourmal, 48 (03. 1988), pp. 93–116.Google Scholar

17 Allen and Ó Gráda, “On the Road”.

18 Overton, , “Estimating Crop Yields”, p. 371.Google Scholar

19 Titow, , Winchester Yields, pp. 121–35; Slicher van Bath, Yield Ratios, 1983.Google Scholar

20 Campbell, Bruce M. S., “Agricultural Progress in Medieval England: Some Evidence from Eastern Norfolk,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 36 (02 1983), pp. 38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Turner, Michael, “Agricultural Productivity in Eighteenth Century England: Further Strains of Speculation,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 37 (05 1984), p. 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Fussell, “Population and Wheat Production”; and Deane, Phyllis and Cole, W. A., British Economic Growth, 1688–1959 (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1969), pp. 67–68.Google Scholar

23 Turner, Michael, “Agricultural Productivity in England in the Eighteenth Century: Evidence from Crop Yields,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 35 (11 1982), pp. 489–510;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Turner, “Further Strains”; Overton, “Agricultural Productivity”; Crafts, N.F.R., British Economic Growth During the Industrial Revolution (Oxford, 1985), p. 44.Google Scholar

24 Jackson, R. V., “Growth and Deceleration in English Agriculture, 1660–1790,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 36 (08 1985), p. 333.Google Scholar