Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T14:36:53.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Choice and the Development of U.S. Agricultural Policies in the 1920s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Elizabeth Hoffman  and
Gary D. Libecap
Elizabeth Hoffman
Affiliation:
The author are Professors of Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 8571
Gary D. Libecap
Affiliation:
The author are Professors of Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 8571
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine U.S. agricultural policy as an institutional choice. Price controls in World War I had demonstrated the government's influence in markets, and with falling crop prices in the 1920s, farmers appealed to the federal government. The federal government was large enough by then to intervene in variou ways. It could have assisted private cooperatives by providing antitrust exemptions, market information, and enforcement of cooperative rules or intervened directly with mandatory output reductions and targeted prices. The policies adopted were influenced by crop-specific characteristics and broader market conditions affecting the success of private cooperatives.

Type
Papers Presented at the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 397 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1991

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

We would like to thank Brian Binger, Price Fishback, Shawn Kantor, Paul Rhode, Barbara Sands, and participants at the 1990 NBER/DAE Summer Institute and the University of Arizona Economic History Workshop for helpful comments. Valuable research assistance was provided by Bradley Cloud, Douglas Denney, Chrissy Levering, and Michael Thompson. Funding was provided by NSF Grant SES-8920965.Google Scholar

1 See Alston, Lee J., “Farm Foreclosure Moratoria: A Lesson from the Past,” American Economic Review, 74 (06 1984), pp. 445–57;Google Scholarand Shideler, James H., Farm Crisis, 1919–1923 (Berkeley, 1957).Google Scholar

2 Prices of other grains followed those for wheat. Tobacco prices, on the other hand, remained above their prewar levels throughout the 1920s.Google Scholar

3 See Wiggins, Steven N. and Libecap, Gary D., “Firm Heterogeneities and Cartelization Efforts in Domestic Crude Oil,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3 (Spring 1987). pp. 1–25;Google Scholar and Binger, Brian R., Hoffman, Elizabeth, and Libecap, Gary D., “Experimental Methods to Advance Historical Investigation: An Examination of Cartel Compliance by Large and Small Firms,” in Mokyr, Joel, ed., The Vital One: Essays in Honor of Jonathan R.T. Hughes (Greenwich, CT, 1991).Google Scholar

4 Perishability and storage might also have an alternative effect to discipline cartel members. See Green, Edward J. and Porter, Robert H., “Noncooperative Collusion under Imperfect Price Information,” Econometrica, 52 (01 1984), pp. 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 There were 1,208,368 and 1,986,726 wheat and cotton farmers, respectively, in the United States and 19.098 citrus farmers in California in 1929. State level data reveal considerable variation among wheat and cotton farmers by size and value of production. County level data for California fruit farms indicate, however, more homogeneity in terms of size.Google ScholarSee U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States (Washington, DC, 1930), “Agriculture,” vol. 4, pp. 108, 111, 641, 732, 736, 853: and “Agriculture,” vol. 3, p. 414.Google Scholar

6 For discussion, see Knapp, Joseph G., The Rise of American Cooperative Enterprise, 1620–1920 (Danville, IL, 1969);Google Scholarand Saloutos, Theodore and Hicks, John D., Agricultural Discontent in the Middle West, 1900–1939 (Madison, 1951). p. 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Guth, James L., “Farmer Monopolies, Cooperatives, and the Intent of Congress: Origins of the Capper-Volstead Act,” Agricultural History, 56 (01 1982), pp. 68–69.Google Scholar

8 See Knapp, The Rise of American Cooperative Enterprise, pp. 81–89;Google ScholarMeyer, Albert J., “History of the California Fruit Growers' Exchange, 1893–1920” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1950), pp. 55, 62–63, 81–120;Google ScholarJesness, O. B., The Cooperative Marketing of Farm Products (Philadelphia, 1923);Google Scholarand U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summary: Organization and Development of a Cooperative Fruit Agency, Bulletin No. 1237 (washington, DC, 1923).Google Scholar

9 In 1925 cooperatives controlled 74 percent of output in California, 32 percent in Florida, and 30 percent in Texas. See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agriculture (Washington, DC, 1932), p. 950.Google Scholar

10 See Benedict, Murray R., Farm Policies of the United States. 1790–1950 (New York, 1953), pp. 95, 104;Google ScholarGeyer, Leighton, “Farmer Bargaining: Legal, Economic, Conceptual, Theoretical, and Empirical Considerations” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1985); and Saloutos and Hicks, Agricultural Discontent, pp. 56–86.Google Scholar

11 See Ellis, William E., “Robert Worth Bingham and the Crisis of Cooperative Marketing in the Twenties,” Agricultural History, 56 (01 1982). pp. 99–116.Google Scholar

12 Ellis, Barbara, ed., Rodale's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Gardening (Emmaus, PA, 1990), p. 271;Google Scholar and Eckles, Clarence H., Dairy Cattle Milk and Production (New York, 1950), pp. 64, 73, 81, 89.Google Scholar

13 U. S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, DC, 1930), pp. 557–750.Google Scholar

14 See Wallace, Henry A., New Frontiers (New York, 1934). p. 144:Google ScholarGuth. “Farmer Monopolies,” pp. 67–82;Google Scholar and McCune, Wesley, The Farm Block (Garden City. 1943).Google Scholar

15 See Wilson, Joan Hoff, “Hoover's Agricultural Policies, 1921” Agricultural History, 51 (04 1977), pp. 335–61;Google Scholarand Koerselman, Gary H., “Secretary Hoover and National Farm Policy: Problems of Leadership,” Agricultural History, 51 (04 1977). pp. 378–95.Google Scholar

16 Davis, Joseph S., “Some Possibilities and Problems of the Federal Farm Board,” Journal of Farm Economics, 12 (01 1930), pp. 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Hamilton, David E., From New Day to New Deal: American Agriculture in the Hoover Years, 1928–1933 (Ann Arbor, 1985), p. 87.Google Scholar

18 See Binger et al., “Experimental Methods.”Google Scholar

19 Wallace, Henry A., “Controlling Agricultural Output,” Journal of Farm Economics, 5 (01 1923), p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 See Fite, Gilbert C., George N. Peek and the Fight for Farm Parity (Norman, 1954), pp. 19, 113.Google Scholar

21 Saloutos, Theodore, The American Farmer and the New Deal (Ames, 1982), pp. 17–21;Google Scholarand Fite, George N. Peek, pp. 46, 66, 90.Google Scholar

22 Viner, Jacob, “The Tariff in Relation to Agriculture,” Journal of Farm Economics, 7 (01 1925), pp. 115–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Other tariffs of the time were the Emergency Tariff of 1921, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1929. See Baack, Bennett D. and Ray, Edward J., “The Political Economy of Tariff Policy: A Case Study of the United States,” Explorations in Economic History, 20 (01 1983), pp. 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 U.S. Department of Commerce, Historical Statistics, p. 1102.Google Scholar

24 Hall, Tom G., “Wilson and the Food Crisis: Agricultural Price Control During World War I,” Agricultural History, 47 (01. 1973), pp. 25–46.Google Scholar