No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 February 2011
Professor Bolino makes a number of comments on our article, “Sequential Growth, the Labor Safety-Valve Doctrine and the Development of American Unionism,” in this journal, September 1959, which certainly call for some rejoinder on our part.
1 The successive growing-in of regional populations, for instance, gives some indication of increments to the natural resource base. Subject to the assumptions of constant factor proportions in similar production processes throughout the USA, of constant labor force participation from a given population, of reasonably similar areal occupational structure, the measure holds fairly well. Further as the additions to total population by decade and newly incorporated region fall off so rapidly towards the end of the 19th century, the assumptions are not damaging for if we could adjust for them the amount of resource injection would still fall rapidly.
2 Shannon, Fred A., “A Post Mortem on the Labor-Safety-Valve Theory,” The Turner Thesis, Taylor, George Rogers, ed. (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1949), p. 52.Google Scholar
3 We quoted Professor Higgins because he stressed sequential movement into broad production possibilities.
4 Charles Kindelberger, International Economics (Revised Edition), p. 127 doubts whether the supply of land increased after 1860. Even were this true spatial expansion permitted substitution of parcels of the factor of production one for another.
5 See Robertson, Ross M., History of the American Economy (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1955). PP. 357–67.Google Scholar