This article examines the evolution of the Russian government's policies between 1861 and 1917 in the sphere of rural credit, especially the extent to which social and cultural factors and ministerial politics impinged on the choice of banks and their development. Discussions concerned measures for economic change that could take place within the traditional and legal framework of the village community. The Ministry of Interior supported a classbased estate bank. The Ministry of Finance opted for the cooperative credit association which was to foster rural pacification and agricultural development by mobilizing peasant collective habits and private initiative that favored cooperative organizations.

Our conference today on comparative economic history is in some clanger of rushing into the wide-open spaces of ambiguity, for the term is new, and to agree too quickly on its meaning and implications may not even be desirable. In order to avoid engaging in a mere game of definitions, this paper will deal first with three general types of comparison in relation to their bearing on problems of evidence. It will then review some of the chief uses to which these types of comparison have been put in building up our body of knowledge about Western economic history. The survey will close with particular reference to our own preindustrial stages of economic growth, when western Europe was, in our uncomplimentary phrase, an underdeveloped or backward area.

This paper shows that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 broadened access to Parliament for families needing rights to sell land in so-called estate bills. Bills were on average 14–27 percentage points more likely to be for gentry families and not aristocratic families in legislative sessions after the Revolution compared to sessions before. Regression and archival evidence suggest that parliamentary certainty was primarily responsible for improved access by altering families’ entry calculus and brokers’ recruitment of new business. More broadly, the paper provides insight into the ways in which political institutions affect access to and the provision of property rights.

Much labor has been spent upon the history of the cultivated and occupied lands of the medieval English village and the social life of its inhabitants, and as a result a fairly clear framework has been constructed into which alterations and additions may be fitted where necessary. This statement is not true of the great background of all early village life, of the activities concerned with the waste or unoccupied land lying outside fields and even village bounds, and either lying idle, or else used for pasture, estovers, and hunting. Modern students have been negligent of this side of the medieval countryside, being more engaged with the human interests of the village; and little allowance has been made for changes and developments occurring within decades or even centuries. The great history of common rights, an extremely important subject, has yet to be written. This paper has a few suggestions to make which might sometime be useful in a study of a very large field.