During the past twenty-five years American economic historians have made substantial progress in improving the quantitative measures of the nation's economic performance in the nineteenth century. Using New Hampshire as a case study, this paper attempts to build on this earlier research in the area of late-nineteenth-century American agriculture; the primary focus is on Richard Easterlin's estimates of state and regional income. The research reported here suggests that Easterlin's estimates need to be revised on the basis of state-level analysis and that in their present form his figures may lead to erroneous conclusions about the regional distribution of service income in late-nineteenth-century America.

It is widely accepted that the expansion of government spending in Eastern Europe was financed during the half-century before World War I by steady increases in fiscal pressure on the peasantry. For Serbia, a quantitative analysis indicates that, relative to their incomes, the fiscal burdens on farmers declined markedly, and that the growing revenue was provided mainly by the nonfarm sector. These trends were facilitated by the political strength of the peasants. A superficial comparison of the Serbian case with those of Bulgaria and Russia suggests that fiscal pressures on farm incomes may have been decreasing throughout Eastern Europe, despite the growth of aggregate taxation.

In this article we investigate the nature of long-term fluctuations (commonly called long-swings or Kuznets cycles) in the general level of activity of the American economy over the period between the Civil War and the Great Depression. We conclude that a stable socio-economic structure of long-term economic change was in existence over this entire period. This structure defines a concurrence of relationships between certain economic and demographic variables which in combination determined the dynamic pattern by which economic growth proceeded. Our findings should be of interest to the economic historian studying the general process of economic growth in a capitalist economy.

After 1865 Southerners found their communities generally in a state of economic chaos. This was particularly true of the mercantile system. Before the war numerous small towns and villages were in the process of development, and the more localized system of merchandising was reaching out into the general trade. The merchants of the new stores were rapidly cutting into the virtually monopolistic control previously exercised by the system of cotton factorage on which the larger planters depended for supplies, for with the establishment of local stores, cotton planters looked more and more to their home merchants. During the four years of war these local stores were practically forced out of business by a lack of stock. The end of the war brought to the merchant a complete economic revolution. He was now to engage in a system of storekeeping which was unique in every respect except the name. Southern general stores became country stores whether they existed in the country or not, for the bulk of their trade was that of ”country” supply.

Shipping tonnages have been frequently used as a basis for inquiries covering a wide and increasing range of topics in economic history. For example, industry studies, descriptions of shipping routes and trade flows, colonial balance of payments estimates, and an analysis of the sources of productivity change in shipping have all been based–at least in part–on tonnage figures. A major problem in using tonnages as a means of historical quantification is that the term “ton” (either a shipping ton or a commodity ton) has varied substantially over time. This is especially true for the Colonial Period, when it was defined differently depending on its usage or the agent or the country reporting it. Fortunately, several recent research efforts have greatly improved our understanding of the meaning and limitations of historical tonnages.

In the past decade there has been an extremely active interest in theevidence and importance of the twenty-year building cycle, or Kuznets cycle as Lewis suggests we call it, in both American nineteenth-century development and British development after 1870. The evidence of building cycles in the United States is perhaps more extensive and seems clearly, in the research accumulated by Kuznets, Burns and Abramovitz, to indicate a long swing in the general process of growth, not just long swings isolated to the building trades. Whereas American long swings pervade all domestic series of output, income and investment, British experience seems somewhat different. After 1870 long swings in British capital exports alternated with long swings in domestic investment in a fashion which eliminated excess fluctuations in income and output, which would have been due mainly to fluctuations in aggregate demand.

In a recent article in this JOURNAL, Peter Rappoport and Eugene N. White (hereafter R-W) conclude that, “while there is still room for skepticism [of the presence of a bubble in the boom and bust stock market of 1928/29], the traditional accounts of a bubble in the market cannot be so easily dismissed”.1 Their conclusion is not based on econometric evidence for a stock market bubble per Se. Instead, it is based solely on their interpretation of the widening spread between the interest rates on brokers’ loans (call and time loans collateralized by stocks and bonds) and other money market interest rates in 1928 and 1929.

The agitation in mid-nineteenth-century Russia for the abolition of serfdom gave the first great stimulus to Russian scholarly interest in the history of the peasantry. The persistence of the land problem down to the Revolution and since then the Soviet preoccupation with the primary producer have kept alive this interest. As a result, a large number of studies of the agrarian history of their country, many of them works of high value, have been written by Russian scholars both before and since 1917. One of the most recent and most important contributions to the literature of this subject has been made by B. D. Grekov in his history of the peasantry from earliest times to the seventeenth century. Although its author remains carefully within the doctrinal limits imposed by the current standards of orthodoxy in Soviet historiography, his work is indispensable for the study not only of agrarian history but of all phases of early Russian history.