IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jechis/v33y1973i04p811-824_07.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Slavery and Scientific Management

Author

Listed:
  • Aufhauser, R. Keith

Abstract

In the last few years, the controversy over the economic history of slavery has centered about two positions. On the one hand, Genovese has argued that the slave mode of production was fundamentally antagonistic to the bourgeois mode and that the conflicts between the two systems doomed slavery to a nineteenth-century grave. On the other hand, Conrad and Meyer spawned many studies which, on the whole, denied that any specifically economic difficulties resulted from the fact that the American south was based on slave labor. Against Genovese's original claim that “the material basis of the planters' power was giving way,” the statistical evidence indicated that the profits of the slave plantation were as high as those on non-slave business investments, and that the diffusion of technological changes was rapid enough to cause a rate of productivity increase equal to that of all but the most rapidly growing sectors of the free economy. Sheer volume supplemented the elegance of the early discussion and our knowledge of the slave economy expanded considerably.

Suggested Citation

  • Aufhauser, R. Keith, 1973. "Slavery and Scientific Management," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 811-824, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jechis:v:33:y:1973:i:04:p:811-824_07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022050700079213/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bryer, Rob, 2012. "Americanism and financial accounting theory – Part 1: Was America born capitalist?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(7), pages 511-555.
    2. Stefan Ouma & Saumya Premchander, 2022. "Labour, Efficiency, Critique: writing the plantation into the technological present-future," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 54(2), pages 413-421, March.
    3. Khandakar Shahadat & Shahzad Uddin, 2022. "Labour Controls, Unfreedom and Perpetuation of Slavery on a Tea Plantation," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 36(3), pages 522-538, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jechis:v:33:y:1973:i:04:p:811-824_07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jeh .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.