IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/16494.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Productivity Growth and the Regional Dynamics of Antebellum Southern Development

Author

Listed:
  • Alan L. Olmstead
  • Paul W. Rhode

Abstract

Between 1800 and 1860, the United States became the preeminent world supplier of cotton as output increased sixty-fold. Technological changes, including the introduction of improved cotton varieties, contributed significantly to this growth. Measured output per worker in the cotton sector rose four-fold and large regional differences emerged. By 1840, output per worker in the New South was twice that in the Old South. The economy-wide increase is explained, in equal measure, by growth in output per worker at fixed locations and by the reallocation of labor across regions. These results offer a new view on the dynamics of economic development in antebellum America.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan L. Olmstead & Paul W. Rhode, 2010. "Productivity Growth and the Regional Dynamics of Antebellum Southern Development," NBER Working Papers 16494, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:16494
    Note: DAE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16494.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weiman, David F., 1991. "Peopling the Land by Lottery? The Market in Public Lands and the Regional Differentiation of Territory on the Georgia Frontier," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 835-860, December.
    2. Wright, Gavin, 1979. "The Efficiency of Slavery: Another Interpretation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 219-226, March.
    3. Schaefer, Donald F., 1983. "The Effect of the 1859 Crop Year Upon Relative Productivity in the Antebellum Cotton South," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(4), pages 851-865, December.
    4. Thomas Weiss, 1987. "The Farm Labor Force by Region, 1820-1860: Revised Estimates and Implications for Growth," NBER Working Papers 2438, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Olmstead,Alan L. & Rhode,Paul W., 2008. "Creating Abundance," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521857116.
    6. Pritchett, Jonathan B., 2001. "Quantitative Estimates Of The United States Interregional Slave Trade, 1820–1860," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 467-475, June.
    7. Fogel, Robert W & Engerman, Stanley L, 1980. "Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture in the Antebellum South: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(4), pages 672-690, September.
    8. Olmstead, Alan L. & Rhode, Paul W., 2008. "Biological Innovation and Productivity Growth in the Antebellum Cotton Economy," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(4), pages 1123-1171, December.
    9. David, Paul A., 1967. "The Growth of Real Product in the United States Before 1840: New Evidence, Controlled Conjectures," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 151-197, June.
    10. Dorothy S. Brady, 1966. "Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States after 1800," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number brad66-1.
    11. Metzer, Jacob, 1975. "Rational management, modern business practices, and economies of scale in the ante-bellum southern plantations," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 123-150, April.
    12. Passell, Peter, 1971. "The Impact of Cotton Land Distribution on the Antebellum Economy," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 917-937, December.
    13. Passell, Peter & Wright, Gavin, 1972. "The Effects of Pre-Civil War Territorial Expansion on the Price of Slaves," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(6), pages 1188-1202, Nov.-Dec..
    14. Fogel, Robert W & Engerman, Stanley L, 1977. "Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture in the Antebellum South," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 275-296, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard C. Sutch, 2018. "The Economics of African American Slavery: The Cliometrics Debate," NBER Working Papers 25197, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Olmstead, Alan L. & Rhode, Paul W., 2008. "Biological Innovation and Productivity Growth in the Antebellum Cotton Economy," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(4), pages 1123-1171, December.
    3. Haluk I. Ergin & Serdar Sayan, 1997. "A Microeconomic Analysis of Slavery in Comparison to Free Labor Economies," Economic History 9710001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Toman, J.T., 2005. "The gang system and comparative advantage," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 310-323, April.
    5. Hoyt Bleakley & Joseph P. Ferrie, 2013. "Up from Poverty? The 1832 Cherokee Land Lottery and the Long-run Distribution of Wealth," NBER Working Papers 19175, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Philipp Ager & Leah Boustan & Katherine Eriksson, 2021. "The Intergenerational Effects of a Large Wealth Shock: White Southerners after the Civil War," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3767-3794, November.
    7. Claudia Goldin, 1995. "Cliometrics and the Nobel," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 191-208, Spring.
    8. Trevon D. Logan, 2022. "American Enslavement and the Recovery of Black Economic History," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 36(2), pages 81-98, Spring.
    9. Gavin Wright, 2020. "Slavery and Anglo‐American capitalism revisited," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 73(2), pages 353-383, May.
    10. Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 1986. "Productivity Growth in Manufacturing during Early Industrialization: Evidence from the American Northeast, 1820-1860," NBER Chapters, in: Long-Term Factors in American Economic Growth, pages 679-736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Alan L. Olmstead & Paul W. Rhode, 2014. "Were Antebellum Cotton Plantations Factories in the Field?," NBER Chapters, in: Enterprising America: Businesses, Banks, and Credit Markets in Historical Perspective, pages 245-276, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Thomas Weiss, 1989. "Economic Growth Before 1860: Revised Conjectures," NBER Historical Working Papers 0007, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Dávid Krisztián Nagy, 2021. "Quantitative Economic Geography Meets History: Questions, Answers and Challenges," Working Papers 1249, Barcelona School of Economics.
    14. Carlson, Leonard A. & Roberts, Mark A., 2006. "Indian lands, "Squatterism," and slavery: Economic interests and the passage of the indian removal act of 1830," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 486-504, July.
    15. Sokoloff, Kenneth L. & Tchakerian, Viken, 1997. "Manufacturing Where Agriculture Predominates: Evidence from the South and Midwest in 1860," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 243-264, July.
    16. Trevon Logan, 2015. "A Time (Not) Apart: A Lesson in Economic History from Cotton Picking Books," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer;National Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 301-322, December.
    17. Rhode, Paul W., 2024. "What fraction of antebellum US national product did the enslaved produce?," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    18. Klas Rönnbäck & Dimitrios Theodoridis, 2022. "Cotton cultivation under colonial rule in India in the nineteenth century from a comparative perspective," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 75(2), pages 374-395, May.
    19. David Krisztián Nagy, 2020. "Quantitative economic geography meets history: Questions, answers and challenges," Economics Working Papers 1774, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Mar 2021.
    20. Jung, Yeonha, 2018. "How The Legacy of Slavery Has Survived: A Mechanism through Labor Market Institutions and Human Capital," SocArXiv snpg2, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N11 - Economic History - - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations - - - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:nbr:nberwo:16494. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.