Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T20:51:37.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Productivity of a Commune: The Shakers, 1850–1880

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Metin M. Coşgel  and
John E. Murray
Metin M. Coşgel
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, U-63, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-1063.
John E. Murray
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, 4110 University Hall, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606-3390.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Focusing on a religious commune known as the Shakers and utilizing the information recorded in the enumeration schedules of the U.S. manufacturing and agriculture censuses, this article estimates the productivities of Shaker enterprises and compares them with those of other producers randomly selected from the same data source. The results provide support to the contention that communes need not always suffer from reduced productivity. Shaker farms and shops generally performed just as productively as their neighbors; when differences did exist between their productivities, there are good reasons to attribute them to factors other than the organizational form.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 494 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, Edward D.The People Called Shakers. New York: Dover Publications, 1963.Google Scholar
Andrews, Edward D., and Andrews, Faith. Work and Worship: The Economic Order of the Shakers. Greenwich, CT: New York Graphic Society, 1974.Google Scholar
Atack, Jeremy. Estimation of Economies of Scale in Nineteenth Century United States Manufacturing. New York: Garland Publishing, 1985.Google Scholar
Atack, Jeremy, and Bateman, Fred. To Their Own Soil: Agriculture in the Antebellum North. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, William Sims. “Shaker Demographics 1840–1900: An Example of the Use of U. S. Census Enumeration Schedules.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 21, no. 4 (1982): 352–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkai, Haim. Growth Patterns of the Kibbutz Economy. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
Bateman, Fred, and Weiss, Thomas. A Deplorable Scarcity: The Failure of Industrialization in the Slave Economy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Berry, Thomas S.Western Prices Before 1861. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943.Google Scholar
Bonin, John P., and Putterman, Louis. Economics of Cooperation and the Labor-Managed Economy. New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1986.Google Scholar
Bonin, John P., Jones, Derek C., and Petterman, Louis. “Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Producer Cooperatives: Will the Twain Ever Meet?” Journal of Economic Literature 31, no. 3 (1993): 1290–1320.Google Scholar
Brewer, Priscilla J.Shaker Communities, Shaker Lives. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1986.Google Scholar
Coşgel, Metin M. “Religious Culture and Economic Performance: Agricultural Productivity of the Amish, 1850–1880.” this JOURNAL 53, no. 2 (1993): 319–31.Google Scholar
Coşgel, Metin M. “Market Integration and Agricultural Efficiency of Communal Amana.” Communal Societies 14, (1994): 36–48.Google Scholar
Coşgel, Metin M., Miceli, Thomas J., and Murray, John E.. “Organization and Distributional Equality in a Network of Communes: The Shakers.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56, no. 2 (1997): 129–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, Richard T.The Labor Movement in America. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1886.Google ScholarPubMed
Gooden, Rosemary D. “A Preliminary Examination of the Shaker Attitudes toward Work.” Communal Societies 3, (1983): 1–15.Google Scholar
Homer, Sidney, and Sylla, Richard. A History of Interest Rates (1st edn., 1963) 3rd edn., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Kandel, Eugene, and Lazear, Edward P., “Peer Pressure and Partnerships.” Journal of Political Economy 100, no. 4 (1992): 801–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Keohane, and Ostrom, Elinor, eds. Local Commons and Global Interdependence: Heterogeneity and Cooperation in Two Domains. London: Sage Publications, 1995.Google Scholar
Murray, John E. “Human Capital in Religious Communes: Literacy and Selection among Nineteenth Century Shakers.” Explorations in Economic History 32, no. 2 (1995): 217–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, John E., and Coşgel, Metin M.. “ Between God and Market: Integration of Economy and Spirit in Shaker Communal Dairying, 1830–1875. ” Working Paper, Department of Economics, The University of Connecticut, 1997.Google Scholar
Murray, John E., and Coşgel, Metin M.. “Market, Religion, and Culture in Shaker Swine Production, 1788–1880.” Agricultural History, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Nordhoff, Charles. The Communistic Societies of the United States from Personal Visit and Observation. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1875.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putterman, Louis. “Incentives and the Kibbutz: Toward an Economics of Communal Work Motivation.” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie [Journal of Economics\ 43, no. 2 (1983): 157–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putterman, Louis. “Effort, Productivity, and Incentives in a 1970s Chinese People's Commune.” Journal of Comparative Economics 14, no. 1 (1990): 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehl, Richard. “Plan and Reality in a Medieval Monastic Economy: The Cictercians.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 9, (1972): 83–114.Google Scholar
Ronk, S. E. “Prices of Farm Products in New York State, 1841 to 1935.” Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 643, Ithaca, NY, 03 1936.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. “Labor Allocation in a Cooperative Enterprise.” Review of Economic Studies 33, no. 4 (1966): 361–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Stephen J.The Shaker Experience in America: A History of the United Society of Believers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Enumeration Schedules of the Population, Agriculture and Manufacturing Censuses, Microfilm. 1850–1880.Google Scholar
Weitzman, Martin, and Kruse, Douglas. “Profit Sharing and Productivity.” In Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence, edited by Blinder, Alan S., 95–141. Washington, DC: Brookings, 1990.Google Scholar