Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:37:38.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time in the Paddies: A Comparison of Rice Production in the Southeastern United States and Lower Burma in the Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Peter Coclanis  and
John Komlos
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Question Of the relative efficiency of agricultural production within the institutional framework of slavery flared in the 1970s. Fogel and Engerman (1971, 1977) found antebellum Southern agriculture to have been considerably more productive than previously thought. Although this aspect of their finding became generally accepted, the controversy focused on just how efficient slave production actually was compared to Northern agriculture (David and Temin, 1974; David et al., 1976; Schaefer and Schmitz, 1979; Wright, 1979).

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Fall 1987 , pp. 343 - 354
Copyright
copyright © Social Science History Association 1987 

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

Adas, M. ((1974) The Burma Delta: Economic Development and Social Change on an Asian Rice Frontier, 1852-1941. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Andrus, J. R. (1947) Burmese Economic Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, R., Herdt, R., and Rose, B. (1985) The Rice Economy of Asia. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Cheng, S. (1968) The Rice Industry of Burma, 1852-1940. Kuala Lumpur and Singapore: University of Malaya Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, J. M. [ed.] (1978) Life and Labor on Argyle Island: Letters and Documents of a Savannah River Rice Plantation. Savannah: Beehive Press.Google Scholar
Coclanis, P. A. (1984) “Economy and society in the Early Modern South: Charleston and the evolution of the South Carolina low country.” Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University.Google Scholar
Cole, A. H. (1927) “The American rice-growing industry: A study of comparative advantage.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 41: 595–643.Google Scholar
David, P. and Temin, P. (1974) “Slavery: The Progressive Institution?” Journal of Economic History 34: 739–783.Google Scholar
David, P. and Temin, P. (1979) “Explaining the relative efficiency of slave agriculture in the Antebellum South: Comment.” American Economic Review 69: 213–218.Google Scholar
David, P., et al. (1976) Reckoning with Slavery: A Critical Study in the Quantitative History of American Negro Slavery. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fogel, R. W., and Engerman, S. L. (1971) “The relative efficiency of slavery: A comparison of northern and southern agriculture in 1860.” Explorations in Economic History 8: 353–367.Google Scholar
Fogel, R. W., and Engerman, S. L. (1974) Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fogel, R. W., and Engerman, S. L. (1977) “Explaining the relative efficiency of slave agriculture in the antebellum South.” American Economic Review 67: 275–296.Google Scholar
Fogel, R. W., and Engerman, S. L. (1980) “Explaining the relative efficiency of slave agriculture in the antebellum South: Reply.” American Economic Review 70: 672–690.Google Scholar
Furnivall, J. S. (1957) An Introduction to the Political Economy of Burma. 3d ed. Rangoon: Peoples’ Literature Committee and House.Google Scholar
Gray, L. C. (1958) History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860. 2 vols. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
Grist, D. H. (1959) Rice. 3rd ed. London: Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar
Joyner, C. (1984) Down by the Riverside: A South Carolina Slave Community. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Mulhall, M. G. (1892) The Dictionary of Statistics. London: George Routledge and Sons.Google Scholar
Nuttonson, M. Y. (1965) Rice Culture and Rice-Climate Relationships with Special Reference to the United States Rice Areas and their Latitudinal and Thermal Analogues in Other Countries. Washington, DC: American Institute of Crop Ecology.Google Scholar
Primack, M. L. (1962) “Farm Formed Capital in American Agriculture 1850-1910.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Schaefer, D. F., and Schmitz, M. D. (1979) “The relative efficiency of slave agriculture: A comment.” American Economic Review 69: 208–212.Google Scholar
Smith, J. F. (1985) Slavery and Rice Culture in Low Country Georgia 1750-1860. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
South Carolina (1842) Journal of the Senate of the State of South Carolina ... 1842. Columbia: Pemberton.Google Scholar
Swan, D. E. (1975) The Structure and Profitability of the Antebellum Rice Industry 1859. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Tun, Wai U. (1961) Economic Development of Burma from 1800 till 1940. Rangoon: Department of Economics, University of Rangoon.Google Scholar
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1902), Twelfth Census of the United States, Vol. VI: Agriculture, pt. II: Crops and Irrigation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of the Census (1883) Tenth Census of the United States, Vol. III: Productions of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Wall, E. G. (1903) The British Empire Year Book 1903. London: Edward Stanford.Google Scholar
Wickizer, V. D., and Bennett, M. K. (1940) The Rice Economy of Monsoon Asia. Stanford: Food Research Institute, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Whitten, D. (1980) “American rice cultivation, 1680–1980: A tercentenary critique.” Southern Studies 21: 5–26.Google Scholar
Wright, G. (1979) “The efficiency of slavery: Another interpretation.” American Economic Review 69: 219–226.Google Scholar