Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:54:43.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technological Change and Labor's Relative Share: The Mechanization of U.S. Cotton Production*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Marshall A. Martin  and
Joseph Havlicek Jr.
Marshall A. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
Joseph Havlicek Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, Virginia , Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Prior to World War II, labor's share in the U.S. manufacturing and agricultural sectors was relatively constant. Keynes called this “a bit of a miracle.” Several studies have shown that labor's share in the U.S. manufacturing sector has increased in the post-war period. The opposite appears to have been the case for U.S. agriculture. Two studies indicate that labor's relative share in the U.S. agricultural sector has declined in the post-war period.

There has been a substantial substitution of capital for labor in both the manufacturing and agricultural sectors in the post-war period. The secular increase in the wage-rental ratio has encouraged substitution of capital for labor. However, while this argument alone might explain the observed decline in labor's share in the agricultural sector, it does not explain what has occurred in the manufacturing sector. Moreover, this argument excludes another important characteristic of both sectors in the post-war period: technological change.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , December 1977 , pp. 137 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1977

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.)

Footnotes

*

Journal Paper No. 6885, Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station. The authors are indebted to Robert L. Thompson, Jerry A. Sharpies, James K. Binkley, and anonymous Journal reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

[1[ Allen, R. G. D. Mathematical Analysis for Economists, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[2[ Blakley, Leo V. “Quantitative Relationships in the Cotton Economy with Implications for Economic Policy,” Technical Bulletin T-95, Oklahoma State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1962.Google Scholar
[3[ Day, Richard H. “The Economics of Technological Change and the Demise of the Sharecropper,” American Economic Review, Volume 57, 1967, pp. 427–449.Google Scholar
[4[ Ferguson, C. E. and Moroney, John R.. “The Sources of Change in Labor's Relative Share: A Neoclassical Analysis,” Southern Economic Journal, Volume 35, 1969, pp. 308–322.Google Scholar
[5[ Hayami, Yujiro and Ruttan, Vernon W.. Agricultural Development, An International Perspective, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.Google Scholar
[6[ Hicks, John R. The Theory of Wages, London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd., Second Edition, 1963.Google Scholar
[7[ Johnson, Harry. The Two Sector Model of General Equilibrium, Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1971.Google Scholar
[8[ Kaneda, Hiromitsu. “Regional Patterns of Technical Change in U.S. Agriculture, 1950-1963,” Journal of Farm Economics, Volume 49, 1967, pp. 199–212.Google Scholar
[9[ Keynes, John M. “Relative Movements of Real Wages and Output,” Economic Journal, Volume 49,1939, pp. 34–65.Google Scholar
[10[ Kravis, Irving B. “Relative Income Shares in Fact and Theory,” American Economic Review, Volume 49, 1959, pp. 917–949.Google Scholar
[11[ Lianos, Theodore P. “The Relative Share of Labor in United States Agriculture, 1949-1968,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 53, 1971, pp. 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12[ Maier, Frank H. “An Economic Analysis of Adoption of the Mechanical Cotton Picker,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1969.Google Scholar
[13[ Martin, Marshall A. “The Income Distribution Impacts of the Adoption of Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton in the United States,” M.S. thesis, Purdue University, 1972.Google Scholar
[14[ Ruttan, Vernon W. and Stout, Thomas T.. “Regional Differences in Factor Shares in American Agriculture: 1925-1957,” Journal of Farm Economics, Volume 42, 1960, pp. 52–68.Google Scholar
[15[ Tyrchniewicz, Edward W. and Schuh, G. E.. “Econometric Analysis of the Agricultural Labor Market,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 51,1969, pp. 770–787.Google Scholar
[16[ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, Washington, D.C., various issues.Google Scholar
[17[ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farm Labor, Washington, D.C., various issues.Google Scholar
[18[ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Statistics on Cotton and Related Data 1930-1967, Bulletin No. 417, Washington, D.C., 1968.Google Scholar
[19[ Wallace, T. D. and Hoover, Dale M.. “Income Effects of Innovation: The Case of Labor in Agriculture,” Journal of Farm Economics, Volume 48, 1966, pp. 325–336.Google Scholar