Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:33:43.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Commons Sense: Common Property Rights, Efficiency, and Institutional Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Gregory Clark
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8578.

Extract

Common property rights were widespread in English agriculture for at least 600 years. Since privatizing common fields allegedly produced huge profits in the eighteenth century, common land owners seemingly squandered 15 percent of potential income for generations. Ingenious explanations have been produced for this market failure. This article argues for a simple, brutal resolution. Common fields survived because enclosure was generally unprofitable before 1750, when changing relative prices made private property rights marginally more efficient. Then people responded quickly to modest profits. The rich gains from enclosure existed only in the imaginings of wild-eyed eighteenth century agrarian reformers.

Type
Articles
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

Allen, Robert C. “The Efficiency and Distributional Consequences of Eighteenth Century Enclosures.” Economic Journal 92, no. 374 (1982): 937–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Robert C. “The Price of Freehold Land and the Interest Rate in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” Economic History Review 41, no. 1 (1988): 3350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Robert C. Enclosure and the Yeoman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
W, Beastall T.. A North Country Estate: The Lumleys and Saundersons as Landowners, 1600–1900. Chichester: Phillimore, 1975.Google Scholar
V, Beckett J.. “Landownership and Estate Management.” In The Agrarian History of England and Wales, Vol. 6, 1750–1850, by Mingay, G. E., 545640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Blum, Jerome. The End of the Old Order in Rural Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, Jerome. “English Parliamentary Enclosure.” Journal of Modern History, 103 (1981): 477504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D, Chambers J.. “Enclosure and Labor Supply in the Industrial Revolution.” Economic History Review 5, no. 3 (1953): 319–43.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. D., and Mingay, G. E.. The Agricultural Revolution, 1750–1880. London: Batsford, 1966.Google Scholar
Clark, Gregory. “The Cost of Capital and Medieval Agricultural Technique.” Explorations in Economic History, 25, no. 3 (1988): 265–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Gregory. “The Growth of Private Property in Land in England.” University of California, Davis, 1995.Google Scholar
Clark, Gregory. “Land Hunger: Land as a Commodity and Land as a Status Good, 1560–1910.” Explorations in Economic History 35, no. 1 (1998).Google Scholar
Clark, Gregory. “The Charity Commission as a Source in Economic History.” Forthcoming, Research in Economic History 18 (1998).Google Scholar
Evans, Eric. The Contentious Tithe: The Tithe Problem and English Agriculture, 1750–1850. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976.Google Scholar
Grantham, George. “The Persistence of Open-field Farming in Nineteenth Century France.” this JOURNAL. 40, no. 3 (1980): 515–31.Google Scholar
Grigg, David. The Agricultural Revolution in South Lincoinshire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Philip. “Institutions and Agriculture in Old Regime France.” Politics and Society 16 (1988): 241–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A, Holderness B.. “Agriculture, 1770–1860.” In Studies in Capital Formation in the United Kingdom, 1750–1920, edited by Feinstein, Charles and Pollard, Sidney, 935. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Humphries, Jane. “Enclosure, Common Rights, and Women: The Proletarianization of Families in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries.” this JOURNAL 50, no. 1 (1990): 1742.Google Scholar
Kain, Roger J. P. An Atlas and Index of the Tithe Files of Mid-Nineteenth-Century England and Wales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Kerridge, Eric. “Agriculture, 1500–1793.” In Victoria History of the Counties of England, A History of Wiltshire. Vol. 4, 4364. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
Kerridge, Eric. The Common Fields of England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
N, McCloskey D.. “The Enclosure of Open Fields: Preface to a Study of Its Impact on the Efficiency of English Agriculture in the Eighteenth Century.” this JOURNAL 32, no. 1 (1972): 1535.Google Scholar
N, McCloskey D.. “Persistence of English Common Fields.” In European Peasants and Their Markets. Essays in Agrarian Economic History, edited by Parker, W. N. and Jones, E. L., 123160. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
N, McCloskey D.. “The Economics of Enclosure: A Market Analysis.” In European Peasants and Their Markets. Essays in Agrarian Economic History, edited by Parker, W. N. and Jones, E. L., 123160. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
N, McCloskey D.. “The Open Fields of England: Rent, Risk, and the Rate of Interest, 1300–1815.” In Markets in History, edited by Galenson, David, 549. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
M, Martin J.. “The Parliamentary Enclosure Movement and Rural Society in Warwick- shire.” Agricultural History Review 15 (1967): 1939.Google Scholar
E, Mingay G.. English Landed Society in the Eighteenth Century. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. R., and Deane, P.. Abstract of British Historical Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Parkinson, R. A General View of the Agriculture of the County of Rutland. London, 1808.Google Scholar
Parkinson, R. A General View of the Agriculture of the County of Huntingdon. London, 1811.Google Scholar
Purdum, Jack. “Investment in Land Enclosures: A Study of Five Nottinghamshire Manors, 1783–1807.” Ph. D. diss., The Ohio State University, 1972.Google Scholar
Purdum, Jack. “Profitability and the Timing of Parliamentary Enclosure.” Explorations in Economic History 15, no. 3 (1978): 313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E, Tate W.. The English Village Community and the Enclosure Movements. London: Victor Gollancz, 1967.Google Scholar
E, Tate W.. A Domesday of English Enclosure Acts and Awards. Edited by Turner, Michael. The Library, University of Reading, 1978.Google Scholar
Thompson, F. M. L. English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.Google Scholar
Turner, Michael. “Cost, Finance, and Parliamentary Enclosure.” Economic History Review 34, no. 2 (1981): 236–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Michael. Enclosures in Britain: 1750–1830. London: Macmillan, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Kingdom. House of Commons. “Reports of the Charity Commissioners, Vol. 6.” Sessional Papers, 1822. Vol. 9.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. House of Commons. “Reports of the Charity Commissioners, Vol. 10.” Sessional Papers, 1824. Vol. 13.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. House of Commons. “Reports of the Charity Commissioners, Vol. 12.” Sessional Papers, 1825. Vol. 10.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. House of Commons. “1851 Census Great Britain, Numbers of Inhabitants, Vols. 1 and 2.” Sessional Papers, 1852–53. Vols. 85 and 86.Google Scholar
A, Yelling J.. Common Field and Enclosure in England, 1450–1850. London: Macmillan, 1977.Google Scholar
Young, Arthur. The Farmer's Tour Through the East of England. Vol. 1. London, 1771.Google Scholar
Young, Arthur. General Report on Enclosures. London, 1808.Google Scholar
Young, Arthur. General View of the Agriculture of Oxfordshire. London, 1813.Google Scholar