The late nineteenth century is often described as an era of innovation in managerial practice, including accounting. However, despite rich case studies of individual firms, we have little quantitative knowledge of average practices. This paper uses errors and omissions in balance statements to estimate the prevalence of double-entry bookkeeping and depreciation at Massachusetts corporations between 1875–1895. In 1875, 62 percent of firms balanced their returns, but by 1895 this number exceeded 96 percent. The proportion considering depreciation increased from 18 to 24 percent over the period. Firms using these techniques survived longer on average.

We provide decadal estimates of GDP per capita for the Russian Empire from the 1690s to the 1880s, making it possible for the first time to compare the economic performance of one of the world’s largest economies with other countries. Significant Russian economic growth before the 1760s resulted in catching-up on northwest Europe, but this was followed by a period of negative growth between the 1760s and 1800s and stagnation from the 1800s to the 1880s, leaving late-nineteenth century Russia further behind the West than at the beginning of the eighteenth century.

I investigate the effects of trade on labor coercion under the dual-coercive institutions of slavery and state coercion. Employing novel data from Egypt, I document that the cotton boom in 1861–1865 increased both imported slaveholdings of the rural middle class and state coercion of local workers by the elite. As state coercion reduced wage employment, it reinforced the demand for slaves among the rural middle class. While the abolition of slavery in 1877 increased wages, it did not affect state coercion or wage employment. I discuss the political effects of the abolition as a potential explanation for these findings.

“The barbarism of the [U.S.] South, while destroying itself, [appeared] in the providence of God to be working out the regeneration of Egypt.”

North American Review 98, no. 203 (1864, p. 483), quoted in Earle (1926)