Pseudoerasmus

How would one reconcile the fact that the CAMPOP estimates imply that lab prod growth in industry increased a lot more during IR than conventional estimates suggest, yet its share of workers is constant (or declining if incl women) over the same period?

Broadberry et al push back slightly on the Crafts Harley view; but CH is a residual argument (only big sectors like textiles get measured directly) so aggregate prod growth minus big sector prod growth = very little left; that is probably wrong but can’t be measured directly yet

What isn't often appreciated is there are very limited productivity measures before the 20th C, and all those that exist are subject to price effects, index problems, and more limited data than many people realise whatever anyone tells you. This is far from a settled issue.

Not appreciated by whom? People who don't read the actual papers. The margins of error are massive enough in all these estimates that any apparently contradictory set of estimates can be reconciled, superficially.

Just in the Broadberry et al. the estimates of agricultural productivity: derived from yield/acre for various crops from small samples x estimates of land use (% arable etc.) ÷ by estimates agricultural labour population. The margin of error is massive!

I think index number problems are the least of the problems.

This is not even to mention the Wrigley-Allen method of demand-side calculation of agricultural labour productivity, derived from estimates of population not producing food & assumed elasticity of food demand derived from contemporary developing countries.

And no one, to this day, has addressed the Grantham critique that estimates of the agricultural labour force assume all seasonal workers were fully engaged in agriculture even though they might have spent 40 weeks of the year doing something outside agriculture.

What made it possible for the agricultural labor force to start to decrease already in the late 1500:s?

agricultural productivity growth

if you include female labour, the agricultural labour force in 1381 and ca 1520 was probably lower -- around 55-60%.

I'm no economic historian, but that sounds like a very low share compared to numbers I've seen from other Euro countries. Has English agri labor productivity been much higher than continental Europe for very long, or am I just uneducated?

Amazing how by 1700 agriculture was no longer the majority - certainly a unique case in Europe, except perhaps for the Low Countries (who'd make an interesting comparison!).

and this actually overstates agric share because it does not include women; Broadberry et al include women & the agric share figures for 1381 & 1522 are ~55% (alas no pretty chart) which is amazingly low

Is the relatively static period between about 1700 and 1800 related to the rise of Mercantilism?

it’s hilarious so many people focus on the secondary instead of the shockingly impressive agricultural sector

I know I'm making a novice blunder, but the ag seems static through that period as well, at least in terms of employment. I'm guessing output grew significantly though.