Not that it is a mechanism answer, but the econ answer is that 'enclosure' resulted in efficiency gains simply by aligning incentives better. Suddenly, if the lost productivity from walking all the way to your field was too high, you could *and would want to* fix it.
-
-
-
Thanks. I understand that in the abstract, but I'm looking for concrete examples to substantiate it. What kinds of things were wrong with fields that were not getting fixed? How did enclosure help them get fixed? Is there specific evidence that this actually happened?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I was just about to turn on the Pseudoerasmus signal myself - he had an epic thread (or even several) on this topic a while ago.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
Redistribution of land was practiced in many cultures, its main purpose was fairness. Economically, it hindered investment which included hedging, drainage, clearing (of boulders, stumps) and levelling.
-
From the 13th century large land owners started to enclose their fields. The practice of enclosure was spreading with falling percent rates. See "The Cost of Capital and Medieval Agricultural Technique" by Gregory Clark.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Adam Smith writes about reasons for 'inclosure' in Wealth Of Nations Book 1, Chapter 11, Part 1: here is the first portion. Of course worth supplementing this with more recent and systematic scholarship. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm …pic.twitter.com/agHVSC40sD
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.