Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T14:52:49.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Cotton Harvester in Retrospect: Labor Displacement or Replacement?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Willis Peterson  and
Yoav Kislev
Willis Peterson
Affiliation:
Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics at University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 55108
Yoav Kislev
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics at Hebrew University, Rehovot, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The prevailing view of new mechanical technology is that it has, in large part, pushed labor out of agriculture. An alternative hypothesis is that labor has been pulled out of agriculture by higher wages in nonfarm occupations. The mechanical cotton harvester is used to test the two hypotheses. Estimation of a simultaneous-equation model of the labor market for cotton pickers reveals 79 percent of reduction in hand picking of cotton was due to increased nonfarm wages—the pull effect; the remaining 21 percent is attributed to the decreased cost of machine harvesting—the push effect.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 199 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1986

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

1 Holt, James S., “Labor Market Policies and Institutions in an Industrializing Agriculture” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64 (12. 1982), pp. 999–1006. Quote from p. 999 (emphasis added).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Day, Richard H., “The Economics of Technological Change and the Demise of the Sharecropper,” American Economic Review, 57 (06 1967), pp. 427–49.Google Scholar

3 Other studies in which agricultural labor is implicitly or explicitly assumed to be in large part displaced by machines include: Barnett, Paul et al. , “Labor's Dwindling Harvest,” California Institute for Rural Studies, University of California, (Davis, 1978);Google ScholarMarshall, Ray, Rural Workers in Rural Labor Markets, (Salt Lake City, 1974);Google ScholarPadfield, Harland and Martin, William E., Farmers, Workers and Machines, (Tucson, 1965);Google ScholarSchmitz, Andrew and Seckler, David, “Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of the Tomato Harvester,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52 (11 1970), pp. 569–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Binswanger, Hans P., “Measured Biases of Technical Change: The United States,” in Induced Innnovation, Technology, Institutions and Development, Binswanger, Hans P., Ruttan, Vernon W. et al. , eds. (Baltimore, 1978).Google Scholar

5 Kislev, Yoav and Peterson, Willis, “Induced Innovations and Farm Mechanization,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63 (08 1981), pp. 562–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Day, “The Economics of Technological Change…”, p. 441.Google Scholar

7 USDA, Economic Research Service, Statistical Bulletin No. 535, “Statistics on Cotton and Related Data, 1920–1973” (Washington, D.C., 1974), p. 218.Google Scholar

8 Prices paid by farmers to owners of mechanical cotton harvesters for harvesting services.Google Scholar

9 Watkins, J. L., King Cotton: A Historical and Statistical Review, 1790–1908 (New York, 1908).Google Scholar

10 For a more detailed description of the early development of the mechanical cotton harvester and of the various types of mechines see Smith, H. P. et al. ,, The Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 452 (College Station, 1932);Google ScholarStreet, James H., The New Revolution in the Cotton Economy (Chapel Hill, 1957);Google ScholarFite, Gilbert C., “Recent Progress in the Mechanization of Cotton Production in the United States,” Agricultural History, 24 (01 1950), pp. 190–207. The following discussion on the development of the mechanical cotton harvester draws heavily on Smith and Street.Google Scholar

11 The use of custom rates as a measure of the cost of machine harvesting is discussed in Section IV.Google Scholar

12 According to the published data, the United States achieved a 100 percent mechanical harvest before the state of Mississippi. No doubt this is due to rounding. Mississippi was one of the last states to be 100 percent mechanized in the harvest of cotton.Google Scholar

13 Musoke, Moses S. and Olmstead, Alan L., “The Rise of the Cotton Industry in California: A Comparative Perspective,” this Journal, 42 (06 1982), pp. 385–412;Google ScholarMaier, Frank H., “An Economic Analysis of Adoption of the Mechanical Cotton Picker,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1969).Google Scholar

14 Pedersen, Harald A. and Rapier, Arthur F., “The Cotton Plantation in Transition,” Mississippi State College Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 508 (Jan 1954), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

15 Street, James H., “The ‘Labor Vacuum’ and Cotton Mechanization,” Journal of Farm Economics, 35 (08 1953), pp. 381–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Reynoldson, L. A., et al., “The Combined Harvest-Thresher in the Great Plains,” USDA Technical Bulletin No. 70 (Feb. 1928), p. 35; H. J. Friesen, et al., “1952–53 Custom Rates for Farm Operations in Central Kansas,” Kansas Agricultural Economic Report No. 59 (1953), p. 14.Google Scholar

17 The 12 states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Texas and Oklahoma were omitted because of the prevalence of strippers in these states.Google Scholar

18 Street, James H., “Cotton Mechanization and Economic Development,” American Economic Review, 45 (09 1955), pp. 566–83.Google Scholar

19 Hagen, C. R., “Twenty-Five Years of Cotton Picker Development,” Agricultural Engineering 32 (11 1951), pp. 593–99.Google Scholar

20 Fair, Ray C., “The Estimation of Simultaneous Equation Models With Lagged Endogenous Variables and First Order Serially Correlated Errors,” Econometrica, 38 (05 1970), pp. 507–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Kislev, Yoav and Peterson, Willis, “Prices, Technology, and Farm Size,” Journal of Political Economy, 90 (11 1982), pp. 578–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar