¹ Crisp, Olga, Studies in the Russian Economy before 1914 (London, 1976), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Simms, James Y., “The Crisis in Russian Agriculture at the End of the Nineteenth Century: A Different View,” Slavic Review, 36 (Oct. 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Bell, John D., “The Agrarian Movement in Bulgaria, 1899–1918” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Univ., 1970), pp. 28, 36.Google Scholar

⁴ Berend, Ivan T. and Ranki, Gyorgy, Economic Development in East Central Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries (New York, 1974), p. 51.Google Scholar

⁵ Vuco, Nikola, Privredna istorija naroda FNR J (Economic history of the peoples of Yugoslavia) (Belgrade, 1948), pp. 220–22.Google Scholar

⁶ Stavrianos, L[eften] S., The Balkans, 1815–1914 (New York, 1963), pp. 79, 82Google Scholar; Tomasevich, Jozo, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia (Stanford, 1955), p. 186Google Scholar.

⁷ Milward, Alan S. and Saul, S.B., The Development of the Economies of Continental Europe, 1850–1914 (London, 1977), p. 461.Google Scholar

⁸ Bushkoff, Leonard, “Marxism, Communism and the Revolutionary Tradition in the Balkans, 1878–1924,” East European Quarterly, 1 (Jan. 1968), 377.Google Scholar

⁹ Rod socijalistiikog parlamenta na Timoku (Work of the socialist parliament on the Timok) (Bel grade, 1914), pp. 14–45Google Scholar; Bjeliè, Lazar, “O pecalbarima” (On the migrant workers), Bbrba, 5 (1914), knj. 8 no. 13, p. 30Google Scholar. But see section III of this article, below.

¹⁰ This estimate is calculated in Srpski centralni komitet, Srbija u imovnom pogledu pre za vreme posle svetskog rata, 1914–1918) (Serbia in its property condition before, during, and after the World War, 1914–1918) (Geneva, 1918), pp. 61–65.Google Scholar

¹¹ In this analysis certain revenue items which yielded 12 million dinars in 1911 have been excluded. They are composed to the extent of 47 percent by judicial and similar fees, and 25 percent by interest received; 17 percent was designated “sundry receipts.”

¹² For a breakdown of expenditures see Lampe, John R., “Financial Structure and the Economic Development of Serbia, 1878–1912,” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Wisconsin, 1971), p. 185Google Scholar. The formal trading currency in 1862 was the carsijski gros (Ottoman piastre), which exchanged at 122.5 to the pound sterling in neighboring Bosnia (Public Record Office, London [PRO] FO 78 1681, draft no. 2 of 6 Feb. 1862). It was converted at 5:1 in 1879 to a nominal gold currency, the dinar, whose formal parity was that of the franc.

¹³ Bairoch, Paul, “Europe's GNP: 1800–1975,” Journal of European Economic History, 5 (Summer 1976), 283.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Table 1.

¹⁵ Avramovit, Mihailo, Naie seljaiko gazdinstvo (Our peasant farming) (Belgrade, 1928)Google Scholar. The survey is dated in Ekonomski institut Srbije, N R, Proizvodne snage N R Srbije (The productive forces of Serbia) (Belgrade, 1953), p. 120Google Scholar.

¹⁶ , Avramovie, Nase seljacko gazdinstvo, p. 35Google Scholar; Palairet, Michael, “Merchant Enterprise and the Development of the Plum Based Trades in Serbia, 1847–1911,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 30 (Nov. 1977), 589–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ , Avramovie, Nase seljacko gazdinstvo, p. 35.Google Scholar

¹⁸ This calculation, is set out in detail in Palairet, Michael, “The Influence of Commerce on the Changing Structure of Serbia's Peasant Economy, 1860–1912” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Edinburgh, 1976), pp. 42–44, 52.Google Scholar

¹⁹ , Palairet, “Merchant Enterprise,” pp. 588, 591:Google Scholar

²⁰ Drzavopis Srbije (State record of Serbia), 1 (1864)Google Scholar, price table, and Statiscki godiinjak kr. Srbije, 12 (1907-1908), p. 374Google Scholar, for Smederevo grain prices; , Lampe, “Financial Structure,” p. 187Google Scholar, for 1908 agio on the dinar (averaged for the year); Mitchell, Brian R. and Deane, Phyllis, Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1962), p. 489Google Scholar, for British wheat prices 1862, 1863, and 1908. For 1862 exchange conversion see n. 12(1 tovar of 100 oka = 127.8 kg).

²¹ For sources see Table 5.

²² porezu, Zakon o (The law on personal tax), Zbornik zakona i uredba izdani u knjaiestvu Srbiji, 17 (1864), 278–84Google Scholar. Also see Vuco's, Nikolaobservations on the apportionment of this tax in his Poloiaj seljastva, I (Condition of the peasantry, I) (Belgrade, 1955), pp. 3–4Google Scholar. Evidence that the system actually worked in the way described may be seen from a French foreign ministry document listing the apportionment of direct tax liabilities on the taxpayers of Belgrade for the first half of 1883. The 6,275 taxpayers were divided into 40 income/wealth bands with liabilities ranging from zero to 151.60 dinars. If the total of these liabilities is summed, an assessment of 102,579 dinars is obtained, or 16.35 dinars per taxpayer. Converted, this is equal to 5.9 thalers for a full year, or substantially the 6 thalers required under the 1864 law, and no more than the liability of the meanest rural opStina. Correspondence commercial, Belgrade, tome 6, f.263, dispatch of 22 Nov. 1883.

³³ porezu, Zakon o neposrednom (Law on direct personal tax), Zbornik zakona i uredaba u Kralje-vini Srbiji, 40 (1884), 286–321.Google Scholar

²⁴ ZavrSni raiun driav. rashoda iprihoda… za 1897 god. (Closed account of state expenditures and receipts… for 1897), pp. 2–3.

²⁵ Ministarstvo finansija, Pregled primanja i izdavanja glavne driavne blagajne od 1869 do 1896 go-dine (Review of the receipts and expenditures of the main state treasury from 1869 to 1896) (Belgrade, 1898), p. 103.Google Scholar

²⁶ Report of Guillaume, 4 Oct. 1889, in , Belgium, Recueil consulate, 68 (1889), p. 260.Google Scholar

²⁷ The ambiguities of this question were also a problem for contemporaries. “The peasants of Serbia [are] represented as a non-consuming element, whereas in my belief they form the chief consumers of British cotton yarns which the women spend the winter weaving into cotton cloth.” PRO, FO 105 96, no. 6, cons. 10 Sept. 1892. Plan's view, admittedly on a slightly earlier period, is that Western imports, though readily available in cities, made little headway in the country. D[esmond] Platt, C. M., “Further Objections to an 'Imperialism of Free Trade, 1830-60,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 26 (Feb. 1973), 79–84.Google Scholar

²⁸ Mirkovic, Mijo, “The Land Question in Yugoslavia,” Slavonic Review, 14 (1935-1936), 400–01.Google Scholar

²⁹ centralni, Srpskikomitet, Srbija, p. 65.Google Scholar

³⁰ See, for example, the articles by Shanin, Teodor and Hobsbawm, Eric used to introduce the Journal of Peasant Studies, 1 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ , Tomasevich, Peasants, p. 48.Google Scholar

³² Dragnich, Alex N., Serbia, Nikola Pasic and Yugoslavia (New Brunswick, 1974), pp. 12Google Scholar, 17–19; Jankovic, Dragoslav, O politilkim strankama u Srbiji XIX veka (On the political parties in Serbia in the 19th century) (Belgrade, 1951), p. 230, ffGoogle Scholar.

³³ , Proizvodnesnage, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar

³⁴ Kostii, Cvetko, Seljaci industriski radnici (Peasant industrial workers) (Belgrade, 1955), p. 133.Google Scholar

³⁵ , Lampe, “Financial Structure,” p. 145.Google Scholar

³⁶ PRO, FO 105 47, no. 19, comm. 8 Oct. 1884; FO 105 53, dispatch of 30 May 1885.

³⁷ , Dragnich, Serbia, pp. 33–35.Google Scholar

³⁸ PRO, FO 105 79, no. 47, comm.; FO 105 86, no. 6, comm. 7 Jan. 1890.

³⁹ , Lampe, “Financial Structure,” p. 146.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ PRO, FO 105 86, no. 74, comm. 17 July 1890.

⁴¹ PRO, FO 105 93, no. 32, comm. 29 Mar. 1891.

⁴² PRO, FO 105 95, no. 72, 5 Sept. 1892, ff. 294–95.

⁴³ PRO, FO 105 83, no. 90, 16 June 1890, ff. 436–37.

⁴⁴ PRO, FO 105 93, no. 74, comm. 8 Oct. 1891.

⁴⁵ PRO, FO 105 90, no. 146,6 Nov. 1891, ff.251–52; FO 105 92, no. 32,10 Mar. 1892, ff. 131–32.

⁴⁶ PRO, FO 105 95, no. 72, 5 Sept. 1892, ff. 294–98; FO 105 100, no. 46,2 July 1893, ff. 163–64.

⁴⁷ PRO, FO 105 109, no. 40,30 May 1895, ff. 178–80.

⁴⁸ PRO, FO 105 146, unnumbered “Summary of a speech ”

⁴⁹ PRO, FO 105 154, no. 3a, comm. 11 Aug. 1904.

⁵⁰ Milivoje, M. Savie, Nasa industrija i zanati, I (Our industry and crafts, I) (Sarajevo, 1922), pp. 284–86Google Scholar; Samouprava (Belgrade), 3 (28 Nov. 1905).

⁵¹ See Spomenica Beogradske trgovaike omladine, 1880–1930 (Memorials of the Belgrade Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1880–1930) (Belgrade, 1931), p. 105 ff.Google Scholar; Zivancevic, Mihailo M., Nase za-natstvo i zanatlijskipokret (Our crafts and the craftsmen's movement) (Belgrade, 1938), pp. 41–90Google Scholar.

⁵² Izvestaji podneseni ministru narodne privrede o radu na unapredjenju domace privrede u 1907 go-dini (Reports submitted to the Minister of the National Economy on the work towards the improvement of the domestic economy in 1907), lzveitaj odeljenja za trgovinu radinost i saobracaj (Report of the department for trade, manufacturing, and transport) (Belgrade, 1908), p. 29.Google Scholar

⁵³ Lampe, John R., “Varieties of Unsuccessful Industrialization: The Balkan States before 1914,” this Journal, 35 (March 1975), 61, 66–67.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ , Bairoch, “Europe's GNP,” p. 283.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Mitchell, Brian R., European Historical Statistics, 1750–1970 (London, 1975), pp. 717CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 720, 724, 726 (divided by 1910 populations given on pp. 19, 21, 26).

⁵⁶ Bell, John D., “Alexander Stamboliski and the Theory and Practice of Agrarianism in Bulgaria,” Bulgaria Past and Present (Columbus, 1976), p. 79.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Berov, Ljuben, Ikonomilesko razvitie na B'lgarija prez vekovete (Economic development of Bulgaria through the centuries) (Sofia, 1974), p. 96.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Iaranoff, Athanase, La Bulgarie economique (Lausanne, 1919), p. 94.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ , Crisp, “The Pattern of Industrialization in Russia, 1700–1914,” in her Studies in the Russian Economy before 1914, p. 28.Google Scholar