¹ Shannon, Fred A., “A Post Mortem on the Labor-Safety-Valve Theory,” Agricultural History, XIX (Jan. 1945), 31.Google Scholar

² Some economic historians had misgivings. See, for instance, Herbert Heaton, “Other Wests than Ours,” The Tasks of Economic History, Papers presented at the Sixth Annual Meetings of the Economic History Association, Baltimore, Maryland, Sept. 13–14, 1946, p. 61. Since this was written our attention has been drawn to a recent article by Simler, Norman J., “The Safety-Valve Doctrine Re-Evaluated,” Agricultural History, XXXII (Oct. 1958), 250–7.Google Scholar

³ The Early Writings of Frederick Jackson Turner, edited by Mood, Fulmer (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1938)Google Scholar; Turner, F. J., The Frontier in American History (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1937)Google Scholar; Turner, F. J., The Significance of Sections in American History (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1932)Google Scholar; Turner, F. J., Rise of the New West, 1818–1829 (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1906)Google Scholar; Turner, F. J., The United States, 1830–1850, The Nation and its Sections (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1935).Google Scholar Since the present paper is not a study in doctrine, we do not quote Turner's works extensively to substantiate the claim that the version of the labor-safety-valve doctrine which we present is rooted in his works.

⁴ The notion of a “slab” of resources does not entail any functional concept of a region but is merely meant to connote a given quantity of resources distributed in space and added to the resource base of the American economy by the historical accidents of frontier advance.

⁵ Turner did not reject the view that the development of the American economy was shaped in part by its membership in a growing Adantic community. Indeed he stressed the frontier because it helped him to explain why American historical development differed from that of other industrial nations of the Atlantic community.

⁶ Such broad production possibilities were partly created by contemporaneous changes in the world economy. Higgins, Benjamin H., Economic Development: Principles, Problems and Policies, (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1959), p. 189Google Scholar distinguishes between geographic and economic frontiers. The former is an area where increasing returns occur without changes in technology, demands or population size. The latter is an area where increasing returns occur after a change in one of these factors. It is clear from Turner's writings that he was not thinking solely in terms of a moving geographic frontier but was aware of the effects of changes in the factors Benjamin H. Higgins mentions. It is difficult to judge which of the factors was of greatest historical importance. Some economic historians are, at the moment, investigating the role of international demands in the development of frontier-type economies. An interesting example is Neumark, S. Daniel, The South African Frontier (Stanford: Food Research Institute, Stanford University, 1957).Google Scholar The reviews of the book suggest that the problem is a complex one to handle. See Hoselitz, Bert F., Current Economic Comment, 20 (May 1958), 68–70Google Scholar and Hancock, W. K., “Trek,” Economic History Review, X (April 1958), 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ B. H. Higgins, Economic Development: Principles, Problems and Policies, ch. vi, p. 192 writes: “In one respect, however, the American case is absolutely unique. For the westward movement does not tell the whole story of frontier development in the United States, there have been movements north and south from the center as well…. No other country can match the remarkable speed of urban growdi throughout its entire area, in wave after successive wave, that has occurred in the United States. In Canada urban development has been confined to a narrow strip within a few hundred miles of the United States border; and great cities are found only in Ontario and Quebec. Australian frontier development built no cities away from the coast. In Europe, the major cities have grown up side by side over several centuries; there has been no progressive opening up of new frontiers, followed by urban growth, such as occurred in this country. The story of Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston and Los Angeles is a purely American-style story. It is surely not unreasonable to suppose that this continuous opening up of new areas and the concomitant urban growth has been a major factor, both in providing investment opportunities and in keeping alive the “log cabin to riches” folklore and the enterprising spirit that goes with it.”

⁸ American economic development under sequential growth can be contrasted to Russian economic development before tie Plan Era. Generally speaking Russian frontier advance did not bring in areas of broad production possibilities. Baykov, Alexander, “Economic Development of Russia,” Economic History Review, VII (Dec. 1954), 137–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar assigns greater importance to the nature of Russian resources than to institutional factors in explaining Russia's fall into relative backwardness in the nineteenth century.

⁹ Census groupings of states are used for convenience and are only an approximation to a “slab.” Charts such as these have previously been employed by R. A. Easterlin.

¹⁰ These are not the only areas which “grew in” to the economy. Subsections of the broad census regions in the East did so at an earlier period historically.

¹¹ Baldwin, Robert, “Patterns of Development in Newly Settled Regions,” Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, XXIV (May 1956), 161–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar has suggested that two regions equally rich in resources and initially specializing in the production of a staple for export may develop quite differently if there are important differences in the staples' production function. He has in mind differences between plantation cotton growing with economies of scale and wheat production in which there are few such economies. His argument seems to depend on the assumption of extremely low factor mobility, especially low labor mobility. Whether this constitutes a better explanation of why the West South Central region's urban population and manufacturing activity (see Table i) failed to grow in relative importance requires further investigation.

¹² Economic growth within a settled society has many similarities to that within a frontier society. This has been pointed out by Ashton, T. S., An Economic History of England, The 18th Century (London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1955) p. 232,Google Scholar who refers to an interesting article by Mackintosh, W. A., “Some Aspects of a Pioneer Economy,” The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 2 (Nov. 1936), 457–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But we believe that there are still important differences economically between what Hoselitz has termed “expansionist” growth and “intrinsic” growth, (Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 20 (Nov. 1955), 416–31)Google Scholar, particularly when the former takes place in a climate of broad production possibilities.

¹³ In assessing the influence of sequential growth process on labor we believe that we are keeping to the essential spirit of Turner's views on the social elasticity provided by the frontier process.

¹⁴ Hobsbawm, E. J., “Economic Fluctuations and some Social Movements since 1800,” Economic History Review, V (Aug. 1952), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Harold A. Innis has studied the development of basic staples in the Canadian economy in order to throw light on general economic growth in that economy. Duesenberry, J. S., “Some Aspects of the Theory of Economic Development” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, III (Dec. 1950), 63–102Google Scholar, describes the income generation processs involved. Under special conditions both the new regions and the old regions benefit from the growth of the new regions.

¹⁶ It is interesting to note that Douglass C. North when criticising W. W. Rostow's position on the “Take-off” period of American economic development suggested as an hypothesis—one the reverse of Rostow's—that “the opening up and development of new areas capable of producing primary goods in demand in existing markets induced the growth of industrialization.” Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, XXVI (Jan. 1958), 74.Google Scholar This hypothesis clearly depends on the implicit assumption that broad production possibilities exist in the new areas. See also North, Douglass C., “International Capital Flows and the Development of the American West,” The Journal Of Economic History, XVI (Dec. 1956), 494.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Bruton, H. J., A Survey of Recent Contributions to the Theory of Economic Growth, (Cambridge: Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1956)Google Scholar mimeographed.

¹⁸ See in particular Frankel, M., “Obsolescence and Technological Change in a Maturing Economy,” American Economic Review, XLV (June 1955), 296–319Google Scholar; Gordon, D. F., “Obsolescence and Technological Change,” American Economic Review, XLVI (Sept. 1956), 646–652Google Scholar; and M. Frankel's reply to D. F. Gordon's note which follows in the same issue.

¹⁹ This is not to underrate the importance of international capital flows in the development of the American economy.

²⁰ We assume that it is not so much the actual level of income or its rate of increase which are critical in evoking unionization or other types of workers' response to their economic situation as the size of the deviation between the wages workers earn and those to which they aspire (and similarly the deviation between the rates of growth which they actually enjoy and those to which they aspire).

²¹ Turner believed that his frontier process had largely ceased to work by the decade of the 1880's. As Turner grew older, 1890 as a turning point in American history gradually assumed less importance in his thought.

²² Strike data only go back until 1880. See Florence Peterson, Strides in the United States, 1880–1936, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 651, 1938. The 1872 strike involved 100,000 workers which was an exceptionally large number for American labor disturbances prior to the 1880's. This fact suggests that labor history was relatively peaceful. Similarly there are few data on unions before 1881. Preliminary estimates show, however, that the percentage unionized in the 1880's was very small, probably much less than 1 per cent.

²³ Hobsbawm, E. J., Economic History Review, V (Aug. 1952), 15.Google Scholar

²⁴ Estimates of national product, as the reader will be aware, are not as accurate as could be desired even for the 20th century. The problem of deflating the national product in current prices to obtain national product in constant prices is particularly thorny, especially when the time period under consideration is a long one. Kuznets is hesitant about inferring retardation from the downward drift of the moving average rates. See Kuznets, Simon, “Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, V (Oct. 1956), 35 ff.Google ScholarAbramovitz, Moses, “Resource and Output Trends in the United States since 1870,” American Economic Review, XLVI (March 1956), 5–23Google Scholar has similar reservations. In his view the downward drift of national product figures is not large enough and persistent enough to establish retardation in the growth rate. But until better data and improved methods are available, we cannot entirely disregard what the best estimates have to tell us!

²⁵ F. J. Turner, The Frontier in American History, 271.

²⁶ However compare Goodrich, Carter and Davison, Sol, “The Wage-earner in the Westward movement,” Political Science Quarterly, LI (March 1936), 116.Google Scholar

²⁷ Paul Wallace Gates, Frontier Landlords and Pioneer Tenants (Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Reproduced from the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Issue of June 1945, by permission. 1945), 2.

²⁸ Mack, Ruth, “Trends in American Consumption and the Aspiration to Consume,” American Economic Review, XLVI (March 1956), 64.Google Scholar This argument is also made by Petersen, William, “Is America still the Land of Opportunity?” Commentary, XVI (Nov. 1953), 481.Google Scholar

²⁹ Marshall, Alfred, Economics of Industry (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1932), 392.Google Scholar Since Marshall wrote this, the debate on Turner's safety-valve doctrine has shown that agricultural opportunities were not very great.

³⁰ Ginger, Ray, “Occupation Mobility and American Life,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, VI (May 1954), 234–44.Google Scholar

³¹ Handlin, Oscar, “A Note On Social Mobility and the Recruitment of Enterpreneurs in the United States,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, VIII (Winter Supplement, 1954)Google Scholar, Papers Presented to the Third Working Conference on Social Mobility and Social Stratification, Amsterdam, December 16–18, 1954, page 3.

³² Chinoy, Ely, “Social Mobility Trends in the U.S.,” American Sociological Review, XX (April 1955), 180–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPetersen, William, Commentary, XVI (Nov. 1953).Google Scholar

³³ Chinoy, Ely, American Sociological Review, XX (April 1955), 190.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ginger, Ray, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, VI (May 1954), 235.Google Scholar

³⁵ See especially Shannon, Fred A., “A Post Mortem on the Labor-Safety-Valve Theory,” Agricultural History, XIX (Jan. 1945), 31–37.Google Scholar

³⁶ The quotation is-from Mack, Ruth, “Trends in American Consumption and the Aspiration to Consume,” American Economic Review, XLVI (March 1956), 64.Google Scholar She also stresses the importance of immigration, the supply of effort, and economic expansion.

³⁷ Despite a growing literature, the economic data available have not yet been fully exploited on the subject of mobility. There are however some difficult conceptual problems involved. See Miller, S. M., “The Concept of Mobility,” Social Problems, III (Oct. 1955), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ This paper does not deal with the effect of sequential growth on the economic development of die Atlantic community, although it was probably very important.

³⁹ Schafer, Joseph, “Concerning the Frontier as Safety Valve,” Political Science Quarterly, LII (Sept. 1937), 420.Google Scholar See also Kane, Murray, “Some Considerations on the Safety Valve Doctrine,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXIII (Sept. 1936), 188.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Perlman, Selig, A Theory of the Labor Movement (New York: A. M. Kelley, 1949), p. 239.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See especially Rogoff, Natalie, Recent Trends in Occupational Mobility (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1953).Google ScholarPetersen, William, Commentary, XVI (Nov. 1953).Google Scholar

⁴² Marshall, Alfred, Memorials of Alfred Marshall (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1925), 227–55.Google Scholar

⁴³ It seems plausible to believe that the facts should show that the behavior with respect to migration of those employed and those not employed should be quite different during a depression period.

⁴⁴ There is circularity in this proposition as Ruth Mack points out, but it still seems correct.

⁴⁵ Perlman, Selig, History of Trade Unionism in the United States (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929), p. 152.Google Scholar