Scholars still disagree about why unions in different countries are radical or conservative. The differences between unions in France and America can be traced to the different requirements for success in strikes before 1914. In France radical unions could win large-scale strikes by involving state officials. In contrast, American unions, facing a more hostile government, avoided state intervention and learned to win strikes by providing financial support to small groups of critically positioned workers. The divergence between American and French union strategy reflected the greater success of American capitalists in winning state support against labor.

This study draws upon a large sample of probated estates from early Connecticut and Massachusetts. It finds that total probate wealth per adult male grew slowly over the colonial period and its growth was confined entirely to real estate. The value of consumption goods per estate fell during the early eighteenth century which raises questions about the impact of economic growth on household life.

The efforts of some American colonials, who complained of monetary scarcity and advocated increased government involvement in supplying paper money, were valid attempts to improve economic welfare and facilitate transactions. The potential for improvement depended crucially on the fiscal and monetary policies of colonial governments. This approach to monetary scarcity is useful for explaining variation in the real supply of money across colonies and over time. The role of fiscal and monetary policies in determining the changing value of the continental, and the consequences for real currency supply during and after the Revolution, are examined in detail.

Recent research on the standard-of-living controversy has argued that a marked improvement in the economic well-being of British workers began shortly after 1815 and continued unabated until 1850. I test that new optimism by generating a synthetic annual “standard-of-living variable” for the period 1790 to 1850. The variable is based on estimating a relation between living standards and the consumption of some key commodities for 1855 to 1900 and then using that relation to “retrocast” living standards for 1790 to 1850. The results strongly suggest that the hypothesis of no or little improvement cannot be rejected.

In their day Arthur Young's tours of England, Ireland, and France represented a revolutionary approach to agricultural research. Here we avail of one part of the wealth of statistical data collected by Young—that on grain yields—to provide a comparative perspective on agricultural technique and progress in these countries around 1770 to 1850. We show that, ironically, Young's carefully assembled data do not always support some of his best-remembered generalizations.

An improvement on Mark Overton's method of computing crop yields from probate inventories is proposed. Harvesting costs are explicitly allowed for and a new procedure for eliminating cost-of-production valuations is offered. Applying these methods to a sample of Oxfordshire probate inventories generates higher yields than Overton's investigation of East Anglian inventories. The finding lends support to the view that most of the yield increase in early modern England occurred in the seventeenth century rather than the eighteenth.

Evidence from banks in one southern city casts doubt upon the view that the quasi-monopolistic structure of the national banking system financed American industrialization by depriving southern and western regions of relatively inexpensive money. An increased number of national banks were lending much more locally in the 1880s and 1890s in Knoxville, Tennessee, than they were in the 1860s and 1870s. The national banking expansion and associated expansion in the number of state-chartered banks appear to have resulted from a local boom rather than from removal of barriers to entry.