In the literature on India's economic history, there has been a long debate on the influence of railroad development on the welfare of Indian farmers. Some economists and historians have argued that rail development increased welfare by providing new markets for agricultural products and permitting rising rural incomes. Others have argued that railroads had detrimental effects on welfare because, by encouraging cultivation of non-food crops (like cotton) and export crops (like wheat), they reduced the domestic food supply. Those who have stressed the adverse effects of railroads have seen these effects as a consequence of imperialist economic relations between Britain and India. In this view, the combination of British land revenue policy and rail construction transformed the rural economy. The need to pay the land revenue in cash forced fanners to grow some crop for sale; the railroads permitted non-local (or even non-Indian) demand to influence the prices at which different crops could be sold.

Understanding the political impact of economic growth requires knowledge of the timing of structural changes within a national economy. The decline of agriculture's share in the national economy and variations in regional economic structures are of particular importance. The corrected figures on farm employment discussed in Section II indicate that between 1861 and 1907 the share of agriculture in national employment in Germany declined considerably more rapidly than appears in the census results; regional shares also tended to diverge from each other and from the average throughout the period. New international competition and the thrust of urban and industrial development required regional readjustments within German agriculture. They also made it progressively more difficult for agricultural regions to compete for resources and markets without outside help. In the absence of internally generated pressure from commerce and industry, the elite in the eastern regions of Prussia opposed outside help whenever it threatened the local economic structure. The result was to increase the dependence of the region's labor for jobs on relatively declining regional industry. The response of the landowners to these changes in turn strongly influenced national political groupings. The whole experience laid a foundation for the reaction in German political life to the social discontents and economic miseries of the First World War and decades following.

The Second Bank of the United States, a public bank chartered by the Congress in the early part of 1816, was the pre-eminent banking institution of its period. Its historical prominence, however, is derived primarily from the emphasis that has been placed on its role in the Bank War—a major political controversy of the nineteenth century. Certainly, the legacy of that struggle, that is, its impact on American political and economic institutions, transcends the importance of the operations undertaken by the BUS in the more normal years that preceded the Bank War. Nevertheless, because of the extent of its influence on the American economy during its tenure, the economic character of BUS operations during its earlier years also deserves the attention of the economic historian. By the close of the 1820's, its operations touched virtually every aspect of the nation's economic life—ranging from its role as the largest single issuer of bank notes to the development of financial arrangements that played an instrumental role in the conduct of interregional and international trade. In addition, the Second Bank carried out under the provisions of its charter a variety of quasi-governmental functions— including the imposition of a uniform national currency. In the course of its emergence in the 1820's, then, the Second Bank forged a set of institutional arrangements that had an important impact on the nation's economic activity throughout the remaining years of its tenure.

Perhaps because the world had never before or since seen such a large proportion of national income devoted to accumulating overseas assets, the processes of British accumulation in the period from 1870 to 1913 have long been given disproportionate attention in the study of modern British economic history. Calculations based on C. H. Feinstein's latest studies of U.K. income, expenditures and product suggest that roughly half of the nation's annual savings took the form of net foreign lending during these years, savings averaging slightly less than ten percent of net national income. Undoubtedly, interest in these matters has been further augmented by the intriguing problem of the United Kingdom's loss of world leadership in both industrial output and per capita income during these same years.

“Mr. Jay Gould doth at this hour bestride the narrow Wall Street like a colossus. He is indeed the Autolycus of the western world. No pickpocket, either ancient or modern, has been more successful.” Such florid mixing of metaphors, even in the late Victorian era of railroad chaos, was rare for the financial editor of the staid London Railway Times. He had just read the plan by which the arch “robber baron” proposed to reorganize the wobbly, poorly integrated and ill-financed Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway that Gould had sought to build out of at least two dozen railroads between Kansas City and Detroit. The editor's indignation a few weeks earlier is not recorded, but it was doubtless monumental, for on May 28, 1884 Gould had successfully sent his lieutenants into a United States District Court in St. Louis with a brazen request for appointment of receivers for the Wabash, under a concept of receivership which broke nearly every important precept of this old branch of equity law.

The story of the post-bellum reorganization of southern agriculture has been told many times, and the main features of the transition from slave to free labor are well known. Throughout the cotton economy the initial experiments with wage labor gave way to share-rent tenancy; later fixed-rent tenancy became common as well. That these changes resulted from an adjustment process in which both landlords and laborers increasingly recognized different contractual arrangements as mutually beneficial seems clearly established. The existing literature is deficient, however, by failing to account for the continuing diversity of contractual arrangements in southern agriculture. By 1880 the organizational variety that would persist for more than a half century could be clearly discerned: some farms were cultivated by their owners, often with the assistance of wives and children; others by hired workers receiving a fixed wage; some by tenants paying a stipulated amount of products (standing rent) or money (cash rent) for the use of the land; still others by tenants paying a definite share of the crops as rent. The “mix” of these arrangements varied widely from place to place, even within a given state, and changes occurred over time. How can one explain the proportions in which these various arrangements were employed and account for differences over time and space? In particular, what determined the proportion of the farms rented? Of the rented farms, what determined the proportion rented under share contracts? Did the farmer's race influence the form of the rental contract he obtained? This article attempts to answer these questions with reference to the Georgia cotton belt in the late nineteenth century.

If the Town of Birmingham or Sheffield etc. have reason to apprehend that Manufactories are set up from time to time in any foreign Countries, thro' the means or by the assistance of English workmen from hence, who not finding the advantages such as they expected etc. may be desirous of returning—and if any set of Traders chuse to enter into an agreement to encourage the return of such men by promising them Employment the same as before and to contribute to the expence of their Journey home in such Terms as they shall Judge best, the King's Minister at the respective Courts shall have orders to make it a particular object to enquire about such Manufactories and Men, to make them acquainted of such an Agreement, and to give them every Assistance and Encouragement possible for their Return…. Lord Dartmouth to Matthew Boulton, n.d., Assay Office Library, Birmingham

The economic impact of American public land policies in the nineteenth century can be assessed either in terms of their efficiency or equity effects, that is, their impact on national growth rates or on income distribution. Robert W. Fogel and Jack Rutner recently explored the growth question and discovered that federal land policy had a positive but minimal effect on economic growth in the mid-nineteenth century. This suggests that the equity question is perhaps more important than the efficiency issue, a point made several years earlier by Douglass C. North.

Almost without exception interpretations of the remarkable growth of the German economy before the First World War stress the role of the German banking system, in general, and that of the universal or Kreditbank, in particular. The most subtle and penetrating view of this question is that developed in Alexander Gerschenkron's essays, “Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective” and “Prerequisites of Modern Industrialization.” According to this view, “backward” countries which experience successful industrializations do so by making institutional “substitutions” which enable them to compensate for or even to turn to their advantage their initial deficiencies of productive factors. The institution which is “substituted” in Germany to perform this function is the Kreditbank. This interpretation places special emphasis on the growth-inducing character of these banks, but is also open to the possibility that an industrialization led by such institutions might have entailed certain costs. In fact, Professor Gerschenkron explicitly invites help in assessing these costs in commenting: “it would be a fruitful undertaking in research to explore and perhaps to measure and compare the difficulties, the strains, and the cost which were involved in the various processes of substitution ….” Thanks to the work of Ekkehard Eistert, who has constructed a reliable set of statistics on the German banking system in this era, it is now possible to attempt such a “fruitful undertaking.” Making use of these data, an econometric model has been constructed to test the hypothesis that the manner in which the Kreditbanken allocated credit contributed to the growth of German non-agricultural output. Our findings strongly suggest that the credit allocation policy of these banks was inhibiting rather than stimulating the German economy in the period for which data are available and that previous interpretations are in need of serious revision. It appears that, in Gerschenkron's terms, the “cost” of bank-led industrialization was far greater than anyone has previously suggested.

Some of the factors which influenced the international diffusion of the Gramme dynamo, the Edison dynamo, the revolvingfield alternator and the Alexanderson alternator will be examined in this paper. The selection of a few specific power generators as diffusant tracers represents a methodological compromise within a technological continuum bounded by a single invention such as a new armature winding and a complete power system such as Edison's. Each of the selected machines possessed a distinctive morphology so that the adaptations or mutations which may occur when the machine is introduced into a new national environment can be easily recognized.

Recent work by Reid, Higgs, Sutch and Ransom and others is an indication that increasing scholarly attention is being addressed to the post-bellum southern economy. The object of this note is to raise a word of caution with respect to work done on the South in which the latter is taken to mean a more or less homogeneous section of the nation. In particular I would suggest that (a) substantial and important variations exist within this region, differences which may even be obscured when the South is divided along the usual Bureau of the Census sub-regional borders, and (b) a disaggregation of the South into more functional units than that of the Census Bureau may provide insights into the relative poverty experienced in the region, particularly of the black population in this area in the years before 1910.