Economic History Association
Agricultural Chutes and Ladders: New Estimates of Sharecroppers and "True Tenants" in the
South, 1900-1920
Author(s): Lee J. Alston and Kyle D. Kauffman
Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 464-475
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2951048 .
Accessed: 09/05/2011 13:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Cambridge University Press and Economic History Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Economic History.
http://www.jstor.org
AgriculturalChutesand Ladders:New Estimates
of Sharecroppersand "TrueTenants"in the
South, 1900-1920
LEE J. ALSTON AND KYLE D. KAUFFMAN
In the latenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,the increasein tenancy,particularly
in the South, alarmedmany social commentatorsand later was an issue taken up by a
numberof historians.'Indeedthe issue of rising tenancyrates was a majorplank in the
platformof the Populistmovement.However,before one can make interpretationsof the
welfare of agriculturalworkersas a resultof this rise in tenancyone needs to look more
closely at the individualrungsof the agriculturalladder.2
rungon the southernagricultural
This articlesets out to repairthe damagedsharecropper
ladder.Withoutadditionalinformationregardingthis rung,it is impossibleto get a complete pictureof the movementup anddown the southernagriculturalladder.In the census
years 1900 and 1910, the Census Bureauincorrectlyclassified sharecroppersas tenants,
placingtoo manyworkerson thatmoreaffluentrungof the ladder.The intentof this article
in orderto providea moreaccuratecount of the
is to estimatethe numberof sharecroppers
numberof "truetenants"in theseyears.Withthis more completedepictionof the agriculturalladder,movementsup and down the ladderbetweenthe years 1900 and 1960 can be
more accuratelydiscussed,and therebya basis is providedfor scholarsto accuratelyaddress the truewelfareimplicationsof these movements.
Much of the misunderstandingof how the postbellum southernagriculturalsystem
of how the census defined a "tenant,"specifically
workedis based on misinterpretations
how it defined a "sharetenant."Beginningin 1920, the U.S. Census changedits "share
Fromthenon sharetenantsandsharecroppers
tenant"categoryto exclude"sharecroppers."
(or more commonlyreferredto as just "croppers")were, in the eyes of the census, fundamentallydifferenttypesof farmoperators.Althougha cropperfarmeda certainplot and
received a share of the harvestfrom that plot as income, he often differed from other
tenants in importantrespects,especiallywhen he workedon a plantation.3Therehe was
usuallyclosely supervised;he madenone of the majorfarmingdecisions;and he generally
suppliedno inputbesideslaborservices.In most southernstateshe hadno legal possession
TheJournalof EconomicHistory,Vol. 57, No. 2 (June 1997). C The EconomicHistoryAssociation. All rightsreserved.ISSN 0022-0507.
Lee J. Alstonis Professorof Economicsat theUniversityof Illinois,Urbana,IL61801, andResearch
Associate, NationalBureauof EconomicResearch,Cambridge,MA 02138. Kyle D. Kauffmanis
AssistantProfessorof Economicsat WellesleyCollege,Wellesley,MA 02181.
This work has benefittedfromuseful discussionswith and commentsfromLou Ferleger,Joseph
Ferrie,MaryGregson,WayneGrove,RobertHiggs, LynneKiesling,Naomi Lamoreaux,LarryNeal,
MortonSchapiro,SusanSkeath,AndreThompson,two anonymousreferees,as well as participantsof
workshopsat the Universityof Illinoisandat WellesleyCollege.JenniferDonathanprovidedexcellent
researchassistance.SupportfromtheMildredMcAfeeHortonResearchFundof WellesleyCollege is
gratefullyacknowledged.Partof the researchfor this articlewas conductedwhile Lee Alston was a
VisitingProfessorat the Universityof Colorado.
'Relyingon pre-1920censusdata,economistsandhistorianshadbeenled to believethatagricultural
tenancy in the South increaseddramaticallyduringthe early twentiethcentury(Turner,"Graphic
Summary";Black and Allen, "Growth";Tindall,Emergence;and Woodward,Origins).
ladderis thetermgenerallyusedto referto thehierarchyof thoseengagedin agriculture
2Agricultural
rangingfromwageworkers(atthebottom)to plantationowners(atthe top). By the agriculturalladder
we meanthe increasingoccupationalstatusas one would move froma wage workerto a cropper(in
the South)to a tenantand for some reachingownershipstatus.
3Alstonand Higgs, "ContractualMix";Shannon,FarmersLast Frontier;and Woodman,"PostCivil WarSouthernAgriculture."
464
AgriculturalChutesand Ladders
465
of the land except the right of daily access at the landlord'spleasure.4In every respect
excepthis customaryoccupancyof a fixed plot andhis receiptof income in the formof a
cropsharefromthatplot, he resembleda wage laborermorethana truetenant.5Thenotion
that cropperswere in fact not actually"tenants"in the morerestrictivesense of the term
was set out clearlyby the GeorgiaSupremeCourtin 1872 in Applingv. Odum:
Thereis anobviousdistinction
betweena cropper
anda tenant.Onehasa possessionof the
premises
exclusive
ofthelandlord,
theotherhasnot.Theonehastherightfora fixedtime,the
otherhasonlya rightto go onthelandto plant,work,andgatherthecrop.... Thecaseof the
cropper
is rather
a modeof payingwagesthana tenancy.
Thetitleto thecropsubjectto wages
is intheownerof theland.6
In the agricultural
censusesbetween 1920 and 1959, cropperswere countedseparately,
being definedas sharetenantsto whomthe landlordfurished workstock (or, from 1940
onward,tractorpower).This countingprocedureallows us to get an idea of the numberof
peopleinvolvedandhencethe seriousnessof misclassifyingcroppersas tenants.In factthe
1920censusreportsnearly18percentof southernfarmoperatorsas croppers.Whenbroken
downby race,over 36 percentof blackfarmoperatorswere croppers,whereasjust under
10 percentof whitefarmoperatorswereclassifiedas croppers.In additionthese enumerations showthata largeproportionof the tenantfarmsin the Southwere cropperplots (for
example,35 percentin 1920,38 percentin 1950).Amongblacktenants,theproportionwas
even higher(47 percentin 1920, 54 percentin 1950).7
Withthisbetter-defined
classificationof southernfarmworkers,historianscould, starting withthe 1920censusreturns,makemorepreciseinferencesregardinglocationson the
ladder.Forexample,hadthe censusof 1920continuedto misclassifycroppers
agricultural
as sharetenants,it wouldhavereported38 percentratherthan20 percentof the population
in the relativelymoreaffluentcategoryof sharetenant.
To permita moreaccurateassessmentof the growthanddeclineof tenantsandcroppers,
state estimatesof the numberof croppersin the South in 1900 and 1910 are produced.
Next, by deleting croppersfrom the census-definedtenants,a new series on the lower
boundof "truetenancy"is produced.Withthese new dataa betterpictureof the southern
agriculturalladdercan be painted.One of the most strikingfindingsis thatin the period
from 1900 to 1930 the groupof southernagriculturalworkersascendingthe agricultural
ladderat the greatestratecamefromthebottomrung,wageworkersmovingup to croppers.
THESOUTHERN
LADDER
AGRICULTURAL
Overthe postbellumperiod,agricultural
contractingevolvedintothreeprincipalcategories:wage, sharecrop,andtenant.The differentpositionsof laborhave been characterized
as representinga hierarchicalagriculturalladder.8As the nameimplies therewere several
"rungs,"up which an agriculturalworkercould ascend(or descend).With each succes4Magnum,
LegalStatus;U.S. Bureauof the Census,SixteenthCensus;and Woodman,"Post-Civil
WarSouthernAgriculture."
5As Woodman,New South,notes, in practiceand in the eyes of the law sharecroppers
and wage
workerswereforall intentsandpurposesthe same.In additionsee Jaynes,Branches,who sees sharecroppingas a formof putting-outlaborwhich is also consistentwith this interpretation.
6Quotedin Brooks(AgrarianRevolution,p. 67). This delineationbetweencropperandtenantwas
upheldby the Courtin severalsubsequentrulings.
7U.S. Bureauof the Census,U.S. CensusofAgriculture:Vol. 2, GeneralReport,Color,Race, and
Tenureof FarmOperators,table4.
8Forbackgroundon the agriculturalladdersee Atack, "Tenants"and "AgriculturalLadder";
Shlomowitz,"Origins";Whatley"Labor";andWright,Old South.
466
Alston and Kauffman
sively higherrungcamegreaterjob responsibility,increasedcontrolof workpace, and on
averagemorepay.9For example,Louis Ferlegerfoundthatin 1913 sharecropperincome
was $333, comparedto an income of $398 for sharetenantsand $478 for cash tenants.'"
ladderwas thatof wage worker.A wage workerwas
The lowest rungon the agricultural
generallya youngmanwho typicallyhadlittlehumanor physical capital.Because reward
(wages) was not linkedto effort,therewas no directincentivefor these laborersto perform
theirjobs well, unless carefullymonitored. Consequently,they usually workedthe land
closest to the main house for easiest supervision."
Next up on the ladderwas the sharecropper.This class of farmworkerexisted only in
the South.Cropperstoo hadlittlephysicalcapitalthoughgenerallymore work experience
than wage workers.Because of the greaterwork incentives associatedwith getting paid
with a proportionof the output,sharecropperswere supervisedless thanwage workers.
Once these laborersbeganto accumulatemore agriculturalknow-how,physical capital
(throughsavings),andthe trustof the landlord,they mightmove up the ladderto become
"truetenants."Tenancytook two basic forms.Sharetenantspaid theirrentto the landlord
in the formof a portionof the cropyield, leaving the landlordopen to moralhazardproblems, but less so thanwith croppers.For example,typicallya sharetenantreceivedtwothirds of the output.Under these conditionsthe tenantwould have an incentive to stop
workingwhile the valueof his marginalproductstill exceededhis opportunitycost because
he only receivedtwo-thirdsof the marginalproductof his labor.Two factorsmitigatedthe
stintingof labor:landlordsmonitoredlaborandcompetitionamongprospectivetenantsfor
next year's contractsincreasedlabor effort. Cash tenantsand standingrenterspaid the
landlorda fixed amountof cashor cropin orderto farma particularplot of landandconsequently received the full value of their marginalproduct.This arrangementreducedthe
moralhazardproblemforthe landlord;the only realmonitoringnecessarywas to safeguard
the long-runupkeepof the land.
The top rungsof the agriculturalladderconsistedof the owning classes, both the small
yeomanfarmersand,at the verytop, plantationowners.Afterhavingaccumulatedcapital
in the lower rungs, it became possible for some tenantsto buy their own plots of land.
Indeedby the end of the nineteenthcentury25 percentof black farmoperators(including
croppers)owned the land thatthey operated.'2
Though the movement for ex-slaves to croppersand tenantswas no doubt welfaredecriedthe rise of tenancyin the late nineteenthcentury.
enhancing,manycontemporaries
The most notablecritic was HenryGeorgewho maintainedthat tenancy,in general,was
bad andthatits increasewas subjugatingthe southernlaborer.'3However,when one fully
considersthe hierarchyof the tenancyladderone sees thata rise in tenancywould unambiguouslyhavebeen a positivedevelopmentfor those moving from lower rungs.With the
help of the new estimateson the numberof croppersin 1900 and 1910 developed here,
movementsup and down the southernagriculturalladdercan be assessed better.
ESTIMATING
SHARECROPPERS
The firsttaskin providingthis morecompleteaccountof southernagriculturalworkers
is to estimatethe numberof croppersfor the years 1900 and 1910. By assumingthat no
largestructuralchanges-for example,mechanization-occurredbetween 1900 and 1920,
Mix."
9Alstonand Higgs, "Contractual
Contracts,"p. 34.
'?Ferleger,"Sharecropping
"See the visual spacingof plots in Woofter,Landlord.
12Higgs, Competition.
'3George,Progress.
AgriculturalChutesand Ladders
467
one can estimatethe numberof croppersin 1900 and 1910 in each of the southernstates
basedon estimatingequationsusing countydatafrom 1920.14The estimatorused takesthe
formof a regressionequationin whichthe dependentvariableis croppersas a percentage
of all sharetenants,includingcroppers.The independentvariablesarethe percentageof all
blackfarmers,the percentageof mules,the percentageof all farmseitherless than 19 acres
or less than49 acres,the averageacreageof fanns,the valueof landperimprovedacreage,
the percentageof improvedacreagein cotton andthe numberof bales of cottonper improved acre (whereappropriate),the percentageof improvedacreagein tobacco(where
populationper squaremile, andthe percentageof the populationgreaterthan
appropriate),
10 yearsof age thatis illiterate.
These independentvariableswere chosen as predictorsof the numberof sharecroppers
in a particularregionbecausethese factorshave been foundby numerousscholarsto be
It is well knownthatblackswere
stronglyassociatedwith the existenceof sharecroppers.
Also, recentworkhas showna strongpositivecorrelation
sharecroppers.
disproportionately
betweencroppersandmuleuse in southemagriculturedue to the inherentprincipal-agent
To capturethe variationsin farmsize threevariablesareincluded:percentage
problem.15
of fannsunder19 acres,percentageof farmsbetween20 and49 acres,andaveragenumber
of acres per farm.Cropperplots tendedto be relativelysmallerthan sharetenantplots;
thereforean inverserelationbetweensize of farmandthe prevalenceof sharecroppersis
expected. The value of improvedacresprovidesa measureof how intensivelyan areais
fanned;the higherthe landvalue,themoreintensivelyit will be farmedand hence a landlord would want to hire more croppers.Next, the crop variables(percentageof acres in
cotton,yield peracre,andpercentageof acresof tobacco)shouldbe positively associated
withcroppers.Becausecropperswereassociatedwiththe laborintensivecashcrops,cotton
andtobacco,thereshouldbe a positivecorrelationbetweencottonandtobaccoacreageand
yields. The higherthe populationdensityin an area,the morevaluablethe land shouldbe
relativeto labor.As a resulta greaterintensityof farmingis expectedand(as withthe value
of improvedacresvariable)a positivesign forthis variableis predicted.Finally,a positive
relationshipbetweencroppersandthepercentageof the populationover 10 who are illiterate is expected;illiteracyis a proxy for humancapital.
The estimatedcoefficientsfrom each state equationare used in conjunctionwith the
values of the same independentvariablesin 1900 and 1910 to producefor each state,
estimatesof the percentageof sharetenantswho were croppersin those years,andhence
of the absolutenumbersof croppers,becausethe census enumeratedthe numberof share
tenantsin those years. The census enumeratedcroppersin 1920 in 16 states:Alabama,
Arkansas,Delaware,Florida,Georgia,Kentucky,Louisiana,Maryland,Mississippi,North
Carolina, Oklahoma,South Carolina,Tennessee,Texas, Virginia,and West Virginia.
Fifteenequationswereestimatedcombiningthe statesof DelawareandMarylandbecause
Delawarecontainsonly threecounties.A randomsampleof the largerof eitherone-fourth
of the countiesor 25 countiesin each statewas selected. The estimationprocedurewas
OLS and the specified functionalformwas linear.
The "fits"of the equations,as measuredby R2,rangedfroma high of 0.82 in Georgia
the fits in generalwere quitegood. An
Fortunately
to a low of 0.41 in Maryland/Delaware.
boomfollowingit impactedsouthernagricul"No doubtWorldWarI andthe sustainedagricultural
turallabormarkets.Becausetimes were good for laborand ownerswe would expectthatlaborascendedthe ladderandin usingthe 1920censusas ourbaseline,laborhadnot yet descendedthe ladder
ourestimatingequationmostlikely
pricesin July 1920.Consequently
followingthebustin agricultural
will resultin us overestimatingthe numberof tenantsin 1900 and 1910. This is good becausewe are
tryingto bias the case againstan increasein "truetenants."
"Note"and"WhyWasthe Mule."
"5KauffTman,
Alston and Kauffman
468
TABLEI
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CROPPERS
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
1900
1910
1920
24,233
18,223
454
1,715
42,087
23,317
20,406
1,522
18,961
9,748
2,845
25,168
28,597
27,287
6,781
3,315
35,997
27,719
352
2,694
64,160
26,869
27,536
1,569
55,493
16,725
7,167
30,677
36,499
61,029
8,476
2,698
47,897
47,665
208
4,291
97,497
29,450
31,309
1,459
86,859
39,939
8,926
43,789
38,078
68,381
13,715
1,628
1930
65,134
75,034
225
4,816
100,854
30,250
49,428
1,646
135,293
69,091
21,055
48,939
50,304
105,122
17,253
1,834
1940
41,370
47,666
225
3,407
60,934
23,533
39,631
1,644
125,483
60,300
4,952
33,474
41,490
39,821
16,238
1,123
1950
1959
24,811
28,576
73
1,662
41,194
16,391
15,927
1,107
74,617
57,457
1,915
29,478
28,039
14,863
10,030
625
8,582
7,792
50
249
10,412
7,197
4,238
611
22,339
26,000
566
10,775
13,141
3,344
5,515
226
Notes and Sources: The number of croppers in 1900 and 1910 were estimated as indicated in the text;
data, used in the estimating equation, on share tenants, share-cash tenants (1920 only), sharecroppers
(1920), black farners, farm operators,farms 3-10 acres, 10-19 acres, and 20-49 acres, improved acres,
average acreage per farm, value land per improved acre, cotton acreage, bales of cotton, and tobacco
acreage are contained in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census, Vol. 5, Agriculture, various
tables, TwelfthCensus, Vol. 5, Agriculture,various tables, and US. Census ofAgriculture: 1920, Vol.
6, pt. 2, county tables I and 4. Data, used in the estimatingequation, on population per square mile and
percentage of population greaterthan 10 years of age illiterateare contained in ibid., ThirteenthCensus,
Vol. 1, Population, and US. Census of Population: 1920, Vol. 1. The number of croppers in 1920
through 1959 contained in ibid., U.S. of Census ofAgriculture: 1959, Vol. 1, pts. 22-37, state table
3.
even more encouraging fact is that the fits were better in those states that also had relatively
larger numbers of croppers. In Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia the R2 exceeded
0.60.16 The coefficients of the structuralequations are presented in the Appendix.'7
Table 1 presents the estimates of the number of croppers by state for 1900 and 1910,
along with the enumerated number of croppers for the five censuses between 1920 and
1959.18Tables 2 and 3 show the census-defined percentage of tenancy for the census years
was detectedin some of the
"1Inthe estimationof the OLS regressionmodels,heteroskedasticity
models using the likelihoodratiotest, as mightbe expectedwith such cross-sectionaldatasets. The
In addition,an F-test was
estimatesgivenareproperlyweightedto accountfor the heteroskedasticity.
regressors
conductedon eachof theregressionsto verifythevalidityof includingall of the independent
was the F-statisticnot significantat the 5 percentlevel; that
and in only one (Maryland/Delaware)
particularF-statisticwas significantat the 10 percentlevel.
is muchroomforfurtherresearchin thisarea.Forinstance,a studyusingmanuscriptcensus
"7There
datato estimatecropperswouldprovidegreaterdegreesof freedomwhenestimatingregressionequations.
'8Oneway to test the validityof the 1900 and 1910 estimatesis to use the estimatingequations(in
the Appendix)to estimatethenumberof croppersin 1930, a yearthatthe censusactuallyenumerated
thenumberof croppers.Intuitivelythiswouldseemto be a goodtestof the estimates,however,because
highratesof farmforeclosuresin the twenbreakin the formof extraordinarily
therewas a structural
ties, the estimatesfor 1930 may be off. Inthe 1920s, earningsrelativeto expectedearningswerelow
This impliesthatsometenantswould fall downa rungon the ladder
(Alston,"FannForeclosures").
469
AgriculturalChutesand Ladders
TABLE2
CENSUS-DEFINEDTENANTSAS A PERCENTAGEOF ALL FARMOPERATORS
State
1900
1910
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
South
Non-South
57.7
45.4
50.3
26.5
59.9
32.8
58.0
33.6
62.4
41.4
43.8
61.1
40.6
50.0
30.7
21.8
47.0
25.5
60.2
50.0
41.9
26.7
65.6
33.9
55.3
29.5
66.1
42.3
54.8
63.0
41.1
52.6
26.5
20.5
49.6
25.1
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Nebraska
South Dakota
39.3
34.9
35.2
36.9
21.8
41.4
37.8
36.8
38.1
24.8
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
1920
57.9
51.3
39.3
25.3
66.6
33.4
57.1
28.9
66.1
43.5
51.0
64.5
41.1
53.3
25.6
16.2
49.6
26.7
1930
64.7
63.0
33.8
28.4
68.2
35.9
66.6
26.5
72.2
49.2
61.5
65.1
46.2
60.9
28.1
18.6
55.5
28.6
1940
1950
1959
58.8
53.3
32.6
25.2
60.1
33.1
59.4
26.1
66.2
44.4
54.4
56.1
40.3
48.9
26.9
22.7
48.2
29.6
41.4
37.6
17.0
12.3
42.8
22.5
39.6
18.6
51.6
38.3
31.4
45.3
29.2
30.4
17.1
10.3
34.1
19.8
27.5
23.6
12.4
5.5
24.1
16.1
24.1
15.3
31.6
30.4
18.9
30.8
19.2
20.6
14.4
6.4
22.3
17.9
43.1
47.6
44.9
52.8
53.0
34.6
38.2
29.9
38.9
30.4
33.5
35.0
24.9
34.7
26.1
SelectedMidwesternStates
42.7
41.7
40.4
42.9
34.9
43.1
47.3
42.4
47.1
44.6
Source:U.S. Bureauof the Census, U.S. CensusofAgriculture.1959, Vol 1, pts. 22-37, statetable
3, and ThirteenthCensus,Vol. 5, Agriculture,statetable30.
1900 to 1959 andestimatesof "truetenancy,"respectively.To determinethe sensitivityof
the estimatesof "truetenancy"to the estimatesof the numberof croppers,"truetenancy"
was estimatedunderthe assumptionthatthe estimatesof cropperscould be off by plus or
minus5 percent.In most statesthe effecton "truetenancy"is 1 percentor less. Theserange
estimatesarepresentedin Table4.
The data presentedenhanceour understandingof the growth of tenancy in the early
twentiethcentury.First,disaggregationto the state level (Table2) shows thattenancy,as
defined by the census, increasedconsistentlyfrom 1900 to 1930 in 7 of the 15 southern
as would some owners fall to the tenantrung.But, becausetherewere more tenantsthan owners,
underestimation
of croppersis to be expected.Despitethe bias the estimatesare in the ballpark.The
1930 censusenumerated
776,278 croppersin the 16 southernstatesandthe modelpredicted679,674;
so themodelunderestimated
thenumberof croppersby 12 percent,just as supposed.To test thatit was
a structural
break(the unusuallyhigh numberof farmforeclosuresduringthe late 1920s) thatcaused
croppersand
the modelto underestimnate
thenumberof croppersin 1930,thenumberof underestimated
the percentageof farmforeclosuresduringthe period 1926 to 1929 in each statewere correlatedand
showed a positive correlationof 0.42. As an additionaltest, a simpleOLS regressionwas runof the
The resultsshow
percentageof farmforeclosureson theamountof croppersthatwere underestimated.
that a 1 percent increasein farmforeclosuresin each state led to 13,257 additionalcroppers(the
variableis significantat 10 percentandthe R2is 0. 17). Referencesto the fann foreclosuredataare in
Alston, "FarmForeclosures."
Alston and Kauffman
470
TABLE3
"TRUETENANCY"- CENSUS-DEFINEDTENANTSMINUS CROPPERS
AS A PERCENTAGEOF ALL FARMOPERATORSMINUS CROPPERS
State
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1959
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
NorthCarolina
Oklahoma
SouthCarolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
South
52.6
39.2
47.9
23.3
50.6
25.4
49.0
31.3
58.9
38.7
74.4
53.6
31.9
45.5
27.8
19.0
38.9
53.9
42.5
39.9
22.5
55.9
26.3
42.0
27.1
57.6
38.2
53.0
55.3
30.8
44.4
22.9
18.2
40.9
48.2
38.7
38.0
18.9
51.3
25.2
44.2
26.7
50.2
33.7
48.6
54.0
30.7
44.6
19.7
14.6
38.9
52.7
46.4
32.2
22.0
47.5
26.9
51.9
23.6
50.9
32.5
57.0
49.4
32.4
50.3
20.0
16.7
41.5
49.8
40.1
30.8
20.8
44.4
26.3
44.9
23.1
40.7
29.0
53.1
42.0
28.3
43.5
19.5
21.9
36.8
33.6
26.0
16.2
9.6
27.8
16.2
30.7
16.0
31.2
23.0
30.5
30.7
19.5
27.1
11.2
9.6
24.2
21.7
16.7
11.5
5.0
15.9
11.9
19.6
13.2
18.4
19.4
18.4
19.8
11.8
19.4
9.3
5.9
16.1
Source: See Tables 1 and 2.
states. Based on our estimatesof "truetenancy"(Table3), the percentageof tenancydid
not increasein any of the southernstates."Truetenancy"relativeto census-definedtenancy
fell the most in those statesincreasingthe productionof laborintensivecrops of cotton or
increase,contractorshave an incentiveto negotiatecropper
tobacco.As laborrequirements
contractsinsteadof wage contractsin orderto reducelaborsupervisioncosts.19For example, between1900 and 1920 cottonacreageexpandedfrom240,678 to 2,732,962 in Oklahoma and from 6,960,367 to 11,522,537in Texas andtobaccoacreagein North Carolina
increasedfrom203,023 to 459,011. Overthe sameperiodthe numberof estimatedcroppers
increasedover 300 percentin Oklahoma,250 percentin Texas, and 400 percentin North
Carolina.
Secondly, the new estimatesof "truetenancy"do not changethe historicallyaccepted
positive associationbetweentenancyand the South but they do temperthe disparitybetween the South and non-South.The dramaticdecline in tenancy in the South and the
South'sconvergencewith the rest of the nationawaitedthe adoptionof mechanizedtechniques in cotton production.Mechanizedtechniquesmake it easier to measurelabor's
contributionto the productionprocess,therebyreducingsupervisioncosts andthe incentive
for tenant contracts.20
Mechanizationfurtherincreasedthe incentive to adoptwage contractsby increasingunemployment.21
Thirdly,comparingour estimatesof "truetenancy"in the southernstates with censusdefinedtenancyin certainMidwesternstatesin the earlytwentiethcenturycasts doubton
the hypothesisthattenancywas responsibleforthe low standardof living of a largeproportion of agricultural
workersin the South.Nearly one-halfof the southernstateshad levels
of "truetenancy"below those of Illinois,Iowa,Kansas,Nebraska,and SouthDakota.The
remainingdiscrepanciesbetween tenancyin certainsouthernstates, primarilythe states
19Alston,"TenureChoice";Alston and Higgs, "Contractual
Mix";and Kauffman,"WhyWas the
Mule."
20Alston,"TenureChoice."
21Alstonand Ferrie,"Paternalism."
AgriculturalChutesand Ladders
471
TABLE4
RANGEESTIMATESOF "TRUETENANCY"ASSUMINGA ? 5 PERCENTERRORIN THE
ESTIMATEDNUMBEROF CROPPERS
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
SouthCarolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
1900
52.3 - 52.9
38.9 - 39.6
47.8 -48.0
23.1 - 23.5
50.1-51.2
25.0-25.8
48.4-49.5
31.2-31.4
58.7- 59.1
38.6 - 38.9
74.4-74.5
53.1 -54.0
31.4-32.4
45.2 -45.7
27.7- 28.0
18.8-19.1
1910
53.5 - 54.3
42.1 - 43.0
39.8 -40.0
22.3 - 22.7
55.3 - 56.5
25.8 -26.7
41.1 -42.9
27.0- 27.3
57.0 - 58.1
38.0- 38.4
52.9- 53.1
54.8 - 55.7
30.2 - 31.4
44.0-44.9
22.7 - 23.1
18.1- 18.4
Source:See Tables 1 and2.
specializingin cotton,andthe Midwesternstatesis most likely accountedfor by the prevalence of plantationsin the South.Theseresultsunderscorethe importanceof understanding
the distinctionbetween croppersand tenants.Nevertheless, despite the increase in the
numberof croppersin the earlypartof the twentiethcentury,it is unlikelythatthe cropper
rungwas responsiblefor the povertyof the individuals.But rather,furtherresearchneeds
to be done on the institutionalconstraintson southerndevelopmentin the earlytwentieth
politicalpowerof southerncongresscentury.One suchconstraintwas the disproportionate
men thatresultedin governmentpolicies thathinderededucationand fosteredracism.22
CONCLUSIONS
in the 16 southernstates in 1900 and
This articleestimatesthe numberof sharecroppers
1910 in order to advance our understandingof the growth and decline of agricultural
tenancy in the twentiethcentury.Estimatesof "truetenancy"are constructedby treating
as wage laborers.Thesealterthe traditionalhistoricalaccountof the growth
sharecroppers
of tenancyby showingthatmuchof the growthof the census-definedtenantswas the result
workers
of sharecroppers
increasing.From1900to 1920, for instance,southernagricultural
was
increase
overall
the
in
droves;
to
sharecropper
worker
the
ladder
from
wage
ascended
306,351 whereasthe numberof wage workersactuallydeclinedby 166,414.23At the upper
rungs of the ladderthere was also ascension to the tenantand owner categoriesthough
fewer rose to the tenantthan owner rung.These resultspoint to the need for furtherresearchon the welfareimplicationsof ascendingand descendingthe agriculturalladderin
the earlytwentiethcentury.These new estimatesof croppersfor 1900 and 1910 are a key
first step in determininghow well farmersin this periodfared.
22Ibid.For a discussion of the low levels of educationin the South, particularlyfor blacks, see
Margo,Race.
23Thesenumbersarederivedfromwage-workerdatacontainedin the U.S. Bureauof the Census,
chap. 2, table 15, ThirteenthCensus, Vol. 4,
Fourteenth Census, Vol. 4, Population-Occupation,
table2, and TwelfthCensus,Occupation,table32.
Population-Occupation,
Alston and Kauffman
472
N R?
Cotton Value
Average
Constant
per
PercentagePercentage
Population
PercentagePercentage
Percentage
Percentage
yield
Percentage<
acre acres
per
19 black
mules
cotton
20-49
tobacco
mile
illiterate
25 0.68 -0.12 -0.12 (134.1)
0.83AL
-0.52
0.23 -0.008 (0.93)
-1.88
1.62
0.20
(0.18)
(0.80)
(0.62)
(0.35)
(0.18)(0.35)(0.001)
-0.001319.48
(0.002)
(0.007)
-0.0006
25 0.75 -0.38 0.04
1.05
-1.89
1.46AR
0.17
0.72 0.01 -0.006
-2.29
(0.39)
(0.51)
(1.20)
(10.31)
(0.64)(0.27)(0.006)
-0.003 (0.32)
(0.006)
(0.006)
Appendi
2.13
0.68
0.27
25 0.70
-0.18
0.23
-0.78
1.12
-0.74FL
0.27
(10.38)
(1.72)
(0.60)
(0.39)
(0.23)
(5.02)
(0.30)
(0.28)
(0.002)
0.0008
0.0007
0.0008
(0.0007)
(0.0009)
Estimati
-0.53 0.005 (0.31)
0.85
1.48GA
0.13
-80.85
-0.25
-0.49
-0.84
39 0.82
(0.13)
(0.36)
(5.87)
(0.27)
(0.20)
(0.40)
(0.15)
-0.004-0.74
(0.002)
(0.002)
-0.0005
(0.0009)
0.23
-0.03 -0.001
1.07
30 0.60
(1.11)
(0.19)
(0.09)
(0.0008)
1.01
1.43
-0.05KY
-0.06
(0.84)
(0.83)
(0.46)
0.001
(0.002)
-0.0008
(0.0008)
Equation
Each
-0.12
-0.03 -0.003-0.002
-0.25
0.42
0.70LA
25 0.81
-0.07 0.001 (0.32)
0.29
(0.20)
(0.12)
(0.34)
(0.18)
(0.16)
(0.12)
0.026
(0.001)
(0.0008)
(0.0008)
25 0.76 0.23 -0.09
(0.41)(0.35)(0.004)
0.001
State
0.53MS
0.15
0.04
-1.72
0.49
0.49
(0.37)
(0.92)
(10.12)
(0.63)
(0.49)
(0.002)
(0.005)
-0.0005
0.0002
-0.05 (1.79)
-0.12
-1.56
27 0.41
(0.21)
(0.11)
0.00007
(0.00004)
1.21
0.35
-0.30
0.50
(0.35)
(0.40)
(0.99)
-0.002
0.002
(0.001)
(0.002)
MD&DE
Agricultural Chutes and Ladders
N R
2
Note:
See
text
for
473
Value
Average
Constant
per
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Population
Percentage Percentage
Percentage
yield
<
acre acres
per
19 black
mules
cotton
20-49
illiterate
mile tobacco
Cotton
description
of
25 0.48 0.13 0.14
-0.41
-1.11
0.17 NC
0.57
-0.23
-0.14
0.49
(0.89)
(0.64)
(0.37)
(0.65)
(1.11)
(0.19)
(0.23)(0.23)(0.002)
-0.002
0.007
-0.002
(0.005)
(0.005)
variables
and
data
used.
0.21
0.05 OK
0.07
-0.02
0.12
0.02
0.02
26 0.67
(0.09)
(0.14)
(0.70)
(0.12)
(0.06)
(0.04)
(0.23)
-0.005
-0.0005
0.0003
(0.0009)
(0.0004)
0.00007
(0.00004)
Numbers
in
25 0.82 1.46 0.15
-0.63SC APPENDIX
-0.41
0.29
-0.27
0.33
-1.50
1.88 -0.0040.002
(0.32)
(0.85)
(0.47)
(0.68)
(0.44)
(0.90)
(0.78)(0.18)(0.002)
parentheses
(0.002)
(0.005)
0.0009
are
standard
25 0.69 -0.57 0.02
0.21 TN TABLE-Continu
-0.23
0.25
1.53
1.00
0.74 0.002 0.002
(0.84)
(1.07)
(0.86)
(1.13)
(2.24)
0.002
errors. (0.40)(0.15)(0.002)
(0.003)
(0.001)
0.0004 (0.003)
0.26
0.10
0.24
-0.15
-0.19
0.34
0.20
(0.15)
(0.21)(0.43)
(0.13)
(0.13)
(0.13)
(0.20)
63 0.61
TX
0.0008
-0.0006
0.0005
(0.0009)
(0.0007)
-0.000004
(0.000003)
-0.11
0.42 VA
0.05 0.001 (0.98)
-0.24
2.12
-0.12
0.04
-0.25
-0.30
25 0.61
(0.38)
(0.24)
(0.22)
(0.74)
(0.87)
(0.22)
(0.31)
(0.001)
(0.003)
0.0001
-0.0002
(0.0005)
-0.32
-1.50
25 0.42
(4.34)
(0.31)
(0.16)
0.036 0.0007
(0.0007)
1.30
1.76
-0.10WV
-0.89
(0.86)
(3.32)
(0.85)
0.001
(0.002)
(0.001)
-0.0009
474
Alston and Kauffman
REFERENCES
Alston, Lee J. "TenureChoice in SouthernAgriculture,1930-1960." Explorationsin
EconomicHistory 18, no. 2 (1981): 211-32.
."FarmForeclosuresin theUnitedStatesduringthe InterwarPeriod."this JOURNAL
43, no. 4 (1983): 885-903.
in Agricultural
Alston,Lee J., andJosephFerie. "Paternalism
Contractsin the U.S. South:
inplicationsforthe Growthof the WelfareState."AmericanEconomicReview83, no.
4 (1993): 852-76.
Alston,Lee J., andRobertHiggs."Contractual
Mix in SouthernAgriculturesincethe Civil
War:Facts,HypothesesandTests."this JOURNAL42, no. 2 (1982): 327-53.
Atack Jeremy."TenantsandYeomanin theNineteenthCentury."
AgriculturalHistory62,
no. 3 (1988): 6-32.
. "TheAgricultural
LadderRevisited:A New Look at an Old Questionwith Some
Datafor 1860."AgriculturalHistory63, no. 1 (1989): 1-25.
Black, JohnD., and R. H. Allen. "TheGrowthof FarmTenancyin the United States."
QuarterlyJournalof Economics51, no. 2 (1937): 393-425.
Brooks,RobertP. TheAgrarianRevolutionin Georgia,1865-1912. Bulletinof the Universityof WisconsinNo. 639. HistorySeries,Vol. 3, No. 3., 1914.
Ferleger,Louis."Sharecropping
Contractsin theLate-Nineteenth-Century
South."AgriculturalHistory67, no. 3 (1993): 31-46.
George,Henry.Progressand Poverty.GardenCity,NY: Doubleday,1925.
Higgs, Robert.Competition
and Coercion:Blacksin theAmericanEconomy,1865-1914.
New York:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1974.
Jaynes,GeraldDavid.BranchesWithout
Roots.New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1986.
Kauffian, Kyle D. "ANote on TechnologyChoicein a Principal-AgentFramework:The
Use of MulesOverHorsesin AmericanSouthernAgriculture."
EconomicsLetters38,
no. 2 (1992): 233-35.
. "Why Was-the Mule Used in SouthernAgriculture?:EmpiricalEvidence of
Principal-AgentSolutions."Explorationsin EconomicHistory 30, no. 3 (1993):
336-51.
Mangum,CharlesS., Jr.TheLegal Statusof the TenantFarmerin the Southeast.Chapel
Hill: Universityof NorthCarolinaPress, 1952.
Margo,RobertA. Race and Schoolingin the South, 1880-1950: An EconomicHistory.
Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1990.
Shannon,FredA. TheFarmersLast Frontier:Agriculture.New York:Harperand Row,
1945.
" AgriculturalHistory 53,
Shlomowitz,Ralph."TheOriginsof SouthernSharecropping.
no. 4 (1979): 557-75.
Tindall,GeorgeB. TheEmergenceof the New South.BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress, 1967.
Turner,H. A. "GraphicSummaryof FarmTenure."U.S. Departmentof AgricultureMiscellaneousPublications261, 1936.
Whatley,Warren."Laborfor the Picking:The New Deal in the South."this JOURNAL43,
no. 4 (1983): 905-30
Woodman,HaroldD. "Post-CivilWarSouthernAgricultureand the Law."Agricultural
History 53 (1979): 319-37.
New South:New Law. BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress, 1995.
._
Woodward,C. Vann.Originsof theNew South,1877-1913. BatonRouge:LouisianaState
UniversityPress, 1951.
_
_
AgriculturalChutesand Ladders
475
Woofter,Thomas J. Landlordand Tenanton the CottonPlantation. Washington,DC:
WorksProgressAdministration,1936
Wright, Gavin. Old South,New South:Revolutionsin the SouthernEconomySince the
Civil WarNew York:Basic Books, 1986.
U.S. Bureauof the Census.FourteenthCensusof the UnitedStates, 1920. Washington,
DC: GPO, 1922.
_. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940: Agriculture (Appendix Section of
Special Study-Plantations). Washington,DC: GPO, 1943.
Thirteenth Census of the United States:1910. Washington, DC: GPO, 1913.
. Twelfth Census of the United States:1910. Washington, DC: GPO, 1902.
_
.U.S. CensusofAgriculture:1920. Washington,DC: GPO, 1922.
.U.S. CensusofAgriculture:1950. Washington,DC: GPO, 1952.
.U.S. CensusofAgriculture:1959. Washington,DC: GPO, 1961
.U.S. Censusof Population:1920. Washington,DC: GPO, 1922.