Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
![on land must exceed the average rate of profit sufficiently so as to cover the payment of rent. However, if rents are stable relative to rising commodity prices the barrier of rent becomes progressively less significant. Such was the situation in English agriculture of this period. The tenant capitalists were confident that they 'could take a reasonable share of the increased revenue resulting from their capital investments and not have them taken away by the landlords' rent increases' [Brenner, 1976: 64]. The capitalist tenant farmer who directly organised production had to share the surplus he appropriated with the landlord. But the gains in productivity were increasingly accruing to him. Thus the basic desiderata of what we have called a Type B agrarian system had been firmly established by the early years of the seventeenth century. The surplus appropriator both organised pro-duction and also appropriated the gains in productivity. Spurts of investment embodying strategic innovations in English agriculture followed quickly. By the middle of the seventeenth century the concept of mixed farming had taken hold at least on those soils most suited to it. The growing of forage crops (legumes and roots) in place of fallow made possible the raising of herds and flocks without any diminution in grain acreage. On the contrary the increased availability of organic manure substantially raised grain productivity. The effort was enhanced by the more careful selection of seeds and breeds. The first wave of biological-cum-organisational innovations was followed after a lag by a second wave of 'proto-industrial' innovations, that is, the use of better hand tools such as the scythe in place of the sickle and the introduction of chemical fertilisers. Specialist estimates by Jones, Kerridge and others suggest that productivity in English agriculture doubled in the first wave and doubled again in the second wave. Thus by the seventeenth century England had already parted with the rest of Europe on the basis of an agrarian revolution. It happened long before the industrial revolution and is marked most dramatically by the English response to the 'general subsistence crisis' which gripped the rest of Europe about the middle of the seventeenth century. Like the earlier crisis of the fourteenth century this too had Malthusian features on the continent: stagnant production, shortage of food, rising prices, peasant revolts and a demographic collapse. In England, however, productivity rose continuously, food prices were relatively stable and the population continued to grow. What is more, with rising food productivity the whole population could now be sustained by roughly 60 per cent of the workforce. On the one hand this made a large workforce available for absorption into industry. On the other it reduced the real cost of food and hence raised the balance of purchasing power available for manufactures after meeting food costs in both rural and urban households. The very fact of a different English response suggests that at its roots this escape from a 'Malthusian' crisis of the seventeenth century had something to do with the emergence of a different agrarian system in England. A new organisation of production conducive to productivity growth, our Type B system, had pre-empted the crisis in England while the persistence of retrograde agrarian systems of Type A had failed to overcome it on the continent. That this was indeed so is indicated by the contrasting experience of France. While serfdom had declined in France, as in England, in the wake of the earlier](https://images.tandf.co.uk/common/jackets/crclarge/978020304/9780203043493.jpg "on land must exceed the average rate of profit sufficiently so as to cover the payment of rent. However, if rents are stable relative to rising commodity prices the barrier of rent becomes progressively less significant. Such was the situation in English agriculture of this period. The tenant capitalists were confident that they 'could take a reasonable share of the increased revenue resulting from their capital investments and not have them taken away by the landlords' rent increases' [Brenner, 1976: 64]. The capitalist tenant farmer who directly organised production had to share the surplus he appropriated with the landlord. But the gains in productivity were increasingly accruing to him. Thus the basic desiderata of what we have called a Type B agrarian system had been firmly established by the early years of the seventeenth century. The surplus appropriator both organised pro-duction and also appropriated the gains in productivity. Spurts of investment embodying strategic innovations in English agriculture followed quickly. By the middle of the seventeenth century the concept of mixed farming had taken hold at least on those soils most suited to it. The growing of forage crops (legumes and roots) in place of fallow made possible the raising of herds and flocks without any diminution in grain acreage. On the contrary the increased availability of organic manure substantially raised grain productivity. The effort was enhanced by the more careful selection of seeds and breeds. The first wave of biological-cum-organisational innovations was followed after a lag by a second wave of 'proto-industrial' innovations, that is, the use of better hand tools such as the scythe in place of the sickle and the introduction of chemical fertilisers. Specialist estimates by Jones, Kerridge and others suggest that productivity in English agriculture doubled in the first wave and doubled again in the second wave. Thus by the seventeenth century England had already parted with the rest of Europe on the basis of an agrarian revolution. It happened long before the industrial revolution and is marked most dramatically by the English response to the 'general subsistence crisis' which gripped the rest of Europe about the middle of the seventeenth century. Like the earlier crisis of the fourteenth century this too had Malthusian features on the continent: stagnant production, shortage of food, rising prices, peasant revolts and a demographic collapse. In England, however, productivity rose continuously, food prices were relatively stable and the population continued to grow. What is more, with rising food productivity the whole population could now be sustained by roughly 60 per cent of the workforce. On the one hand this made a large workforce available for absorption into industry. On the other it reduced the real cost of food and hence raised the balance of purchasing power available for manufactures after meeting food costs in both rural and urban households. The very fact of a different English response suggests that at its roots this escape from a 'Malthusian' crisis of the seventeenth century had something to do with the emergence of a different agrarian system in England. A new organisation of production conducive to productivity growth, our Type B system, had pre-empted the crisis in England while the persistence of retrograde agrarian systems of Type A had failed to overcome it on the continent. That this was indeed so is indicated by the contrasting experience of France. While serfdom had declined in France, as in England, in the wake of the earlier")
Chapter
on land must exceed the average rate of profit sufficiently so as to cover the payment of rent. However, if rents are stable relative to rising commodity prices the barrier of rent becomes progressively less significant. Such was the situation in English agriculture of this period. The tenant capitalists were confident that they 'could take a reasonable share of the increased revenue resulting from their capital investments and not have them taken away by the landlords' rent increases' [Brenner, 1976: 64]. The capitalist tenant farmer who directly organised production had to share the surplus he appropriated with the landlord. But the gains in productivity were increasingly accruing to him. Thus the basic desiderata of what we have called a Type B agrarian system had been firmly established by the early years of the seventeenth century. The surplus appropriator both organised pro-duction and also appropriated the gains in productivity. Spurts of investment embodying strategic innovations in English agriculture followed quickly. By the middle of the seventeenth century the concept of mixed farming had taken hold at least on those soils most suited to it. The growing of forage crops (legumes and roots) in place of fallow made possible the raising of herds and flocks without any diminution in grain acreage. On the contrary the increased availability of organic manure substantially raised grain productivity. The effort was enhanced by the more careful selection of seeds and breeds. The first wave of biological-cum-organisational innovations was followed after a lag by a second wave of 'proto-industrial' innovations, that is, the use of better hand tools such as the scythe in place of the sickle and the introduction of chemical fertilisers. Specialist estimates by Jones, Kerridge and others suggest that productivity in English agriculture doubled in the first wave and doubled again in the second wave. Thus by the seventeenth century England had already parted with the rest of Europe on the basis of an agrarian revolution. It happened long before the industrial revolution and is marked most dramatically by the English response to the 'general subsistence crisis' which gripped the rest of Europe about the middle of the seventeenth century. Like the earlier crisis of the fourteenth century this too had Malthusian features on the continent: stagnant production, shortage of food, rising prices, peasant revolts and a demographic collapse. In England, however, productivity rose continuously, food prices were relatively stable and the population continued to grow. What is more, with rising food productivity the whole population could now be sustained by roughly 60 per cent of the workforce. On the one hand this made a large workforce available for absorption into industry. On the other it reduced the real cost of food and hence raised the balance of purchasing power available for manufactures after meeting food costs in both rural and urban households. The very fact of a different English response suggests that at its roots this escape from a 'Malthusian' crisis of the seventeenth century had something to do with the emergence of a different agrarian system in England. A new organisation of production conducive to productivity growth, our Type B system, had pre-empted the crisis in England while the persistence of retrograde agrarian systems of Type A had failed to overcome it on the continent. That this was indeed so is indicated by the contrasting experience of France. While serfdom had declined in France, as in England, in the wake of the earlier
DOI link for on land must exceed the average rate of profit sufficiently so as to cover the payment of rent. However, if rents are stable relative to rising commodity prices the barrier of rent becomes progressively less significant. Such was the situation in English agriculture of this period. The tenant capitalists were confident that they 'could take a reasonable share of the increased revenue resulting from their capital investments and not have them taken away by the landlords' rent increases' [Brenner, 1976: 64]. The capitalist tenant farmer who directly organised production had to share the surplus he appropriated with the landlord. But the gains in productivity were increasingly accruing to him. Thus the basic desiderata of what we have called a Type B agrarian system had been firmly established by the early years of the seventeenth century. The surplus appropriator both organised pro-duction and also appropriated the gains in productivity. Spurts of investment embodying strategic innovations in English agriculture followed quickly. By the middle of the seventeenth century the concept of mixed farming had taken hold at least on those soils most suited to it. The growing of forage crops (legumes and roots) in place of fallow made possible the raising of herds and flocks without any diminution in grain acreage. On the contrary the increased availability of organic manure substantially raised grain productivity. The effort was enhanced by the more careful selection of seeds and breeds. The first wave of biological-cum-organisational innovations was followed after a lag by a second wave of 'proto-industrial' innovations, that is, the use of better hand tools such as the scythe in place of the sickle and the introduction of chemical fertilisers. Specialist estimates by Jones, Kerridge and others suggest that productivity in English agriculture doubled in the first wave and doubled again in the second wave. Thus by the seventeenth century England had already parted with the rest of Europe on the basis of an agrarian revolution. It happened long before the industrial revolution and is marked most dramatically by the English response to the 'general subsistence crisis' which gripped the rest of Europe about the middle of the seventeenth century. Like the earlier crisis of the fourteenth century this too had Malthusian features on the continent: stagnant production, shortage of food, rising prices, peasant revolts and a demographic collapse. In England, however, productivity rose continuously, food prices were relatively stable and the population continued to grow. What is more, with rising food productivity the whole population could now be sustained by roughly 60 per cent of the workforce. On the one hand this made a large workforce available for absorption into industry. On the other it reduced the real cost of food and hence raised the balance of purchasing power available for manufactures after meeting food costs in both rural and urban households. The very fact of a different English response suggests that at its roots this escape from a 'Malthusian' crisis of the seventeenth century had something to do with the emergence of a different agrarian system in England. A new organisation of production conducive to productivity growth, our Type B system, had pre-empted the crisis in England while the persistence of retrograde agrarian systems of Type A had failed to overcome it on the continent. That this was indeed so is indicated by the contrasting experience of France. While serfdom had declined in France, as in England, in the wake of the earlier
on land must exceed the average rate of profit sufficiently so as to cover the payment of rent. However, if rents are stable relative to rising commodity prices the barrier of rent becomes progressively less significant. Such was the situation in English agriculture of this period. The tenant capitalists were confident that they 'could take a reasonable share of the increased revenue resulting from their capital investments and not have them taken away by the landlords' rent increases' [Brenner, 1976: 64]. The capitalist tenant farmer who directly organised production had to share the surplus he appropriated with the landlord. But the gains in productivity were increasingly accruing to him. Thus the basic desiderata of what we have called a Type B agrarian system had been firmly established by the early years of the seventeenth century. The surplus appropriator both organised pro-duction and also appropriated the gains in productivity. Spurts of investment embodying strategic innovations in English agriculture followed quickly. By the middle of the seventeenth century the concept of mixed farming had taken hold at least on those soils most suited to it. The growing of forage crops (legumes and roots) in place of fallow made possible the raising of herds and flocks without any diminution in grain acreage. On the contrary the increased availability of organic manure substantially raised grain productivity. The effort was enhanced by the more careful selection of seeds and breeds. The first wave of biological-cum-organisational innovations was followed after a lag by a second wave of 'proto-industrial' innovations, that is, the use of better hand tools such as the scythe in place of the sickle and the introduction of chemical fertilisers. Specialist estimates by Jones, Kerridge and others suggest that productivity in English agriculture doubled in the first wave and doubled again in the second wave. Thus by the seventeenth century England had already parted with the rest of Europe on the basis of an agrarian revolution. It happened long before the industrial revolution and is marked most dramatically by the English response to the 'general subsistence crisis' which gripped the rest of Europe about the middle of the seventeenth century. Like the earlier crisis of the fourteenth century this too had Malthusian features on the continent: stagnant production, shortage of food, rising prices, peasant revolts and a demographic collapse. In England, however, productivity rose continuously, food prices were relatively stable and the population continued to grow. What is more, with rising food productivity the whole population could now be sustained by roughly 60 per cent of the workforce. On the one hand this made a large workforce available for absorption into industry. On the other it reduced the real cost of food and hence raised the balance of purchasing power available for manufactures after meeting food costs in both rural and urban households. The very fact of a different English response suggests that at its roots this escape from a 'Malthusian' crisis of the seventeenth century had something to do with the emergence of a different agrarian system in England. A new organisation of production conducive to productivity growth, our Type B system, had pre-empted the crisis in England while the persistence of retrograde agrarian systems of Type A had failed to overcome it on the continent. That this was indeed so is indicated by the contrasting experience of France. While serfdom had declined in France, as in England, in the wake of the earlier
ABSTRACT
The monarchy contained the lords in France in order to reserve for itself the right to squeeze the surplus of the peasants. Feudal rent was now replaced by taxes of the monarch which were, if anything, heavier than the old feudal levy and increasing over time. To this was added the subsidiary claims of the lords who, shorn of their power over land, now reappeared in offices held under the state. Significantly the peasant revolts of the sixteenth century in France were directed against the state and not the lords as in England. Thus the form of the surplus appropriation mechanism had changed, but not its substance. The agrarian system remained that we have called a Type A system with surplus producers directly organising production while the surplus appropriator threatened to absorb any potential gains in productivity. The peasantry under these conditions had neither the means nor the incentives to develop agriculture. Declining productivity in agriculture culminated in the subsistence crisis of the seventeenth century: the shortage of food, the inflation of prices and again a demographic collapse. Neither was there a redeployment of agricultural surplus to the land nor was there the release of population and the growth of a home market for manufacturing industry.
