ABSTRACT
Illustration of the ‘Transfer Effect’ The ‘transfer effect’ cannot be demonstrated exactly, since suitable data do not exist, but the principle can be sketched. Take, for example, estimated W in 1790 - crudely, 5.9m ‘wheat-eaters’, and the supposi tion that perhaps one-third or so of them were wheat growers and their families, supplied on or near the farm without reference to the market — say 2.0m so fed. If the net yield of the harvest of that year was ‘normal’ — that is, exactly equal to demand, then the amount ‘freed’ to the market would be the equivalent of 3.9m ‘wheat diets’. But if there was a glut — say 25 per cent above norm, then a total of about 7.4m ‘wheat diets’ could be supplied; deduct the 2.0m ‘farm supplied’ consumers, and 5.4m ‘wheat diets’ would be available for sale. Whereas, if there was a dearth — say 25 per cent below norm, then a total of some 4.4m ‘wheat diets’ could be supplied: deduct the 2.0m ‘farm supplied’ consumers, and only 2.4m ‘wheat diets’ would be available to the market. In those circumstances, the spread between a glut and a dearth, as felt by the market, being between 5.4m and 2.4m, would be X 2.25. This would be moderated, of course, to the extent that exports of surpluses or imports in years of deficiency, affected the supply; also, there may have been some extra consumption, or reduction in diet, on the farm, though perhaps not too much, given storage on the one hand, and on the other, the operation of the rural Poor Law.
