Commons Sense: Common Property Rights, Efficiency, and Institutional Change
- 3 March 1998
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in The Journal of Economic History
- Vol. 58 (1) , 73-102
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022050700019896
Abstract
Common property rights were widespread in English agriculture for at least 600 years. Since privatizing common fields allegedly produced huge profits in the eighteenth century, common land owners seemingly squandered 15 percent of potential income for generations. Ingenious explanations have been produced for this market failure. This article argues for a simple, brutal resolution. Common fields survived because enclosure was generally unprofitable before 1750, when changing relative prices made private property rights marginally more efficient. Then people responded quickly to modest profits. The rich gains from enclosure existed only in the imaginings of wild-eyed eighteenth century agrarian reformers.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Land Hunger: Land as a Commodity and as a Status Good, England, 1500–1910Explorations in Economic History, 1998
- Enclosures, Common Rights, and Women: The Proletarianization of Families in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth CenturiesThe Journal of Economic History, 1990
- The cost of capital and medieval agricultural techniqueExplorations in Economic History, 1988
- Institutions and Agriculture in Old Regime FrancePolitics & Society, 1988
- The Efficiency and Distributional Consequences of Eighteenth Century EnclosuresThe Economic Journal, 1982
- English Parliamentary EnclosureThe Journal of Modern History, 1981
- Cost, Finance, and Parliamentary EnclosureThe Economic History Review, 1981
- The Persistence of Open-Field Farming in Nineteenth-Century FranceThe Journal of Economic History, 1980
- Profitability and timing of parliamentary land enclosuresExplorations in Economic History, 1978
- ENCLOSURE AND LABOUR SUPPLY IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONThe Economic History Review, 1953