IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jechis/v51y1991i02p343-355_03.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Prudent Peasant: New Findings on Open Fields

Author

Listed:
  • McCloskey, Donald N.

Abstract

The usual picture of the medieval peasantry is based on nineteenth-century scholarship, which has proven difficult to dislodge from educated minds. This article continues the revision of an important detail in the picture, the scattering of plots in open fields. Some recent work on the subject by Robert Allen and Gregory Clark is midly disputed, and new evidence is presented that risk avoidance is the key to understanding peasant behavior. The reason for the scattering was not sentiment or socialism. Peasants were not perhaps rational in every detail; but they were prudent.

Suggested Citation

  • McCloskey, Donald N., 1991. "The Prudent Peasant: New Findings on Open Fields," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 343-355, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jechis:v:51:y:1991:i:02:p:343-355_03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022050700038985/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Radost Holler & Paul Ivo Schäfer, 2021. "Norm Prevalence and Interdependence: Evidence from a Large-Scale Historical Survey of German speaking Villages," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 118, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    2. Leeson, Peter T. & Harris, Colin, 2018. "Wealth-destroying private property rights," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-9.
    3. J. Mark Ramseyer, 2015. "The Fable of Land Reform: Leases and Credit Markets in Occupied Japan," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 934-957, October.
    4. Mingardi Alberto, 2017. "Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World: By Deirdre Nansen McCloskey," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Christopher Gerrard & David Petley, 2013. "A risk society? Environmental hazards, risk and resilience in the later Middle Ages in Europe," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(1), pages 1051-1079, October.
    6. Joshua C. Hall, 2017. "A "Model" Model: McCloskey and the Craft of Economics," Working Papers 17-09, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    7. Nadeem Ul Haque, 2006. "Beyond Planning and Mercantilism: An Evaluation of Pakistan’s Growth Strategy," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 45(1), pages 3-48.
    8. Runge, C. Ford & Defrancesco, Edi, 2006. "Exclusion, Inclusion, and Enclosure: Historical Commons and Modern Intellectual Property," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1713-1727, October.
    9. Matranga, Andrea, 2017. "The Ant and the Grasshopper: Seasonality and the Invention of Agriculture," MPRA Paper 76626, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Steven G. Medema, 2020. "The Coase Theorem at Sixty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1045-1128, December.
    11. Tine De Moor, 2009. "Avoiding tragedies: a Flemish common and its commoners under the pressure of social and economic change during the eighteenth century1," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 62(1), pages 1-22, February.
    12. David Stead, 2004. "Risk and risk management in English agriculture, c. 1750–1850," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 57(2), pages 334-361, May.
    13. David Stead, 1998. "An Arduous and Unprofitable Undertaking: The Enclosure of Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire," Economics Series Working Papers 1998-W26, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    14. David Stead, 1998. "An Arduous and Unprofitable Undertaking: The Enclosure of Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _026, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    15. Samuel Garrido, 2010. "Mejorar y quedarse. La cesión de tierra a rentas por debajo del equilibrio en la Valencia del siglo XIX," Documentos de Trabajo de la Sociedad de Estudios de Historia Agraria 1009, Sociedad de Estudios de Historia Agraria.
    16. Sheilagh Ogilvie, 2007. "'Whatever Is, Is Right'?, Economic Institutions in Pre-Industrial Europe (Tawney Lecture 2006)," CESifo Working Paper Series 2066, CESifo.
    17. Harris,Colin & Cai,Meina & Murtazashvili,Ilia & Murtazashvili,Jennifer Brick, 2020. "The Origins and Consequences of Property Rights," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108969055.
    18. Runge, C. Ford, 2004. "Sustainability And Enclosure: Land, Intellectual Property And Biotechnology," Working Papers 14464, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    19. Bekar, Cliff T. & Reed, Clyde G., 2003. "Open fields, risk, and land divisibility," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 308-325, July.
    20. Ogilvie, Sheilagh & Carus, A.W., 2014. "Institutions and Economic Growth in Historical Perspective," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 8, pages 403-513, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jechis:v:51:y:1991:i:02:p:343-355_03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jeh .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.