IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/20-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Experiment on the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution. Causes and Impact on Equality

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio J. Morales

    (Universidad de Málaga)

  • Ismael Rodriguez-Lara

    (Universidad de Granada
    Economic Science Institute, Chapman University)

Abstract

Testing causal relationships expressed by mathematical models on facts about human behaviour across history is challenging. A prominent example is the Neolithic agricultural revolution [1]. Many theoretical models of the adoption of agriculture has been put forward [2] but none has been tested. The only exception is [3], that uses a computational approach with agent-based simulations of evolutionary games. Here, we propose two games that resemble the conditions of human societies before and after the agricultural revolution. The agricultural revolution is modelled as an exogenous shock in the lab (n=180, 60 independent groups), and the transition from foraging to farming results from an equilibrium selection process decided by experimental subjects. The experimental data replicate the known facts that foragers organized themselves around division of labour [4] and were more egalitarian than farmers [5]. There is also evidence of bi-modal distribution along the foraging-farming axis with many in-between groups [6, 7, 8]. These results provide direct evidence that the modes of production determine the system of values of societies (inequality) and lend support for the idea that human moved in a widespread manner from foraging to farming societies. We also find that cultural and institutional preconditions were crucial for farming [9], as more egalitarian foraging groups adopted earlier agricultural techniques, but inequality raises in farming societies as agriculture settles [10], with the long run success of agriculture being determined by the land-owner’s legitimacy. These results enrich our understanding of the Neolithic agricultural revolution and highlight the relevance of experimental methodology to generate a rich dataset that complements the fragmented evidence from archaeological sites.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio J. Morales & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2020. "An Experiment on the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution. Causes and Impact on Equality," Working Papers 20-20, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:20-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/esi_working_papers/315/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Inequality; Agricultural Revolution; Foragers Societies; Farming Societies; Property Rights; Land-owner; Human Values; Experimental Economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • N00 - Economic History - - General - - - General
    • N50 - Economic History - - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Extractive Industries - - - General, International, or Comparative
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • P14 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Property Rights
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:chu:wpaper:20-20. 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: Megan Luetje (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.html .

    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.