IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ehsrev/v69y2016i2p493-521.html

Occupational structure in the Czech lands under the second serfdom

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Klein
  • Sheilagh Ogilvie

Abstract

A shift in occupational structure towards non-agricultural activities is widely viewed as a key component of European economic growth during the early modern ‘Little Divergence’. Yet little is known about this process in those parts of eastern-central Europe that experienced the early modern ‘second serfdom’, the massive increase in the institutional powers of landlords over the rural population. We analyze non-agricultural occupations under the second serfdom using data on 6,983 Bohemian villages in 1654. Bohemia resembled other eastern-central, nordic and southern European economies in having a lower percentage of non-agricultural activities than western Europe. But Bohemian serfs engaged in a wide array of industrial and commercial activities whose intensity varied significantly with village characteristics. Nonagricultural activity showed a significant positive relationship with village size, pastoral agriculture, sub-peasant social strata, Jews, freemen, female household heads, and village mills, and a significant negative relationship with arable agriculture and urban agglomerations. Non-agricultural activity was also positively associated with landlord presence in the village, although the relationship turned negative at higher values and landlord presence reversed the positive effects of female headship and mills. Under the second serfdom, landlords encouraged serf activities from which they could extort rents, while stifling others which threatened their interests.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Klein & Sheilagh Ogilvie, 2016. "Occupational structure in the Czech lands under the second serfdom," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 69(2), pages 493-521, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ehsrev:v:69:y:2016:i:2:p:493-521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ehr.2016.69.issue-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Remi Jedwab & Noel D. Johnson & Mark Koyama, 2022. "The Economic Impact of the Black Death," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 60(1), pages 132-178, March.
    2. António Henriques & Nuno Palma, 2023. "Correction to: Comparative european institutions and the little divergence, 1385–1800," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 295-295, June.
    3. Alexander Klein & Sheilagh Ogilvie, 2017. "Was Domar Right? Serfdom and Factor Endowments in Bohemia," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 344, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    4. Matthias Morys, 2022. "Has Eastern Europe Always Lagged Behind the West? Historical Evidence from Pre‐1870," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 68(S1), pages 3-21, April.
    5. Palma, Nuno & Reis, Jaime & Rodrigues, Lisbeth, 2023. "Historical gender discrimination does not explain comparative Western European development: evidence from Portugal, 1300-1900," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    6. Peter Sandholt Jensen & Cristina Victoria Radu & Battista Severgnini & Paul Sharp, 2018. "The introduction of serfdom and labour markets," Working Papers 0140, European Historical Economics Society (EHES).
    7. 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:bla:ehsrev:v:69:y:2016:i:2:p:493-521. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ehsukea.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.