IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jglhis/v15y2020i2p269-289_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

United by grass, separated by coal: Uruguay and New Zealand during the First Globalization

Author

Listed:
  • Travieso, Emiliano

Abstract

While the role of coal has been the subject of long-running debate in the historiography of the Industrial Revolution, its part in the economic development of the global periphery has been comparatively neglected. The technological context of the ‘First Globalization’ (c.1870–1914) made pastoral production in the periphery increasingly dependent on modern energy, as new methods of production and transportation bridged the distance between grasslands in the south of the world and kitchens in the north. By comparing choices of meat preservation techniques in Uruguay and New Zealand – two small settler economies that prospered on the back of pastoral exports – this article highlights the usefulness of an energy perspective on agriculture-based transitions to modern economic growth. Different conditions of access to coal shaped how New Zealanders and Uruguayans exploited their livestock herds when terms of trade favoured them the most, with important consequences for the persisting income gap between them.

Suggested Citation

  • Travieso, Emiliano, 2020. "United by grass, separated by coal: Uruguay and New Zealand during the First Globalization," Journal of Global History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 269-289, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jglhis:v:15:y:2020:i:2:p:269-289_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1740022820000042/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. Emiliano Travieso, 2023. "Soils, scale, or elites? Biological innovation in Uruguayan cattle farming, 1880–1913," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 76(2), pages 498-524, May.

    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:jglhis:v:15:y:2020:i:2:p:269-289_4. 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/jgh .

    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.