IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hcx/wpaper/0105.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Financial Failure? The Real Returns to the Blackstone Canal

Author

Listed:
  • Jill Dupree

Abstract

The Blackstone Canal opened in 1828, ran from Worcester, MA to Providence, RI, ceased operation in 1848, and is widely held to be a financial failure, returning $4.10 in dividends on an original investment of $100.00. Yet, the canal is attributed with stimulating the economic success of Worcester and the valley of the Blackstone River, once considered the hardest working river in the United States. This study seeks to reconcile these two opposing view of the value of the canal for three reasons: to identify the true value of investment in the canal to individual investors, to initiate the use of a case study approach in studying the returns to investment that could be applied to other situations where returns to investment are not fully reflected in company financial records, and finally to illustrate how people work within existing legal institutions, in this case water-rights laws to promote economic development and growth. My research thus far has identified investors whose investment returns were exceedingly high once all values of the canal to the individual are considered. This result stands in stark contrast to existing beliefs that the canal was a financial failure. The primary additional value of the canal to these investors was the waterpower that the altered water flow provided. Indirect evidence indicates that the canal may have actually been built for waterpower purposes. The transportation aspect of the canal allowed the investors to obtain the necessary state charters that allowed them to circumvent the existing water-rights laws and build a waterworks project of this magnitude.

Suggested Citation

  • Jill Dupree, 2001. "Financial Failure? The Real Returns to the Blackstone Canal," Working Papers 0105, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hcx:wpaper:0105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:hcx:wpaper:0105. 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: Victor Matheson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deholus.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.