IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulr/wpaper/dt-07-25.html

Agrarian mechanization in the settler economies. The diffusion of tractor in New Zealand and Uruguay in the 20th century

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo Castro

    (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Economía)

  • Henry Willebald

    (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Economía)

Abstract

The objective of this article is to study the process of agricultural mechanization in the temperate economies of new European settlements (settler economies) from a historical and comparative perspective. The historical significance of agricultural activity in these countries is evident in the characteristics of their productive specialization and the modes of their international integration. First, the article proposes constructing an indicator of agricultural mechanization in Uruguay and New Zealand for an extended period (the entire 20th century). Second, it offers an exploratory analysis of the factors that influenced the diffusion and adoption of the tractor in both countries. The evolutionary and neo-Schumpeterian perspective on technical change and innovation provides a conceptual framework that addresses the complex nature of technological change and allows for the study of its evolution over time, emphasizing its tacit, cumulative, and path-dependent nature. Based on a comprehensive characterization of the tractor fleet and its evolution, a logistic model is applied to determine the dynamics of adoption and diffusion of this technology. In general terms, the introduction of the tractor marked a milestone in the process of mechanization and revealed a dynamic that exhibited particularities associated with the nature and evolution of technological change. Initially, the introduction of the tractor in agricultural activities responded to a slow adoption process—and replacement of other techniques—that constituted an early stage of learning, after which it spread rapidly across the productive structure of the analyzed countries. Ultimately, the process reached a saturation point that coincided with the emergence of new production techniques that have progressively replaced the previously dominant ones. Secondly, it is observed that the technological dynamics differed between the countries, with Uruguay consistently lagging behind New Zealand. Finally, the analysis of the determinants of the different rates of tractor adoption and diffusion in both countries reveal that New Zealand producers faced significantly more favorable conditions in terms of lower fuel costs and higher wages, which incentivized the adoption of labor-saving technology such as the tractor. Additionally, greater access to financing, lower tractor prices, and a more conducive agrarian structure for mechanization facilitated a faster and more sustained adoption of this technology compared to Uruguay.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo Castro & Henry Willebald, 2025. "Agrarian mechanization in the settler economies. The diffusion of tractor in New Zealand and Uruguay in the 20th century," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 25-07, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulr:wpaper:dt-07-25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12008/49823
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rodolfo E. Manuelli & Ananth Seshadri, 2014. "Frictionless Technology Diffusion: The Case of Tractors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(4), pages 1368-1391, April.
    2. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    3. Possas, Mario Luiz & Salles-Filho, Sergio & da Silveira, JoseMaria, 1996. "An evolutionary approach to technological innovation in agriculture: some preliminary remarks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 933-945, September.
    4. Lovell S. Jarvis, 1981. "Predicting the Diffusion of Improved Pastures in Uruguay," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(3), pages 495-502.
    5. Martini, Dinah Duffy & Silberberg, Eugene, 2006. "The Diffusion of Tractor Technology," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 354-389, June.
    6. Daniel P. Gross, 2018. "Scale versus scope in the diffusion of new technology: evidence from the farm tractor," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(2), pages 427-452, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    2. Daniel P. Gross, 2018. "Scale versus scope in the diffusion of new technology: evidence from the farm tractor," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(2), pages 427-452, June.
    3. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    4. Jung, Yeonha, 2020. "The long reach of cotton in the US South: Tenant farming, mechanization, and low-skill manufacturing," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    5. Philipp Ager & Marc Goñi & Kjell G. Salvanes, 2026. "Gender-Biased Technological Change: Milking Machines and the Exodus of Women from Farming," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 116(1), pages 246-286, January.
    6. Jónína Einarsdóttir & Geir Gunnlaugsson, 2024. "Child Fatalities in Tractor-Related Accidents in Rural Iceland, 1918–2024: A Historical Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(10), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    8. Bhumika Gupta & Salil K. Sen, 2019. "Carbon Capture Usage and Storage with Scale-up: Energy Finance through Bricolage Deploying the Co-integration Methodology," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(6), pages 146-153.
    9. Lise Gastaldi, 2009. "Stratégies d'innovation et modes de management de la recherche en entreprise. La formalisation de trois idéaux-types," Post-Print halshs-00384386, HAL.
    10. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    11. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    12. Aurora A.C. Teixeira & Rosa Portela Forte, 2009. "Unbounding entrepreneurial intents of university students: a multidisciplinary perspective," FEP Working Papers 322, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    13. Yuyang Li & Jiahui Li & Xinjie Li & Qian Lu, 2024. "Does Participation in Digital Supply and Marketing Promote Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption of Green Agricultural Production Technologies?," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, December.
    14. Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
    15. Rõigas, Kärt, 2011. "Linkage between productivity and innovation in different service sectors," Discourses in Social Market Economy 2011-02, OrdnungsPolitisches Portal (OPO).
    16. Keld Laursen, 1998. "How Structural Change Differs, and Why it Matters (for Economic Growth)," DRUID Working Papers 98-25, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    17. Pierre J. Tremblay, 1998. "Informal Thinkering: How Is It Important?," CIRANO Working Papers 98s-13, CIRANO.
    18. Tom Broekel & Matthias Brachert, 2015. "The structure and evolution of inter-sectoral technological complementarity in R&D in Germany from 1990 to 2011," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 755-785, September.
    19. Calzada Olvera, Beatriz & Iizuka, Michiko, 2020. "How does innovation take place in the mining industry? : Understanding the logic behind innovation in a changing context," MERIT Working Papers 2020-019, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    20. Tether, B. S., 1998. "Small and large firms: sources of unequal innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 725-745, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • N56 - Economic History - - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Extractive Industries - - - Latin America; Caribbean
    • N57 - Economic History - - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Extractive Industries - - - Africa; Oceania
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:ulr:wpaper:dt-07-25. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Lorenza Pérez (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ierauuy.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.