Measurement of English farming technological change, 1523–1900

Abstract

I have argued that for the period from 1661 to 1850, patent data in England were consistent in that no official changes in methods and standards of issuance occurred. Book data on titles published on farming production methods were similarly consistent from 1523 to the mid-19th century because the market for books developed gradually and the technology of printing was not substantially changed until the mid-19th century. My main point is that data on output of titles of books on farming productive techniques in England are useful measures of technological change. Books did have information on good production methods and could express productive ideas where a patent may not be issued. Further, the literacy rate of farmers was high so that books were likely an important source of ideas on farming production methods. Finally, the fluctuations in the book data were highly related to the fluctuations in the patent data, suggesting that a common set of factors caused those fluctuations. The high correlations between the detrended book and patent data indicate that if we accept patenting as a useful measure of technology we may also accept book title output of a technical nature as a good measure of technical change. I used the data for a simple analysis of the trend growth rate of agricultural technology in England from 1551 to 1850. While there is limited evidence to show that the subperiod 1651–1750 saw a slowing in the trend of development of farming technology, I argue that a division of the entire period into subperiods is too simplistic. A more fruitful approach would be an analysis of the underlying forces that determined the trend of development of the technology of English agriculture. The next step is an analysis of the forces that influenced technological development of English farming. From an economic point of view, market forces play an important role in influencing technology. Because such an analysis deserves careful consideration, I leave that to another paper (see Sullivan and Simon, 1983).