1. introductionRailroads played a major role in the development of the antebellum United States. The availability of an expanding railroad infrastructure revolutionized the dynamics of the US economy, shattering traditional time and space barriers. Transportation of people and goods became faster, more reliable, safer, and hence more economical. For some time economists and historians have tried to specify and carefully measure these impacts (for recent contributions see, for example, Rousseau and Sylla, 2005; Atack et al., 2008; Atack and Margo, 2011; Donaldson and Hornbeck, 2013; Atack et al., 2014a, 2014b).1 And yet, several important questions remain unanswered. First, what was the overall impact of railroad investment on economic development in this period? Second what was the impact of railroad investment in this period on public state budgets?At the most fundamental level, there is the question of causality. It is often implicitly assumed in measuring the effects of railroad investments that they led to economic development. Yet, the possibility of feedback effects from economic conditions to railroad investment is ignored. But there exists evidence for such effects. Fishlow (1965) tested Schumpeter's hypothesis of construction ahead of demand and finds that railroads tended to be built incrementally into areas that already had been settled (see Fogel, 1979). Atack et al. (2010) further reinforce this conclusion in their analysis of investment, population density, and urbanization patterns between 1850 and 1860.It is indeed likely, given the high internal rates of return reported for railroad investment and the participation of the public sector in this endeavor, that patterns of railroad investment may have been responsive to economic conditions. Expansionary economic conditions increase the availability of private capital and, by expanding tax bases, increase the capacity for the public sector to provide support for railroad construction. In addition, the expansion of the network may have been designed to serve the needs of regions where migration and subsequent growth in activity manifested sufficient demand for these transportation services to justify their construction. These concerns support the need to accommodate the possibility of reverse causality between economic development and railroad investment when measuring the effects of railroad construction on economic development.In a more general vein, the heart of the social savings approach traditionally used to measure the economic effects of railroad investment (see Fogel (1964) and Fishlow (1965) for the seminal contributions), rests on the idea that lower transportation costs are the central component of the effects of railroads on economic development. A key criticism of this approach is that it is equipped to measure only these direct gains and not any indirect benefits stemming from demand side effects (see, for example, Leunig, 2010).Indeed, railroad investment should be expected to have two fundamentally different types of contributions to economic development. First, the construction of the rail lines required the allocation of resources which may stimulate demand. This stems from the purchase of raw materials that supported the iron foundries, rolling mills and machine shops that prepared iron and other metals required to furnish the rails, spikes, sills, frogs, levers and switches needed to lay track. In addition, the employment of labor in the construction of the railroad and subsequent spending induced by payments to workers may contribute to greater levels of output. Over the long run, however, the importance of the railroad in accessing regions distant from waterways and the network spillover effects induced by their presence are an important driver in the positive impact of railroad investment on economic growth and in lowering transportation costs. There is scant evidence on how the effects of railroad investment may be decomposed between short-term - demand side effects - and long term - supply side effects (see, for example, Berger and Enflo, 2014). …
Read full abstract