Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics

Staff Paper Series

Staff Paper P73-1 Revised August 1973

PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN GERMAN AGRICULTURE: 1850-1970

APPENDIX DATA ON PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN GERMAN AGRICULTURE: 1850-1970

Adolf Weber

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics

University of Minnesota Institute of Agriculture St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Staff Paper P73-1 Revised August 1973

PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN GERMAN AGRICULTURE: 1850 TO 1970

Appendix DATA ON PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN GERMAN AGRICULTURE: 1850 TO 1970

Adolf Weber

Staff Papers are published without formal review within the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

The research on which this paper is based was supported in part by the University of Minnesota Economic Development Center. The author is indebted to Barbara B. Miller for assistance in the organization and processing of statisticalmaterials and to Vernon W. Ruttan for critical review and editorial suggestions. PRODWTI VITY GROWTH IN GERMAN AGRICULTURE: 1850-19703(

AD3LF WE23ER

The process of agricultural development can be usefully interpreted as a dynamic process of induced technical and institutional innovation and factor substitution in response to growth in demand, changes in 1 resource endowments, and changes in relative factor and product prices.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the long-term trends in

German agricultural development for the period since 1850 and to test the “induced innovation~’hypothesis against the German experience.2

The German case is of considerable interest in attempting to under- stand the agricultural development process. At the beginning of the nineteenth century Germsny was more than a generation behind Britain in industrial and agricultural development. Public support for advances in science, technology, and education was undertaken for the deliberate purpose of overcoming the gap in agricultural and industrial technology and in economic power between Germany and Great Britain. The publicly supported agricultural experiment station was a German institutionalin- novation. It was the model for similar developments in both Japan and the United States L8, pp. 136-138].

Germany was successful in achieving relatively high rates of partial and total productivity growth in agriculture in the 19th century (Table

1). And agricultural productivity growth in Germany compares favorably

ADOLF WEBER & Professor ——at the Institut & krarpolitik and

I@rktlehre, Christian-Albrechts-Universit~t,&i&, Germany. Table 1. Trends in factor productivity, Germany, 1850-1968 (five-year

averages centered on year shown)

Annual compound rate of chan~e 1850 1880 1925a 1950a to to to 18$0 1910 1935JaL_

Output (net of seeds and feed) 1.5 1.7 2.7 3.5

Tot~ inputs 0.8 0.6 3.0 1.6 Total productivity (output/totalinputs) 0.7 1.1 -0.2 2.0

Number of male workersc 0,5 <0.1 -2.0 -3.6 Output per male worker 1.0 1.7 4.8 7.3

Agricultural land area 0.0 <-oold 0.1 <(),1 Agricultural land area per male worker -0.5 -Oold 2.1 3.6 ~.$d 2.7 Output per ha. agricultural land 1.5 3.6

Arable land area (0.0) :-oold -0.1 -0.2 Arable land area per male worker (-0.5) <-old 1.7 3.4 Output per ha. arable land 1,5 lo8d 3.1 3.5

aYear shown.

bldestGermany only.

cMale workers in agriculture, forestry and fishery

dLmd data is for 1883 rather th~ 1880.

Source: From~9] and C3, various issues~l. with the rates achieved by Japan and the United States in the 20th century. This pattern of productivity growth in German agriculturewas more “balaced” than in the United States or the United Kingdom, where until 1925 productivity growth was dominated by growth in output per worker (Figure 1). Germany started its productivity growth from a lower output per hectare but a higher output per agriculturalworker th~ Jap~o The pattern of productivity growth in agriculture in Ger- many was, however, remarkably similar to that in Japan.

The German case is also of significance since it provides an oppor- tunity to explore the role of a small scale livestock sector in the development process. The livestock sector in German agriculture, specifically in the western and northwestern parts of the country represented a small scale labor intensive crop and crop residue processing activity that added a vertical dimension to the size of a farm in an environment where the potential expansion in land area was severely constrained. Much of the contemporary literature in agricultural development has been preoccupied with crop agriculture and has ignored the potential contribution of livestock production, particularly smell scale livestock production, in the agricultural development process.

Induced Technical Change in Agriculture

It is generally agreed that technical change has represented an important source of growth in agricultural output. It is also increasingly recognized that agricultural technology is relatively location specific and that there are multiple paths of technological development (Figure 1). Technology can be developed to facilitate the substitution

of relatively abundant (hence cheap) factors for relatively scarce

(hence expensive) factors.

In the United States, for example, it was primarilY Progress in mechanical technology which facilitated the expansion of agricultural

production end productivity by relieving the technical constraints on

the area that could be cultivated per worker. In Japan it w= primarily

progress in biological technology, represented by seed improvementswhich

increased the yield response to higher levels of fertilizer applications,

which permitted rapid growth in agricultural output in spite of severe

constraints on the supply of land. It has been increasingly clear that

the ability of a country to achieve rapid growth in agriculturaloutput

and productivity depends on its capacity to generate an ecologically

adapted and economically viable agricultural technology. The generation

of an efficient path of technical change is viewed primarily as endogen-

ous rather than exogenous to the total development process.

The process by which an efficient path of technical changes is

induced involves a complex relationship between factor endowments,

relative factor prices, and the innovative behavior of farms, private

agribusiness firms, and public sector agricultural experiment stations.

Efficient adaptations by the agricultural sector to the growth of demand and to changes in relative factor endowments involves both movement

along a fixed production surface and the creation of new production sur- faces which are optimum under the set of factor and product prices.

This process is illustrated, using examples of both mechanical and biological technology, in Figure 2. to * !--, ,,,,,,, ~.._t , , r * ..,1. ]ul ~ it=]-...... 1“’--l-’l..~_....#_#_ljly~------# 5L-1------!---UM*+L -J--- x I I

J qa 0? 0,6 qs

2 >4 56769m IS X JO 40 60 6om40somo J50 A@ufluml Ou@d /lWmd Unlh ) PW MW W-

l?igure1. Historicalgrowthpathsof agriculturaldevelopment in Denmark$France,Germany,Japan,UnitedKingdom, and the United Statess 1880-19659five-yearaverages

Sourues: For Germany:Weber@J.

For Japan,Denmark,France,UnitedKin dom (UK),and the Unitd States:Hayamiand Ruttant 8, pp. 67-81; 326-3473. 6

z’ > ,& / J-

-J 1= uM L u..

...... 1 ...... =00

.- I >

.,. ..*C >0

9 8 8 9 > m 0 * 9 B 9 0 e 9 * < (A9010NH33i - V3I501OIQ)

...... O@*m=

......

: : 9 ● 8 9 9 -J /’iowl (A9010NH331 1V21NVH33W) ti3AAOd -

o The process of technical innovation can be described as a movement

along a “metaproductionfunction” or “innovationpossibility frontier.114

In Figure 2 (left) U represents the land-labor isoquant of the metapro-

duction function, which is the envelope of less elastic isoquants such

as u. and U1 corresponding to different types of machinery or technology.

A certain technology represented by Uo, a reaper for exsrnple,is invented when a price ratio, Po, prevails for some time. When this price ratio

changes from p. to pl, another technology represented by Ul, for example

the combine, is indicated. Similar inducements in the livestock sector might be imagined by the invention of chaff-cutters and automatized

animal feeding systems.

The new technology represented by Ul, which expands the land area per worker or the capital invested in livestock, irrigation systems, crop trees, greenhouses per unit of land, generally corresponds to higher animal or mechanical power inputs per worker. This implies a complementary relationship between land and power, which may be illustrated by line LA, M]. It is hypothesized that mechanical innovation involves the substitution of land and power for labor in response to a change in the wage rate relative to land and machinery prices.

The process of advance in biological technology is also illustrated in Figure 2 (right). V represents the land-fertilizerisoquant of the metaproduction function. The metaproduction function is the envelope of less elastic isoquants, such as V. and Vlj which correspond to crop varieties characterized by different levels of fertilizer responsiveness.

A decline in the price of fertilizer is regarded as inducing a response by plant breeders to develop more fertilizer-responsivecrop varieties and by farmers to adopt the new varieties as they become available.

The complementary relationship between biological technologies and fertilizer use, represented by rF,B~, dso e~ends to the Protective chemicals (insecticides,herbicides) and the institutional innovations associated with the marketing and delivery of chemical inputs and ser- vices. Similarly, in livestock production a decline in the price of concentrated feedstuffs (oilcake, fish meal, urea) has induced animal nutritionists and breeders to direct their efforts to the development of feedstuffs which incorporate a higher percentage of the lower cost proteins end to select and breed for lines which have a more rapid rate of gain when fed the new rations. Complementaritybetween breeders and nutrition also extends to related biological.and chemical technologies in the area of animal health.

The hypothesized relationships between changes in relative factor prices and changes in factor use generated by the model outlined above are summarized in Table 2. Before proceeding to the statistical tests, it will be useful to review the long-term trends in productivity growth and factor use in German agriculture.

Factor Endowments, Prices, and Productivity

During the first half of the 19th century the level of economic development in Germany was not substantiallydifferent from that in many less-developed countries today. Average per capita income was less than $300 in 1968 U.S. dollars [11]. .Roughlyseventy-fivepercent 7

a) Ua T-l-P 4h:

‘7 ‘7 7 -i- T ‘-7 -i’

0————— Et&J

./2 10

of the population lived and worked in agriculture in 1800. In 1850 the

percentage was fifty-five percent [l, p. 105j. The German diet was

heavily dependent on grain and root crops. Consumption of animal

production, though higher than in many presently developing countries, 5 was low compared to modern consumption patterns.

The long-term trends in factor endowments, prices, and productivity

in German agriculture are ~hown in Table 3 and Figure 3. In 1880

land endowments per worker in Germany were more favorable than in

Japan end less favorable then in the United States. The price

of land, relative to the price of labor, in Germany was also lower than

in Japan and higher than in the United States. The trends in relative

factor endowments in Germany since 1880 have, however, been closer to

the Japanese pattern than the U.S. pattern. Land area per worker remained relatively stable in Germany until after World War II. The trend

in the price of land, relative to the price of labor, in Germany was more like the U.S. pattern. In Germany the price of labor, relative to land, rose modestly between 1880 and 1925 and has increased sharply since

1925.

Germany experienced relatively rapid growth in both total agricultural.output and productivity during the last half of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. After the mid-1920?s the rate of growth in output and productivity was even more rapid. The pattern of productivity growth was similar to that of Japan during the first half of the period-- with a relatively high rate of growth of land productivity and a slower rate of growth in labor productivity. The pattern of growth in lsmd productivity (Y/A) in Germany has been similar to that in Japan throughout 11

Table 3. Trends in factor endowments in German agriculture: 1880-1968, selected years

1880 1913 1925 1935 1950a 1968a

(1) Agricultural land area (million ha.) 35.6b 34.8 29.2 28.8 lL.O 13.9

(2) Arable land area (million ha.) 25.8b 25.5 20.5 19.4 7.9 7.6

(3) Number of male farm workers (thousands) 5664 5880 480$ 3951 2258 12I.4

(4) (1)/(3)(ha./worker) 6.29 5.92 6.07 7.29 6.,20 11.43

(5) (2)/(3) (ha./worker) 4.56 4.34 4.26 4.91 3.50 6.26

(6)Value of agricultural land (Marks/ha. agric. land) 1321 2100 2730 2027 4359 10348

(7)Farm wage rate (Marks/day) 1.34 2.27 3.07 3.3o 7.56 34.56

(8) (6)/(’7) ~~;/ha. agric. 98$ 925 889 614 5?6 299

(9)Livestock capits2 valuec (Marks/ha. agric. land) 2250 3695 36o6 4215 4239. 5234

(lo) Machinery capital va.luec (Marks/ha. agric. land) 1270 2184 2312 2861 4171 9437

(11) Livestock capital valuec (Marks/worker) 1414 2187 2190 3073 2666 5980

(12) Machinery capital valuec (Marks/worker) 798 1293 1371 2086 2586 10783

aWest Germany only. b1883. ‘Constant prices of 1913. Source: Weber[ll~ 700 . —,. —

600 .

500 ● em9m99m* JAPAN

400 .

. 30C ●** Outputpermale worker(Y/L) ●6* ●“** ●a...*””” ? ●** ●●“ [ . ** 500 20C ,** ● ●.* 400

300

100 . Lendareopermaleworker(A/L) / 20!) .

I00

300 .

200 .

I00

I I 1 9 I 1 1 t 1 B 1 1 1 1 & m 1 I I880 I900 1920 I940 1960 Figure3. Changesin laborproductivity,land-laborratio,and landproductivity (1880=1OO), Germany, the UnitedStates,and-Japan,M80-I.960 Sourcesk Hayamiand RuttanL 8~; ?Jeber~11~. 13

the entire period. Since the 19201s the German pattern of growth in labor productivity (Y/L) has been more like that of the United States-- with labor productivity growing more rapidly than land productivity.

Germany apparently did not experience the lag in productivity growth during the inter-war period as in Japan and the United States.

Growth in labor productivity can be partitioned between two com- ponents--growth in land area per worker and land productivity.6 During the period 1850-1$$0 and 18$0-1913 land area per worker declinedo ‘rowth in labor productivity was achieved entirely through growth in yield-- in output per unit land area. This was exactly the reverse of the U.S. pattern where growth in labor productivity during the same period was apparently due entirely to growth in land area per worker. Growth of land productivity was even more important as a source of growth in labor productivity in Germany than in Japan. In Japan land area per worker rose slowly, but continuously, after 1$80. In 1925-38 and in 1950-68 growth in land area per worker and in land productivity were of approximately equal importance as sources of growth of labor productivity in

German agriculture. This was similar to the post World War II pattern in Japan. In the United States growth in.land area per worker continued to dominate growth in labor productivity during the post World War II period in spite of much more rapid growth.in land productivity than in earlier years. 14

Livestock in German Agricultural Development

In their analysis of agricultural growth in Japan and the United

States, Hayami and Ruttan [8, p. 118], following Griliches C5, pp. 241-

245], argue that it is consistent with the technical conditions of agricultural production to consider growth in land area per worker (A/L) and output per hectare (Y/A) as reasonably independent. Increases in land area per worker are associated primarily with advances in mechanical power per worker. Increases in output per hectare are identified primarily with advances in chemical and biological technology which have facilitated the utilization of higher levels of plant nutrients per unit area.

These same patterns have held in a general way in Germany. plant nutrient consumption grew rapidly during the period when growth in labor productivity was associated primarily with increases in land productivity. Chemical fertilizer increasingly replaced organic sources of plant nutrients after 1900. Rapid growth in power and machinery inputs have coincided with the rising labor productivity since the mid-1920’s.

In the case of Germany, however, my attempt to identify the sources of growth of land productivity and agricultural output per hectare must give central consideration to the dynamic role of the livestock sector in German agriculture during the 19th century ~2, p. 127; 31. Growth of the livestock sector was facilitated by a relatively rapid growth in per capita income7 and a high income elasticity of demand.8 Between 1850 and 1913 pork consumption rose from 8 to 25 kilograms per capita, total meat from 22 to 43 kilograms per capita, milk and milk products from 15

268 to 39$ kilograms per capita, and eggs from 46 to 106 per

capita.9

The growth of the livestock sector contributed to the growth of output per worker in two ways. In spite of Germanyls pioneering role in the development of chemical fertilizer, animal manure represented the dominant source of plant nutrients in German agriculture throughout the

19th and well into the 20th century (Table 4). In addition, the live-

stock enterprise permitted an expansion of the size of farm operations through the growth of a labor intensive crop and crop residue processing sector in an environment where the lend area per farm, and per farm worker, was relatively constent. The impact of the livestock enterprise on agricultural output per hectare and per worker was further reinforced by relatively rapid growth of productivity in the livestock enterprise itself (Table 5).

The sources of growth in livestock productivity are not entirely clear. Three major factors were apparently involved. One was advances in animal nutrition. This was associated with the use of imported high protein food concentrations to supplement the use of farm-producedhay and root crops. The productivity of the protein feeds was enhanced by advances in animal breeding and by improvements in animal husbandry and health practices. In some respects the imported feeds, primarily oil- cske--and to a lesser extent fish, blood, and animal meals--, played a role in releasing the constraints on growth of livestock production similar to the role of chemical fertilizer in releasing the constraints on growth of crop production. 16

ri o“ u-l

o ~

a mm o o“ o“ o“ o“ N riri m

r—l n r-i r-i (N” r-i 0 r-i 0° 0 d

2,s’ w?

G--l0 N? 17

I 18

Factor Substitution in German Agriculture

The development patterns described above are summarized graphically, in terms of four major factor substitution sequences, in Figures 4-6.

(a) Continuous substitution of organic and chemical fertilizer

for land in crop production, associated with a continuous

decline in the price of fertilizer relative to land.

(b) Long-term substitution of oilcake for domestic production of

livestock feed, associated with a long-term decline in the

price of oilseed relative to land.10

grown cereals, associated with a long-term decline in the

price of cereals relative to lend.

(d) A rapid rise in livestock capit~ per worker during 1850-1913

followed by continued steady growth in livestock per worker,

associated with nearly equal rising prices of land relative to

labor.

(e) Agradual rise in the use of power and machinery per farm

worker between 1880 and 1950 and a much more rapid increase

after 1950 associated with a long-term decline in the price

of power and machinery relative to labor.

Tests of the sane relationships,as hypothesized in Table 2, are described statistically in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 shows the relationship between the use of the land substitutes--measuredin terms of fertilizer consumption per hectare, imported oilcake per hectare, and imported cereals per hectare--and the price of the land substitute 19

Wage rate/agric.land (PL/PA) .— Fertilizer/land(PF/PA) —.— Oilcake/land(PO/PA) .— — Cereals/land(Pc/PA) ----- FarmMach. price/farmwagerate (PM/PL) -.-.... Oilcake/cereals(Po/PC)

400 (p~/pA)

200 / (Polpc) . . ● ,,*, ..9 f ● ● 100 ● ✎ ✃ ● ‘d \ /4’, +. ,/ * < \\ 50 \;\ “\ 8 ● (po/pA) -“% \ \ \

\ \ \

\ ‘x (pMh’L)

\ 10 (pFfpA) 4 1 1 1 4 I t I I * I \ * a I I 9 9 a 880 1900 1920 1940 1960

Figure 4. Relative factor price trends, Germany, 1880-1965, five-year averages

Source: Weber ~-ll~/. 20

J@h , k@a w I T t moo M: I 1 I

m, I 4ered* 4W —. Olkeko –- —

s ‘“ ‘-

\ -. 1 I —-...-.. --- $0 Qao —-. . $0 n35 40. -.. ..— — .40

SsOb m- I-–-t--t-r-”l”--r” w: 8

..–- . ...+. .,._ 1880 _ ~ 27 --- .—. -. .— 1

Price Ratios ot Ollcako, Fwflllz&,and Coma18 b Agrkuthual Land

Figure5. Relationbetweenconsumptionof oilcake,fertilizer,and cerealsper hectareof agriculturalland and priceratios of oilcake,fertilizersand cerealsto agrlcul.turallands Germany,1880-1965,five-yearaverages

Source:Weber ~ll-~. 21 ---- Agric. land/worker (A/L) —.— Workstock/worker (H/L) Machinery capital/worker (M/L) --- Power/worker (P/L)

100. 1965 10.0

50.’ 5.0

1935

1925 ( 910 1965 (A/L) 1935 191Jo. 10. ( 1965;-... 1 1.0 J 1950 *~i72 --1880 \ ‘. f ‘~. /’ 2 880 i 19?5 191O ,X. : ‘a t ●.z’#--l88o IG s’ \/ 1150 ‘“-’1,25 CJ 5*C N’ 0.5 4 ‘1 (l+/L),/ \ ~/, \ 1965’ \ (P/L) \ J

l.O 0.1 10.0 50.0 100.0 Machinery price/wage rate 1880 = 100

Figure 6a. Relation between machinery price to wage rate and agricultural land, workstock, machinery, capital, and power consumption per worker, Germany, 1880-1965, five-year averages

Source: Weber ~-l.l~/ 22

---- Agric. Iandlworker (A/L) —* - workstock/worker (H/L) .— Machinery capital/worker (M/L) -.. Power/worker (p/L)

10.0

50.0 5.0

1935

L 925 910 1965 1935 1910 1.0 10.0 1965 ;’ss (A/L) f “,L! 19;0=9 ‘:::: w-l 4 u \ “.:/.’1935 ●:,..,188O ‘, ~ ;$G”’-f9sti910

5.0 0.5

\ \ \ 1950

1*O 0.1 10.0 50.0 100.0

Land price/wage rate

Figure 6b. Relation between land price to wage rate and agricultural land, workstock, machinery capital, and power consumption per worker, Germany, 1880-1965, five-year averages

Source: Weber ~11~/. 23

m 0“

(u I@

%./

.,, i%% $:. . ri o- 1-

r-l -3 i% $.+

r% ,Q n 2 0 + N h m . . -&) r-is 03

o“ o*

o“o“ Iw

s’a m(u d am . . OH o“o“ Iw

CfJ m r-l I 8 to r-{

%lG 00

- in w

relative to land and the farm wage rate relative to land for the periods 1880-1913 and 1950-1968.11 The ratio of the farm wage rate relative to the price of land was included as an independent variable

since it was assumed that higher relative wage rates would act to in- duce the substitution of purchased inputs for farm produced inputs of fertilizer and feed. The signs of both independent variables are as hypothesized. All of the coefficients, except the farm wage rate relative to land, are statistically significant at the one percent level.

Table 7 shows the relationship between growth of livestock, machinery, and land capital per worker, and associated energy inputs, and the prices of land and machinery relative to labor. The signs are generally as expected. The major exception is the regression of land per worker on the price of agriculturalmachinery relative to the wage rate in 1880-1913--a period when machinery inputs were relatively low and expansion of farm size was constrained by population pressure in rural areas. The price of land relative to the wage rate was signifi- cantly associated with growth of capital inputs per worker only in the

1880-1913 period. It would appear that in this earlier period labor was a weaker substitute for non-land capital than for land. In the more recent 1950-6$ period the substitution of power and machinery for labor was, however, highly responsive to the relative price of machinery and labor. 27

Induced Innovation: An Interpretation

There are several ways in which the relationshipsdescribed in the previous section might be interpreted. The first is in terms of a diffusion or “choice of technology’ hypothesis. German agricultural history since 1850 or 1880 could be interpreted in terms of the impact on factor proportions of the rising economic value of land and labor along an unchanging neo-classical macro-production function in an environment characterized by rapid growth in demsnd for labor and for agricultural products, particularly livestock products.

An alternative hypothesis is that new technical alternatives in crop and livestock production were induced as a result of rapid growth in demand and declining relative prices of fertilizer, feed, machinery, and power. In terms of Figure 2, did the observed changes involve shifts along long-run isoquants such as U. and Vo? Or did the observed changes also involve shifts from U. to U1 and V. to VI along a metaproduction function?

The magnitude of the shifts in relative factor prices and factor use creates a presumption that an induced innovation process involving shifts along the metaproduction function was involved. The results of the statistical analysis are by themselves, however, consistent with either, or both, hypotheses. Additional evidence, drawing on micro- production relationships, is necessary to adequately discriminatebe- tween the alternative hypotheses.

In the case of crop production, the answers seem reasonably clear- cut. The crop varieties available to German farmers in the 18801s were 28

clearly less fertilizer responsive than the varieties available in the

1960fs. The early emergence of a chemical fertilizer industry in

Germany can itself be regarded as “induced” by the emergence of the

Germsn chemical industry during the last half of the 19th century in

response to relatively weal endowments of raw materials and rapidly between 1850 and 1880 and again rising prices of agricultural land{after 1900. In the years immediately

preceding World War I Germany had the worldls cheapest chemical fertili-

zer and was the world’s largest consumer of chemical fertilizer during

the inter-war period. German plant breeders and agronomists responded

to the favorable fertilizer prices by developing new crop varieties and

husbandry practices to take advantage of the fertilizer prices that

were low, both absolutely and relative to the price of lend.

In the case of animal production, the evidence is less clear. However, ~t

seems reasonably consistent with the evidence that the advances in

knowledge of animal nutrition were stimulated by the declining prices

of imported protein feedstuffs. Increases in livestock productivity, in

response to the improvements in feeding, health, and other husbandry practices, were associated with advances in livestock breeding.

The machinery case is also ambiguous. Germany was not a leader in the development of agriculturalmachinery. Mechanical technology in

German agriculture was largely based on adaptations of American and

British designs.12 The evidence would seem to suggest that advemces in mechanical technology in Germany were consistent with a “choice of technology” rather than an “induced innovation” hypothesis. The initial advances in mechanical technology were largely “induced” by the factor 29

price ratios in the United States.13 Designs were later modified to meet German farm size and crop specification as the price of’labor rose relative to the price of machinery, 30

Footnotes

++University of Minnesota, AgriculturalExperiment Station, Scien-

tific Journal Paper Series No._. The research on which this paper is

based was initiated when the author was Visiting Professor, Department

of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesot~in 1970/71

and was supported, in part, by the University of Minnesota Economic

Development Center. The author is indebted to Barbara B. Miller for

assistance in’the organizing and processing of statisticalmaterials and

to Vernon W. Ruttan for critical review and editorial suggestions.

lThe “induced innovation” hypothesis is elaborated and tested

against the Japanese end United States experience in Hayami and Ruttan

[8]

2 The empirical analysis rests primarily on data for three periods:

1880-1913, 1925-38, and 1950-68. The data for the three periods are not

strictly comparable because of territorial changes after World Wars I and II. An attempt is also made, where data are available, to refer to developments during the 1850-1880 period. A detailed discussion is available in Weber ~11}. Readers are also referred to a publication in

German by the author ~2~.

3For an elaboration of the induced innovation model discussed in this section, see Hayami and Ruttan [8, pp. 43-135-j.

41’Themetaproduction function can be regarded as the envelope of commonly conceived neoclassical production functions. In the short-run, 31

in which substitution among inputs is circumscribed by the rigidity of existing capital and equipment, production relationships can best be described by an activity with relatively fixed factor-factor and factor- product ratios. In the Ion&?-r@, in which the constraints exercised by existing capital disappear and are replaced by the fund of available technical.knowledge, including all alternative feasible factor-factor and factor-product combinations, production relationships can be adequately described by the neoclassical production function. In the secular period of production, in which the constr~nts given by the available fund of technical knowledge are further relaxed to admit all potentially discoverable possibilities, production relationshipscan be described by a metaproduction function which describes all conceivable technical alternatives that might be discovered,” Hayami and Ruttan ~8, pp. $2-833.

51n 1850 ~nual per capita consumption of pork was 8 kilogr~s; total meat was 22 kilograms; and milk and milk products was 268 kilograms

(fluid milk equivalent). Average e~g consumption was 46 eggs [9, P. 630]. The daily consumption of enimal protein was about 25 grams per capita. b~=~.g LLA where

Y = output

L = labor

A = land area

Y/L = labor productivity

A/L = land area per worker

Y/A = land productivity 32

7Per capita income grew at approximately1.4 percent per year be-

tween 1850-80 andl.7 percent per year between 1880-1913 ~11].

8Hoffmann[9, p. 1241 estimated that the income elasticity of demand

for pork was as high as 2.0 in 1850-68. It was still in the neighborhood

of 1.0 in 1890-1913 and declined to 0.3 in the 1960-68 period [14, p. 141.

9Livestock accounted for approximately46 percent of the value of

agricultural output in 1800; 62 percent in 1850; 70 percent in 1913; and

80 percent in 1959. The value added by livestock to crop output would,

of course, have been considerably lower in each period ~1, p. 92; 11~].

10After the world-wide economic depression of 1929, consumption of

protein fell below the long-term trend in the consumption-pricerelatiorl-

ship as a result of restrictions on the importation of protein feeds [n].

.- llThe data for the three periods for which data are available--1880-

1913, 1925-38, and 1950-68--are not strictly comparable because of

changes in German territory after World Wars I and II. Because of in-

stability in domestic economic and foreign trade policies, involving

price controls and quantitative restrictions, the period 1925-38 was not

included in the statistical analysis. The analysis for cereals was con-

ducted only for 1880-1913, since imports of cereals have remained subject

to quantitative restraints since World War II.

12Germany was a net importer of land machinery until becoming a net

exporter in 1910. U.S. prototypes adjusted for Central European environ- mental conditions were manufactured. Because of Germanyls technical 33

capacity and the scale effect of producing large mounts of machinery,

the adjustment time was short compared to small countries. [49PP* 1,

16, 28, 33, 156, 1’78,271, 274, 306, 310, 311, 313, 3@ See also[7

and 153.

13See Hayami and Ruttan [8, pp. 44-53, 128-13~. 34

References

1 BITTERMANN, EBERHARD, “Die landwirtschaftilicheProduction,in

Deutschland 1800 - 1950. Einmethodischer Beitrag zur Ermittlung

der Ver’&derung des Umfanges der landwirtschaftlichenProduction und

der Ertragssteigerungin den letzten 150 Jahren,” KUhn-Archiv 10,

Heft 2, 1956.

2 BRINKMANN, THEOIX)R, bkonomik ~ landwirtschaftlichenBetriebes.

Grundriss @ Sozial$konomik,Tfibingen,1922. Here quoted according

to the English edition, Theodor BrinlanannlsEconomics .of .the —Farm

Business, with introduction and notes by Elizabeth T. Benedict,

Heinrich H. Stippler, and Murray R. Benedict, Berkeley, University

of California Press, 1935.

3 Bundesministeriumf~r Ern&ung, Landwirtschaftund Forsten,

Statistisches Jahrbuch fiberErn&hrun~, Landwirtschaft@ Forsten,

Hamburg and Berlin, 1970.

4 FRANZ, G’bNTHER,Die Geschichte ~ Lsndtechn&k ~ Q. Jahrhundert,

Frankfurt/Main, DLG-Verlags-Gmbh., 1969.

5 GRILICHES, ZVI, “Agriculture: productivity and Tec~ology,” ~r,-

national Encyclopedia ——of the —Social Sciences, Vol. 1, New York, Mac-

milh.n and Free press, 1968, PP. 241-245.

6 GRUPE, D., “Die Nahrungsm.ittelversorgungDeutschlands seit 1925.

Eine Auswertung der einschl%gigen Statistiken zu vergleichbaren

Versorgungsbilanzen,” &rarwirtschaftj Sonderheft 3/4, 1957.

7 HAUSHOFER, HEINZ, Die deutsche LandwirtschaftQ technischen Zeital-

@, in Deutsche Amar~esch&W, Vol. 5, ed. G. Franz, Stuttgart,

Eugen Ulmer, 1963. 35

8 HAYAMI, YUJIRO AND VERNON W. RUTTAN, kricultural Development: —An Johns International.Pers~ective, Baltimore, The/Hopkins Press, 1971.

9 HOFFMANN, WALTHER, G., Das Wachstum & deutschen Wirtschaft seit

@ —.Mitte des J-Q.Jahrhunderts. With assistance of Franz Grumbach

and Helmut Hesse,Berlin, Heidelberg,andNew York, Springer,,1965.

10 SCHOL~, H., “LangfristigeEntwicklung der Milchleistung je Kuh,”

Berichte ~ber Landwirtschaft 44:260-269, 1966.

11 WEBER, ADOLF, l!produ~tivityGrowth in German Agriculture: 1$50

to 1970” (Appendix on Data on Productivity Growth in German Agri-

culture: 1850 to 1970)0 University of Minnesota, Department of

Agricultural and Applied Economics, Staff Paper 73-1, 1973, Mimeo.

12 9 “FaJctorpreise,Faktorproduktivit’&tand Technologiesin

der amerikanischen, europ%is?h?nund japanischen Landwirtschaftvon

1880 bis 1965,” Zeitschrifth Wirtschafts-@ Sozialwissenschaften,.

93, 2:197-226, 1973.

13 W3ERNANN, EMIL, Die Veredelun~swirtschaft,Betriebsformen~ [email protected]

abilit’;tsfra~en& Nutzviehhaltung,Berlin, 1933.

U tiHLKEN, E., “Die Nachfrage nach Nahrungsmittelntierischer Herkunft

unter dem Einflussdes Wirtschaftswachstums.” In: Entwicklunmten-

denzen in der Production und im Absatz ~ierisher Erzeuemisse.

(Schriftenreiheder Gesellschaft f?rrWirtschafts- und Sozialwissen-

schaften des Lendbaues e.V., Bd. 6), Edited by R. Zapf, Mhchen,

Basel, Wien, 1970, p. 2-30.

WOHLTMANN, F., “DeutschlandsEinfuhr und Bedarf landwirtschaftlicher

Stoffe aus dem Auslande,“ K~hn-Archiv 6:239-295, 1915. 36

DATA ON PRODUCTIVITYGRUdTHIN GERMANAGRICULTURE: 1850 to 1970

Append- to

PRODUCTMTY GRW’THIN GERMANAGRICULTURE: 1850 to 1970

AdolfWeber Departmentof Agricultualand AppliedEconomics Universityof Minnesota St. Paul,Minnesota and InstitutfUr Agra~olitikund Marktlehre Christian-Al.brechts-UniversitUt Kiel,GermSnY

August1973 37

INTRODUCTION

The Appendixto ‘ProductivityGrowthin GermanAgriculture:

1850 to 1970”iS COmP~Sed of the follo~ng seotion~$

1) BasicStructuralSeriesData

a) Generalremarks

b) Explanationsfor individualcolumnsin TablesA-1

and A-2

c) TableA-1. Basic data,Germany,1850-1969

d) TableA-2. Fertilizer-landcomparisons,Germany,

UnitedStates,and Japan,1880-1965

2) FigureA-1. Average size of farmswith more than one

hectare,1895 Germany

3) FigureA-2. Territorialboundaries of 1936Germany and

1960TdestGermany

4) Selectedreferenceson Germanagriculturaldevelopment. 38

BASIC STATISTICAL SERIES DA2A

General Remarks:

The term Germany refers from 1815-1866to the territory of the

German Federation (Deutscher Bund without Austria-Hungary)and from

18?1-1913to the secondGermanReich. The territoryof Germanybetween

WWI andWWII is that of the borders stipulated by the Versailles Treaty.

(Without Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmedy,North Schleswig, Upper Silesta,

Prussian Province of Posen, West Prussia,and the territory of Memel).

The term Germany is only used after ttorldwar 11 for the territory of the

Federal Republic of Germany (with West Berlin and Saarland included in all statistics since 1960). The German Democratic Republic (East Berlin ‘ included) is excluded from all dat$ after WWII. The drastic changes in

Germanterritoryalwaysshouldbe kept in mindwhen stockvariables-- population,laborforce,land,capital,and livestockare considered through the whole period. An agriculturalyear (July1 to June30) is always without indication set equalto the precedingcalendaryear (e.g.

1950/51= 1950).

The unit of currencyhas been in Germany:

1871-1923 Mark =M

1923-1948 Reichsmark= RM

1949- DeutscheMark = DM

If pricesare expressedin pricesof a certainyear,the expressionof the referredyear is used. To avoida shiftin expressionsall threeperiods

(beforeWWI, betweenWWI and WWII,afterWWII) are calledMarks. 39

The followingabbreviationsare used for frequentlycitedreferences:

StJbDR: KaiserlichesStatistischesAmt (1880until1918)$Berlin;

StatistischesReichsamt(1919-1944),Berlin;

StatistischesJahrbuchfflrdas DeutscheReich.

StJbBRD: StatistischesBundesamt,StatistischesJahrbuchf~r di~

BundesrePublikDeutschland,Wiesbaden.

StJbELF: Bundesministeriumf~r Ern~hrung,Landwirtschaftund Forsten,

StatistischesJahrbuchfiberErn!!hrun~,Landwirtschaftund

Forsten,Hamburgand Berlin.

IXtdIJJ: WaltherG. Hoffmann,Das Wachstumder deutschenWirtschaft

seitder Mittedes vori~enJahrhunderts.With assistance .

of FranzGrumbachand HelmutHesse. Berlin,Heidelberg,

New York: Springer,196s. 40

Explanationsfor individualcolumns:

G1 GrossAgricultural Production (withoutseed,feed,waste)in

pricesof 1913 (inmillionMarks)

Source:

Period1850-1959:MW, pp. 320-323.

Period 1960-1968: StJbELF, 1970, p. 131. Calculatedon the

basis of linkingthe monetaryvalueof agriculturalproduction

(Geldwertder Nahrungsmittelproduktion)deflatedby the agri-

culturalpriceindexwith the agriculturaloutputin prices of

1913from XkhiIXJ.

G2 Crop Production(inmillionMarks)and

G3 LivestockProduction(inmillionMarks)

Source:

Period1850.195~: lXidIW,p. 310.

G4 Value-Addedin Agriculturein pricesof 1913 (in millionMarks)

Gross AgriculturalProduction(G 1)

+ Rentalvalueof farmer’shouse

~ Changes in stock of livestock

. Consumption of fertilizer

- Expenditure for inputs

= Net Agricultural Production

- Costs of repair and maintenance

= Value-added created in Agriculture (without Forestry, Fishery) (G 4)

Source:

Period 1850-1959:WdW, pp. 320-323. 41

G5 Labor (in 1000’s)

All workersin Agriculture,Forestry,Fishery

Source:

Period1871-1939: IWdIX4,p. 204-206.

Period1950-196~:StJbBRD,1965,p. 154; 1969,p. 124.

G6 MaleWorkersa, in Agriculture,Forestry$Fishery(in 1000’s)

a) Numberof Male Workersin Agriculture,(A)Forestry, and

Fishery= TotalWorkersin A, Fo, Fi minusFemaleWorkers

in A, Fo, Fi.

Numberof femaleworkersin agriculture,forestry,and fishery

are givenin IMdINvp. 210 for years 18829 18959190?p19259

1939,1950,1958. Years1962,1968are takenfrom StJbBRD, 1965,

p. 154; 1969,p. 124. The numberof femaleworkersfor the

intermediateyearsis interpolated.

Source: See G 5.

G7 AgriculturalLand (in 1000hectares)

Source:

Period1862-1913:l%klL$J,p. 269.

Period1925-1938:StJbDR,variousissues.

Period1950-1970:StJbBRD,variousissues.

G8 ArableLand (in 1000hectares)

Source: Same as G 7. 42

G9 Livestock (Capital Stock) in prices of 1913 (in billion Marks)

Source:

Period1850-1959: lMUN?,pp. 229-230, 1850-1959(withoutpod-try).

Period1960-1964:Capitalstockof livestockfromIX?dlYdlinked

with thoseof PeterHrubesch,“KonstruktioneinesInput-Indexzur

Messungder Produktivit~tsentwicklungin der westdeutschen

Landwirtschaft1950/51bis i964/65j”Berichtefier Landwirtschaft~

45: 620 (1967), p. 649.

Period 1964-1968: Nominal value of investments in livestock

divided by index of prices for slaughter animals, both from

StJbELF, 19?0, pp. 14-0,238 linkedtith capitalstockof livestock

of IWCW*

G 10 Machinery(CapitalValue)in pricesof 1913 (inbillionMarks)

Source:

Period 1850-1%9 : I%kKiJ,p. 229-130.

Period i960-1964: Capital stock of machinery from IXJdIWJlinked

with those of Hrubesch$ op. cit.,p. 645.

Period 1%4-1968: Nominalvalueof net investmentsin farm

machinery$dividedby indexof purchasingpricesfor larger

farmmachineryboth from StJbELF,1970,pp. 140,246 linked

with capital stock of machinery from IWIIXd.

G il Power Workstocks a, (Horsesand Oxen) (in 1000°s)

a) Draft cows are excluded for lack of data. They were

important for small farmersbefore WWII.

Source:

Period 1880-1938:StJbDR,variousissues.

Period1950-1970:StJbBRD,StJbELF,variousissues. 43

G 12 TractorHorsepower(in 1000ss)

Source: Same as Gil.

G 13 Totalof Glland G U.

G 14 Fertili~erConsumption(N + P205+K20 in 1000metrictOnS) G 15 G 16 SourOe: G 17 Period1880-191~:Data for 187’8,1879,1880,1890-1893,1898,

and 1899fromAlfonsHahnesllBetriebswirtschaftlicheStudien

zur Entwicklung und Organisationder deutschen~ngerwirtschaft,”

K&n.Archiv53 (1940):141-222(here208),Years1881to 1889

were linearlyinterpolated.Consumptionof fertilizerper

hectareof agriculturalland from 1900-1913was multipliedby

agriculturalland fromEdwinvon Boventer,Wine ~konometrische

Untersuchung ~ber die langfristigeEntwicklungder D&gemittel-

nachfragein Deutschland,”Zeitschriftfflrdie zesamte

Staatswissenschaft116 (PartI, 1960):626-671(here668).

Period1925-1938:Hans-HeinrichHerlemann,‘DieEinkommens-

elastizitl!tdes Mineraldflngerverbrauchss”Weltwirtschaftliches

Archiv62 (PartI, 1951): 242-274 (here266).

Period1950.1968:StJbE&F,1958,p. 120; 1961,p. i36; 1970s

p. 139. StJbBRD, 1952, p. 14i; 1955,p. 137.

G 18 OilcakeConsumption(in 1000metrictons) Source: Period 1880-191~: Oilcake consumptioncalculatedaccording

to followingformula:Oilcakeconsumption= DomesticProduction

in oilseedsminusseeds(multipliedby 0.65 as the conversion 44

factorfor oilcake) ~Balance ForeignTradein diloake~

BalanceForeignTradein oilseeds(ml.tipliedby0.6 as the

conversionfactorfor oilcake). Productionof oilseedsfrom

IWhXM,pp. 292, 293. Tradein oilseedsand oilcakefrom StJbDR,

1892,pp. M*, 589 59; 1894*p. 61; 1898,pp. 98s 107;1901s

pp. 115, 130; 19o5,pp. 132, 139$ 1419 158;19089PP. i41$14z9

158, 188; 1910,pp. 196;1914,pp. l&t, 185, 199,249,250; 1912$

PP. 201, 217S 225-227,234, 246; 1938,p. 268.

Period1925-1938:Years1925,1926,1937,1938,~Trade Balanoe

and DomesticProductionof oilseedsconvertedto oilcakefrom

D. Grupe,‘DieNahrungsmittelversorgungDeutschlandsseit1925.

Eine Auswertungder einschl~gigenStatistikenzu vergleichbaren

Versorgungsbilanzen,’SAgrarwirtschaftzSonderheft3/4,

(TeilB, 1957): 76, 79. TradeBalancefor oilcakesfrom StJbDR,

19279p. 182; 1938,p. 268; ~~ 1928.194h.Editedby L&derrat des AmerikanischenBesatzungsgebietest

Mfinchen,1949,p. 416; H. von der Decken,Wntwicklungder

SelbstversorgungDeutschlandsmit landwirtschaftlichenlhweugnissen,n

Berichte~ber Landwirtschaft138 Sonderheft(Berlin1938),p. ill..

Period1950-1969:StJbELF,variousissues.

G 19 LandMachineryPriceXndexfroxn1913= 100alinkedwith Fa~

MachineryPriceIndexfrom 1962/63= 100

a A strongerdeclinein land machineryprioesas reportedby

Hoffmannis indicatedby the figuresin Ernst Gl%el, ‘Die

Entwicklungder PreiselandwirtschaftlicherProdukteund 45

Produktionsmittelnhrend der letzten50 Jahreund deren

Einflussauf Bodennutzungund Viehhaltungim DeutschenReich,n

LandwirtschaftlicheJahrb~cher,50. Band,Berlin, 1916,p. 538$539. Note: The Indexof LandMachineryPricesin LkkiIMbefore1913is

derivedfrom pricesof coal (30Z),pig iron (60$),oopper(10$).

Source:

Period1850-1959: JJddIM,p. 569.700

Period1959-1968:StJbBRQ1969,p. 426. G 20 Indexof AgriculturalPrices,Total (1913= 100)

Source:

Period1850-1959: I%JdIJJ,p. 561,562.

Period1960-196~: DeutscherBundestag,6. Wahlperiode,Drucksache

VI/1800,Materialbandzum Agrarbericht1971 der Bundesregierung,

Bonn 1971,p. 135.

G 21 Indexof Crop Prices,(1913= 100)

Source: Same as G 20.

G 22 Indexof ProducerPricesforlleata)(1913= 100)

a) Until 1939 wholesale prices for cattlej hogs~ sheep,and

lamb;afterWW II, ProducerPrices.

Source:

Period 1850-195~: Same as G20.

Period 1960-1969: Available 1962/63 - 1968/69 in StJbELF, 1970,

p. 238; previousyearsin StJbELF$variousissues. 46

G 23 Index for other Animal Products (milk, eggs) Prices (1913=100)

Source:

Period1850-1959: IWdX%J,p. 135. a) G 24 AgriculturalPricesin Germany$(1870-1969/70)(OfficialIndex)

a) Use this indexif pricesor quantitiesare not takenfrom

IEidKW(e.g.oilcake,fertilizerconsumption).

Source: StJbDR, 1938; StatistischesBundesamt, Preise, L~hnel

Wirlschaftsrechnungen,Reihe 4, Wiesbaden.

Periods 18i’O-1913,1925-1938: Index of agricultural prices in

price index of raw material (1913 = 100).

G 25 Wholesale Prices (1913=100)

Source:

Period1800-1938: StJbDR,1941/42$p. 361; Statistisches

Handbuch1928-44,op. cit.,p.459.

Period1950-1970: StatistischesBundesamt,Indexder

Grundstoffpreise,Preise, L~hne, Wirtschaftsrechnunpen,Reihe 2,

Wiesbaden, various issues.

G 26 Food Price Index (1913 = 100)

Source:

Period 1881-1913: StJbBRD$ 1%8, p. 85, food prices at retaillevel.

G 27 Price of Living Index (Preisindexder Lebenshaltung) (1913= 100)

Source:

Period 1924-1969: StJbBRD,1958, p. 85 and 19’70,p. 431. a) G 28 Farm Wage , daily wage rate (Marks i day)

a) Yearly income in agriculture, forestry, fishery from labor

(without capital income) divided by an assumed number ofjOO

working days per year. 1.950-1969wages for specialized farm

workers(Facharbeiter)underthe assumptionof 9 hours/ day. 47

Source:

Period 18!50-1938: DddIhJ,p. 492, 494

Period 1950-196~: StJbBRD, StJbELF, various issues.

G 29 Land Price (Average value of agricultural land) (Marks/hectare)

Source:

Period 1850 to 1913: Prices of agricultural land (without

buildings): Total value of agricultural land divided by total

area of agricultural land from W. Hoffmann et al LtidLTJ$p. 234.

Period1925 to 1938: Pricesof 1913 from Dddlldprolongatedwith the

agriculturalpriceindex base 1913= 100, ibid.,pp. 561.

Period 1950 to 1968: Prices for 1962 and 196’7are those paid by

farmers in land consolidation programs (~lurbereinigung).

Bundesministeriumf& Ern~hrung, Landwirtschaftund Forsten,

Me Flurbereinimm~in den L#ndern derBRD. Jahresbericht1962,

p. 27; ----,Me Verbesserungder Agrarstruckturin der Bundes-

re~ublikDeutschland,1963/64$p. 30; 1964/65,p. 43; 1965/66,

P.19; 1966/67~ p. 19; 1967/@j p. 32; 1968/69s p.25; 1970t p.250 P. Hrubeschestimatedthe priceof agriculturalland for

farmertransactionsin land consolidationprogramsfor the year

1954with 5340 DM per hectare. See Hrubesch?op. cit.~p. 620-

Pricesfrom1950 to 1953 and 1955 to 1961 havebeen linearly

interpol.ated/extrapolated.

G 30 Fertilizerpriceof plantnutrients(Mark/metricton) 48

Calculation:

N + P205 + K20 TX TE TE = Fertilizer Price N + P205 + K20 TC ‘rc TC

TE = Total Expenditure; TC = Total Consumption

Source:

Period 1880-1913: Expenditure for fertilizer = Sum of

expenditure for N, P205, K20. See, for prices: G 31,

32, 33. Consumption of fertilizer = Sum of consumption

for N, P205$ K20. See, for consumption: G15, G 16,

G 17.

Period 1923.1938: Fertilizer expenditure from DddIIJ,

p. 318. Consumption from Herlemann, op. cit.,p. 246.

Period 1950-1968: Expenditure and consumption of

fertilizer StJbELF, 1958, p. 120; 1961, p. 136; 1970,

p. 139. StJbBRD, 1952, p. 137;1955,p. 13?.

G 31 Priceof Nitrogen(Mark/metricton)

Period 18’70-1913: Nitrogen = Prices of Chilesaltpeter

in Hamburg; under the assumption of one ton of Chi.lesaltpeter=

15.5$N. PricesfromA. Jacobsand H. Richterj“Die

Grosshandelspreisein Deutschland von 1792 bis 1934,”

Viertel,jahresheftezur Kon.junkturforschung,Sonderheft

Nr. 37, Berlin, 1935, p. 70.

Period 1925.1938: StJbD&1931, p. 265 and Statistisches

Handbuch von Deutschland$ op. cit., p. 466.

Period 1950-I.96~: StJbBRD, 1953, p. 492; 196o, p. 476;

1968, p. 43’?;1970, p. 420. 49

G 32 Price of P205 (lLark/metricton)

Source:

Period 1880-ljlJ: Value of superphosphateimports

divided by imported quantities of superphosphate= average

value (price) per ton of superphosphate,converted under

the assumption of 18~ volubility of p205 in water ‘rem

StJbDR, 188~, p. 79; 1.89~sPC 94; 19003 P. 133s 134; 19°2t

p. 138, 139; 1905, p. 147, 148; 1906,p. 159,16o; 1907~

p. 159, 127; i9~9P p. 175, 213;191”1,p. 257;1913,p. I-96;

1915, p. 208.

Period 1925-1938: StJbDR, 1931, p. 265 and Statistisches

Handbuch von Deutschland, op. cit., p. 466.

period 1950-1969: StJbBRD, 1953, p. 492; 1960s p. 476;

1968, p. 437; 19709 P* 420.

G 33 Price of K20 (l~ark/metricton)

Source:

Period 1879 to 1896: Prices for Kainite in Stassfurt from

Gl~sel, op. tit, p. 53.5.

Period 1897-1913: Hahne, op. cit., p. 188.

Period 1925-1938: StJbDR, 1931, p. 265 and Statistisches

Handbuch von Deutschland, op. cit., p. 466.

Period 1950-1969: StJbBRD, 1953, p. 492; 1960j P. 476;

1968, p. 437; 1970, p. 420.

G 34 Priceof Oilcake(Mark/metricton)

Source: 50

Period 1880-1913: Value of imported oilcake dividedby

imported quantities + 15? for freight rates = Price of

oilcake. stJbDR, 1892, P. 46; 1898, P. 98; 1901, P. 115;

1905, P. 139; 19o8, p. 142; 1910, p. 196; 1912, p. 226;

1914, p. 199,

Period 1924-1938: StJbDR$ 1927, p. 182; 1929, p. 205;

1930, P. 211; 1931, P. 268; 1934, P. 211; 1936, P. 237;

1938, p. 268; StatistischesHandbuch, op. cit., p. 416

Period 1951-1958: 1950, StJbBRD, 1952, p. 247; 1959,

StJbBRD, 1960, p. 299. Oilcake prices paid by farmers

is from “Agrarwirtschaft,“ 1959 Sonderheft No. 1$ p. 65.

Period 1960-1969: “Agrarwirtschaft,”various issues. a) G 35 Net National Income at Market (Prices of 1913 linked

with prices of 1962) (in million Marks)

a) Net National Income of market prices are available

for 1850-1879 (but without ~ capital balance with foreign

countries).

Source:

Period1880-1959: IkkiIW,p.827-828.

Period1959-1969: StJbBRD1964,p. 548; 1970,p. 490.

G 36 Populationat mid-year(in1000’s)

Source:

Period 1817-1959: DJdllJ,p. 172, 173,174.

Period 1960-1969: StJbELF, p. 7 (Berlin (West) and Saarland

included). Population of Berlin (West) and Saarland is re-

ported for 191j0 to 1959 in StJbDR 1.969,P. 25. 51

G 37 Energya

a Consumptionof gas, oil,grease,electricity,and coal

for fans operationsin constantpricesof 1954/55. Source:

Period1950-1968:Hrubesch,op. cit.,p. 656; StJbELF,1970,p. 139.

G 38 Consumptionaof ImportedOilcake(in1000metrictons)

a Net importsof oilcakeand oilseeds

Source: Same as G 18.

G 39 Consumptionaof ImportedCereals(in1000metrictons)

a Net importsin wheat,rye, oats,barley;cornand mll.letincluded

after1925

Source;

Period1880.188~:StJbDR,1892,p. 42, 55.

Period1890-191~: Lujo Brentano,Me deutschenGetreidezUlle,

Stuttgartand Berlin,1925.Quotedhere accordingto U. Teichmann?

Me Politikder Amarmeissttitzung,K81n,1955,p. 205.

Period1925.1938:D. Grupe,op. cit.,p. 24, 25.

period1950.1968:Sttim, 1957,p. 142; 1959*P. l~; 1965$P* 156;

1970,p, 166.

G40 ProducerPricefor Cereals(Marks/metricton)

Source:

Period1880-1938:DNcUN,p. 552-555,arithmetrlsaveragesof

producerpricefor wheat$ryeibarley~oats.

Period1950.1968:StJbELF,1956,p. 109,110;1957,p. 110,111;

1962,p. 137, 138; 1970~p. 134$ 135. 52

G 41 LandMachineryPriceIndex (1913 = 100)

Sourcet

Constructedaccordingto the pricesfor 1876, 1877,1880,

1883,1885,189o,1896,1899,1902,1906, 1910,1912 reported

byE. G14sel,op. cit.,p. 538, 539 for seeddrills,harrows,

ploughs. The pricesof 1910 havebeen usedas weights:seed

drills74%, heavyharruwsin threepartslb$,ploughs11%. The

pricesfor missingyearshavebeen linearlyinterpolated.It

shouldbe mentionedthat the pricedeclinefor generalmoving

machineshas been more accentuatedafter1900 comparedto our

constructedindex.

G 42 FertilizerConsumptionper Hectareof AgriculturalLand (Nve-

year averages)

Source: G 14 dividedby G 7*

G 43 FertilizerConsumptionper Hectareof ArableLand (Five-year

averages)

Souroe:G 14dividedby G 8.

G44 PriceRatioof Fertilizerto AgriculturalLand (Five-year

averages)

Source;G30 dividedby G 29. u 100 UnitedStatesFertilizerConsumptionper Hectareof ArableLand

(Five-yearaverages)

Source:

U. S. Dept.of Commerce,HistoricalStatisticsof the United

States,ColonialTimesto 1957,1967,SeriesK160,p. 285;

U. S. Dept.of Agriculture,Chanresin FarmProductionand

Efficienc~,StatisticalBulletinNo. 233,1966, pp. 21-22. 53

u 101 UnitedStatesPriceRatioof Fertilizerto ArableLand

(Five-yearaverages)

Source:

Period1880.1964: Sameas U 100.

J 100 JapaneseFertilizerConsumptionper Hectareof AgricQtural

Land (Five.yearaverages)

Source:

Period1880.196~: YujiroHayamiand VernonW. Ruttan,

AgriculturalDevelomnent:An InternationalPers~ective,

Baltimore,The JohnsHopkinsPress,1971.,p. 341.

J 101 JapanesePriceRatioof Fertilizerto ArableLand (Five.

year averages) Source:

Period1880.196~:Same as J 100. 54

Table A-1. Basic data, Germany, 1850-1969

= Agricultural production Value Labor (1913 = 100) added Total ag., Male Year Gross Crop Livestock (1913=100) for.,fish. ag.,for. fish. (Gl) (G2) (G3) (G4) (G5) (G6) millionMarks 10001s

1850 4461 1 709 2 752 4182 4 298 1 574 2 724 4012 z 4359 1 709 2 650 4106 8 293 53 4361 1 634 2 727 4034 54 4533 1 768 2 765 4216

1855 41$8 1 428 2 760 3925 8 195 56 4700 1 825 2 875 4464 57 4962 1 995 2 967 4704 58 4836 1 772 3 064 ; :;: 8 235 59 4890 1 805 3 085

1860 5 284 2 068 3 216 5004 61 .4886 1 805 3 081 4640 8 253 5 313 1 988 3 325 5 135 % 5 698 2 206 3 492 5 501 U 5922 2 140 3782 5719

1865 5 785 2055 3730 5 507 66 5763 2022 3741 5458 67 5 609 1 980 3 629 5 302 8333 68 6197 2487 3710 5 775 69 5949 2 157 3792 5499

1870 5903 2 142 3 761 5459 ?l 5 881 1 999 3 882 5 388 8 541 72 5993 2 174 3 819 5 541 73 6070 2 053 4017 5 618 74 6823 2 607 4 216 6337

1875 6842 2 586 4 238 6308 9 230 5 413 76 6 549 2 286 4 263 6052 (; ;g) 5 416 77 6 569 2 410 4159 6050 5 531 78 7 157 2855 4302 6610 9 518 5 651 79 6704 2 344 4 360 6154 9 568 5 684 ------,------! -continued- 55

Table A-I.(continued)

Year (Gl) (G2) (G3) (G4) (G5) (G6)

1880 6669 2 296 4373 6142 9 565 5 664 81 6829 2454 4375 6237 9 609 5 691 82 6977 2481 4496 6403 9 665 5730 83 7 296 2 682 4614 ; ::; 9711 5760 84. 7 4ol 2 607 4794 9 698 5730

1885 7 745 2 882 4863 7 194 9 700 5 715 86 7 ?48 2783 4965 7 202 9740 5738 87 7 884 2 792 5 092 7 287 9720 5702 88 8 151 2840 5 311 7 546 9 645 5 610 89 7 716 2496 5 220 7 094 9 638 5 586

1890 8009 2793 5 216 7 369 9 565 5496 91 7 561 2 349 5 212 6896 9 551 5466 92 8 165 2 881 5 284 7494 9 543 5 44s 93 8 839 3 327 5 512 8 150 9 656 5 537 94 8 692 3 148 5 544 7 989 9765 5 929

1895 8935 3102 5833 8 204 9788 5 635 96 9428 3 146 6 282 8 668 9778 5 588 97 9 352 2958 6 394 8 596 9 728 5 501 98 9 643 3 072 6 571 8 854 9 720 5456 99 10 012 3 174 6838 9 205 9709 5408

1900 10 381 3446 6935 ; ;;; 9754 5416 01 9929 3086 6843 9 825 5 450 02 10 186 3 505 6681 9 134 9947 5 534 03 10 387 3476 6911 9 596 9987 5 537 04 10 828 3 569 7 259 9967 9999 5 512

1905 10 707 3 356 7 351 9 801 9926 5402 06 10 624 3 245 7 379 9 664 9 888 5 327 07 10 770 3336 7434 9 655 9 897 5 298 0$ 11 692 3749 7943 10 183 10 096 5460 09 11 444 3411 8 033 9902 10 350 5 677

1910 11 370 3 319 8 051 10 065 10 542 5 832 11 11 165 2 873 8 292 9 927 10 627 5 880 12 11 660 3458 8 202 9 858 10 663 5 879 13 11 740 3 540 8 200 10 744 10 701 5 880 ------— -continued- 56

Table A-l,(continued)

Yea (Gl) (G2) (G3) (G4) (G5) (G6)

1925 9 198 2 677 6 521 6671 9778 4$0$ 26 $ 619 1 925 6694 6426 9 6$o 4751 27 9 559 2 297 7 262 7 750 9 590 4701 2$ 10 975 3034 7 941 $ 342 9 500 9 651 29 10 $72 2931 7 941 7976 9410 4 601

1930 10 634 2 607 8 027 $724 9 310 454.1 31 11 238 2 $06 8432 9 104 9 220 4491 11 574. 3140 8434 $335 9 139 4450 ;; 12 006 3477 8 529 9818 9034 43$5 34 12 330 3 2$0 9050 9031 9030 4166

1935 11 $78 3062 8 $16 8 666 9030 3951 36 11 $$2 3 107 8 775 9962 9 020 3726 37 12 334 3145 9 1$9 8 $10 9 010 3 500 3$ 12 712 3452 9 260 9452 9010 3 285 ... ------

1950 5 971 1 666 4 305 4159 4973 2 258 51 6 579 1 675 4904 46$2 4799 2 153 52 6811 1 596 5 215 4650 .4653 2 075 53 7 261 1 784 5477 4648 4 503 1 993 54 7 415 1 754 5 661 4793 4368 1 926

1955 7 3$6 1 568 5 $18 4883 4 25? 1 883 56 7 459 1 600 5$59 4671 4147 1 $41 57 7 784 1 516 6268 48$2 4077 1 839 5$ 8438 1 912 6 526 5 296 3957 1 789 59 8 326 1 6$2 6644 5 043 3798 1 699

1960 9 100 3 623 1 593 8 959 3445 1 4.$3 2 9442 3383 1 499 63 9 $50 3 230 1 424 64 9 900 30$4 1 356

1965 9 575 2966 1 316 66 10 332 2 $77 1 305 67 10 $65 2 742 1 2L8 68 10 965 2 63o 1 214 ------—------. . ------centinued- 57

Table A-I.(continued)

Land Livestock Agricul- Horse~ower Year Agricul- Arable capital tural Workstock Tractors Total turd stock machinery (horses (1913=100) value and oxen) (1913=100) (G?) (G8) (G9) (G1O) (Gil) (G12) (G13) 1000 ha. billion Marks 1000Is

1850 6.3o 2.82 6.29 2.86 ;; 6.32 2.89 53 6.28 2.93 54 6.26 2.97

1855 6.29 3.02 56 6.37 3.o6 57 6.44 3.11 58 6.53 3.17 59 6.63 3.24

1860 6.71 3.30 61 6.82 3037 :; 7.02 3.45 7.22 3.52 64 7.43 3.59

1865 7057 3.66 66 7.69 3.72 7.80 3.77 z 7.83 3.81 69 7.83 3.86

1870 7.84 3.91 71 7.81 3.98 72 7.83 4.05 7.86 4.12 5 232 0 5 232 ;: 7.89 4.21 5 225 0 5 225

1875 7.90” 4.28 5 217 0 5 217 76 7.93 4.34 5 209 0 5 209 77 7.95 4.40 5 201 0 5 201 78 7.96 4.45 5 193 0 5 193 79 7.97 4.49 5 185 0 5 185 .------—------1880. (36 26o) (25 $00) 8.01 4.52 5 177 0 5 177 81 (36040) (25 800) 8.00 4.56 5 169 0 5 169 82 (35 820) (25 800) :.~~ 4.58 5 161 0 5 161 83 4.63 5 131 0 5 153 84 (ji %) [% %8] 8:19 4.69 5 179 0 5 179

-continued- 58

( Table A-1. (continued)

(G7) (G8) (@) (G1o) (Gil) (G12) (G13)

1885 (35 520) (25 800) 8.30 4.75 5 207 0 5 207 86 (35480) (25 800) 8.43 4.82 5 234 0 5 234 87 (35440) (25 800) 8.53 4090 5 261 0 5 261 88 (35 400) (25 800) 8.65 4.9’7 5 289 0 5 289 89 (35 36o) (25 800) 8.76 5.04 5 317 0 5 317

1890 (35 320) (25 800) 8.88 5.09 5 343 0 5 343 91 [;; X30] (25 800) 8.98 5.15 5 371 0 5 371 92 (25 800) 9.11 5.21 5400 0 5400 93 35 200 25 800 9.26 5.26 5423 0 5423 94 (35 186) (25 800) 9.41 5.33 5447 0 5447

1895 (35 171) (25 800) 9.56 5.40 5470 0 5 4?0 96 (35 157) (25800) 9.72 5.47 5494 0 5494 97 (35 142) (25 800) 9.90 5.54 5 518 0 5 518 98 (35 128) (25 800) 10.08 5.62 5 542 0 5 542 99 (35114) (25 800) 10.28 5.70 5 565 0 5 565

1900 35100 25800 10.48 5.77 5 589 0 5 589 01 (35 076) (25 776) 10.55 5.86 5 610 0 5 610 02 (35 053) (25753) 10.60 5*97 5 632 0 5 632 03 (35 030) (25730) 10.95 6.10 5 653 0 5 653 04 (35 007) (25707) 11.27 6.24 5 674 0 5 6?4

1905 (34984) (25 684) 11.59 6.4o 5724 0 5724 06 (34961) (25 661) 11.90 6.54 5774 0 57’74 07 (34 938) (25 638) 12.10 6.66 5 823 0 5 823 08 (34915) (25 615) 11,98 6,80 5873 0 5873 09 (34 892) (25 592) 11.86 6.95 5923 0 5923

1910 (34 869) (25 569) 12.03 7.11 5973 0 5973 11 (34$46) (25 546) 12.31 7.27 6022 0 6022 12 (;! :3:) (25 523) 12.13 7.44 6072 0 6072 13 25 500 12.86 7.60 6122 0 6122

------

1925 29 249 20 483 10.53 6.59 4803 153 4956 26 29 257 20 478 10,74 6.75 4678 205 4883 27 29409 20 688 11,45 6.94 4612 257 4869 28 ‘ 29 391 20 618 11.52 7.13 4518 309 4827 29 29 373 20 580 11.33 7.30 4372 36o 4732

-continued- 59

1 Table A-1, (continued)

(G7) (G$) (w)) (G1O) (Gil) (G12) (G13)

1930 29 377 20 535 12.06 7*44 .4294 379 4673 31 29 368 20 485 12.53 7.55 4229 402 4 631 32 29 370 20 475 12.09 7.66 4 272 424 4696 33 29 365 20 472 12.70 7.80 4286 447 4733 34 29 348 20 412 12.30 7.99 4099 430 4529

1935 28 752 19 405 12.14 8.24 4057 459 4 516 36 28 747 19 422 13.2$ 8.56 4145 706 4851 37 28 724 19409 13.14 8.92 4209 952 5 161 38 28 537 19 177 13.60 9.35 4225 1 198 5 423

------

1950 14033 7 900 6.02 5.84 1 851 3 267 5 118 51 14 122 7 975 6.31 6.01 1 710 421$ 5 928 14 206 8 088 6.43 6.07 1 586 5 390 6976 ;; 14 197 8 092 6.21 6.12 1 462 6300 7 762 54 14 261 8148 6.18 6.36 1 332 7 531 8863

1955 14 251 8803 6.32 6.64 1 231 8990 10 221 56 14 286 8091 6.31 6.89 1 134 10 500 11 634 57 14 257 8 064 6.35 ?.19 1 052 11 900 12 952 58 14 227 8 032 6.26 7.54 967 13 214 14 181 59 14 331 8074 6.29 7.97 867 14900 15 767

1960 14 254 7 979 6.48 8.92 746 16 883 17 629 61 14 208 7 927 6.71 9.76 659 19 229 19 888 14 179 7 883 6.68 10.46 580 20 884 21 464 % U+ 169 7 860 6.66 11.05 507 22486 22 993 64 14 133 7 832 6.75 11.41 427 24195 24 622

1965 14 071 7 653 6.86 12.32 368 26038 26406 14029 7 609 7.02 12.61 312 27 776 28 088 2; 13 996 7 577 7.13 12.82 283 29454 29 737 ’68 13 871 7 578 7.26 13.09 264 30891 31 155

------

1969 13 848 7 571 254 33 019 33 273

-continued- Table A-I.(continued)

Fertilizer consumption Oilcake K20 Year N, P205, K20 N ‘2°5 consumption (G14) (G15) (G16) (G17) (G18) 1,000 metric tons

1850 51 52 53 54

1855 56 57 58 59

1860 61 62 63 64

1865 66 67 68 69

1870 71 72 73 ?.4

1875 76 77 78 79

------

1880 . 129 28 70 31 223 81 143 30 81 32 254 82 157 33 91 33 262 83 171 102 34 307 8.4 185 ;: 112 35 320

-continued- 61

Table A-1.(continued)

Year (G14) (G15) (G16) (G17) (GU3)

18$5 199 123 36 322 $6 212 $ 133 3? 333 $7 226 45 143 38 355 240 47 154 378 % 254 50 164 ;: 48$

1890 26$1 52 175 41 504 282 55 1$5 42 576 ;: 296 196 43 599 332 z 219 645 :: 367 63 243 :; 676

1895 403 66 266 71 641 96 438 69 289 $0 628 97 474 72 313 89 711 9$ 509 75 ;;: 98 803 99 545 7$ 107 780

1900 481 $8 274 119 810 01 519 95 291 133 $12 02 557 102 322 133 862 03 610 106 354 150 901 OL 661 108 364 189 1 00$

1905 714 116 395 203 983 06 794 126 441 227 966 07 7$6 129 405 252 1 182 0$ 860 140 437 283 1 136 09 904 147 453 304 1 299

1910 1 004 150 495 359 1 364 11 1 097 163 540 394 1 336 12 1 18o 188 557 435 1 441 13 1 245 185 570 490 1 649

------

1925 1 291 334 348 609 1 107 26 ‘ 1 574 401 456 717 1 492 27 1 605 391 509 705 1 50$ 28 1 727 432 531 764 1 708 29 1 743 415 547 781 1 7$5

-continued- 62

Table A-I.(continued)

Year (G14) (G15) (G16) ( G17) (G18)

1930 1 497 355 474 66$ 1 511 1 281 326 395 560 1 871 ;; 1 368 351 399 618 2 296 1 559 382 461 714 2 051 ;: 1 787 425 545 817 1 581

1935 2 087 491 652 944 1 226 36 2159 571 631 957 1 157 37 2479 633 690 1 156 1 258 38 2 717 718 745 1 254 1 487

------

1950 1 439 362 418 659 390 51 1 5$2 3$7 472 723 394 52 1 584 419 394 771 544 53 1 726 456 830 553 54 ‘ 1 829 ?2 51$ 859 621

1955 1 798 472 479 847 735 56 1 977 527 572 878 898 2 147 567 594 986 1 201 ;: 2 213 575 634 1 004 1 317 59 2 401 625 729 1 047 1 719

1960 2 286 618 662 I 006 1 643 2 291 621 634 1 036 1 953 2 2 585 768 718 1 099 2 169 63 2 636 747 764 1 125 2 147 64. 2785 785 816 1 184 2 840

1965 2 897 874 833 1 190 3 363 66 2 767 889 $01 1 077 3 191 67 2 875 950 806 1 119 3 208 68 2 781 933 802 1 046 3 3?4

------

1969 3 723

-continued- 63

Table A-I.(continued)

Price indexes (1913=100) Year Agric. Hoffmann1850-1959:Amarbericht 1971.1960-68 Official Statistics math. Agric. Crop Producers, Other Agric. Wholesale for meat animal products (G19) (G20) (G21) (G22) (G23) (G24) (G25) D.-- .. ...+

111 44.7 51.5 36.4 44.2 71.0 84. 51.2 65.7 36.4 4$.6 75.0 86 6101 85.7 39.8 55.0 82.0 109 64.9 89.7 40.9 58.2 92.0 126 75.7 116.1 42,2 57.0 100.0

1855 124 72.9 111.7 42.1 62.4 105,0 56 115 76.9 110.3 45.1 65.5 105,0 57 113 66.6 79.5 47.6 67.9 101,0 58 98 59.0 66,5 46.1 62.8 91.0 59 92 59.8 67.3 45.2 64.9 89.0

1860 89 66.9 84.3 49.1 62.4 94.0 61 86 70.1 84.6 55.1 67.0 94.0 62 87 66.9 77.7 50.6 69.1 94.0 63 87 65.2 74..1 4903 69.2 $)2.0 64 91 62,6 69.2 47.7 70.0 91.0

1.865 94 61.2 69.0 49.6 64.3 89,0 66 91 65.1 77.1 51.3 65.9 90.0 67 86 71.8 95.8 52,9 64.1 97.0 68 86 77.6 100.4 55.8 68.7 97.0 69 85 70.8 82.7 57.4 70.5. 92.0

1870 91 69.1 79,6 55.6 70.1 79.0 92.0 71 102 75.8 89.5 63.2 74.5 85.0 100.0 72 143 86.6 97.1 72.7 88.5 90.0 114.0 73 156 90.6 107.0 71.8 93.3 97.0 120.0 74 124 85.5 1o4.$ 69.3 78.7 97.0 112.0

1875 99 7403 80.7 65.4 76.2 88.0 100.0 76 85 80.8 90.7 65.1 87.0 90.0 95.0 77 79 84.6 9406 65.7 92.2 89.0 91.0 78 73 74.4 80.6 66.3 74.9 79.0 83.0 79 69 73.6 85.5 65.o 70.0 79.0 81.0

------, .------—

-continued- 64

Table &le (continued)

Year (G19) (G20) (G21) (G22) (G23) (G24) (G25)

1880 79.0 81.3 101. $ 63.6 7$.7 90.0 87.0 $1 73.0 79.5 99.8 64. o 73.4 91.0 85,0 82 78.0 75,2 89.5 62.9 72.8 83,0 81.0 83 73.0 76.0 84.7 64.2 79.2 81.0 80.0 84. 67.0 ?4.2 84.4 63.4 75.6 78.0 78.0

18$5 62.0 68.4 72.7 63.2 69.3 76.0 75.0 86 58.0 67.3 73.5 63.o 65.2 71.0 72.0 87 61.0 69.1 74.3 59*9 :;.~ 70.0 73.0 88 69.0 67.2 73.5 59.4 73.0 75.0 89 80.0 73.9 82.4 66.9 73:8 82.0 82.0

1890 93.0 81.3 88.3 71.5 85.4 86.0 87.0 91 80.0 80.4 98.7 67..4 78.2 93.0 86.0 92 74.0 79.6 97.6 67.8 72.7 85.0 80.0 93 ;;.: - 72.2 73.8 64.8 78.2 77.0 77.0 94 . 72.3 70.4 69.4 78.6 73,0 73.0

1895 70.0 69.3 74.2 65.7 68.5 70.0 72.0 96 73.0 67.0 71.1 63. o 68.0 70.0 72.0 77.0 75.4 81,6 68.9 78.2 77.0 76.0 ;: 77.0 80.3 89.5 72.4 $1.’4 82.0 79.0 99 96.0 74.0 84.0 67.3 72.9 77.0 83.0

1900 116.o 73.2 82.8 65.1 73.7 77.0 90.0 01 92.0 74.8 83,0 70.0 73.3 79.0 83,0 02 80.0 77. $ 81.2 71.2 82.4 82.0 81.0 03 83.0 76.2 81.7 68.1 80.6 77.0 82.0 04 83.0 76.0 88.0 67.0 74.6 79.0 82.0

1905 85.0 84.4 92.2 78. o 84.7 86.0 86.0 06 97.0 87.6 88.0 84.2 92.0 90.0 92.0 07 105.0 89.4 102.3 77.0 92.2 93.0 97.0 08 91.0 86..4 98.9 76.7 86.3 93.0 90.0 09 82.0 91.5 102.1 81,2 95.3 97.0 91.0

1910 86.0 94.1 95.8 85.6 104.4 94.0 93.0

11 86.0 97 ● ‘7 108.9 84,6 107.2 98.0 94.0 12 96.0 106,2 114.2 97.3 110.9 109.0 102.0

13 100 ● o 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

------—

-continued- 65

Table ~-1, (continued)

Year (G19) (G20) (G21) (G22) (G23) (G24) (G25)

1925 132.2 130.0 123.5 115.2 159.4 129.0 139.0 26 132.9 130.4 126.5 121.1 147.6 125.0 129.0 27 133.3 135.7 163.3 113,0 148,8 134.0 135.0 28 139.4 132.3 151.7 110,7 148.5 132.0 136.0 29 141.3 130.’7 127.5 128.4 137.9 126.0 131.0

1930 139.4 115. $ 114.5 114.3 119.6 110.0 114.0 31 130.7 95.9 111.3 83.7 101.7 101 ● o 98.0 116.1 83.8 106.1 66.5 88.3 87.0 86.0 ;; 111.6 83.3 96.8 64.1 96.7 80.0 82.0 34 111.1 88.8 105.7 70.6 101.0 88.0 87.0

1935 111.1 96.5 114.7 80.0 105.5 99.0 92.0 36 111.6 101.2 116.8 84.6 111.2 102.0 95.0 37 112.7 101,5 119.7 83.6 112.4 102.0 96.0 3$ 111.3 104.2 123.8 84.8 114.7 104.0 95.0

------—

1950 196.3 191.4 188.9 193.4 192.7 172.6 197.0 51 231.3 209.1 218.5 204.0 209.4 199.7 238.0 52 242.2 210.1 234.5 193.8 214.9 195.5 252.0 53 240.2 212.2 227.2 208.9 206.5 192.4 246.0 54 242.1 212.5 227.4 200,1 219.3 200● 7 247.0

1955 250.0 222.2 24.0.0 210.8 234.2 212.2 253.0 56 259.8 232.1 252.5 213.8 245.3 220.5 260. o 57 268.4 241.3 289,0 204.6 267.3 222.6 264.0 58 271.9 237.4 236.2 226.7 254.4 224.6 262.0 59 273.5 24? .9 2$8.7 225.3 255.1 229.8 262.0

1960 283.6 235.5 23? .2 219.4 262.0 61 295.9 245.4 285.8 229.8 262.0 62 300.9 250.4 285.8 234.0 261.0 63 302.5 257.8 254.4 241.2 264.0 64 312.6 265.3 282.9 248.1 270.0

1965 3?1.9 282.6 308.7 264.4 277.0 66 329.8 270,2 282,9 252.8 281.0 67 336.9 252.9 248.6 236.5 271.0 68 349.0 267.7 262.9 250.5 259.0

69 280.1 302.9 262.0 266. o

%olesale price cattle, hogs, sheep, lamb to 1939; after ~1 production price. -continued- 66

Table A-I.(continued)

Price indexes (1913=100) Yesr Food Price of Farm Land price living wage price WO bldgs. (G26) (G27) (G28) 9) ~ercent *A

1850 753 51 761 52 775 798 ;: 821

1855 847 56 872 57 901 58 935 59 965

1%60 1 003 61 1 040 $ 1 074 1 096 64 1 116

1865 1 130 66 1 141 67 1 155 68 1 160 69 1 171

187o 1 210 71 1.21 I 251 72 1.35 1 276 73 1.47 1 314 74 1.49 1 349

1875 1.57 1 354 76 1.58 1 353 77 1.52 1 325 78 > 1.43 1 322 79 1.34 1 308

-continued- 67

Table A-I. (continued)

Year (G26) ( G27) (G28) (G29)

1~80 1.34 1 321 81 74 1.36 1 315 82 73 1.35 1 307 83 74 1.34 1 284 84 72 1.35 1 280

1885 74 1033 1 289 86 ’75 1.35 1 319 87 75 1.35 1 345 88 74 1.36 1 355 89 78 1.36 1 355

1890 80 1.39 1 317 91 81 1,40 I 290 92 81 1.41 1 259 93 78 1.41 1 256 94 77 1.45 1 248

1895 76 1.48 1 24.0 96 75 1.50 1 257 97 76 1.53 1 283 98 79 1.60 1 312 99 78 1.65 1 338

1900 78 1.70 1 368 01 79 1,71 1 398 02 80 1.73 I 426 03 80 1.76 1476 0.!+ 81 1.78 1 528

1905 85 1.83 1 581 06 88 1.89 1 625 07 89 1.94 1 718 08 90 1.97 1 716 09 92 2.03 1 794

1910 2.06 1 870 11 2.12 1 945 12 2.18 2 022 13 2,27 2 100

------.--—

-continued- 68

Table A-l*(continued)

Year (G26) ( G27) (G28) ( G29)

1925 142 3.07 2 730 26 ~42 3.35 2738 27 148 3.56 2850 28 152 3.85 2 778 29 154 4.17 2745

1930 148 4.36 2 432 31 136 4.14 2 014 32 121 3.40 I 760 33 118 3.18 1 749 34 121 3.25 1 865

1935 123 3.30 2 027 36 125 3.37 2 125 37 125 3.43 2 132 38 126 3,50 2 188

------

1950 196 7.56 4359 51 212 9,18 4604 52 215 10.44 4849 53 212 11.25 5 095 54 213 11.43 4340

1955 217 12.60 5 585 56 222 13.59 5831 57 231 14.40 6076 58 235 15.57 6 321 59 238 16.02 6567

1960 241 17,37 6812 61 247 19.35 7 057 62 254 21.69 7 302 63 262 23.94 7 $82 64 269 27.00 7 615

1965 277 30.69 $ 820 66 287 33*57 10 180 67 291 33.84 11 156 68 295 34.56 10 776

------

1969 303 37.44 -continued- 69

Table A-l. (continued)

Fertilizer ?mice Oilcake Net Natfl. Population Year Total N P*05 K20 price income of (mid-year) market (l~3=loo) (G30) (G31) (G32) (G33) (G3h) (3) Marks/metric ton mil. Marks &

1850 35312 51 35 628 52 35864 35994’ 53 36096 54 36138 1855 36260 56 36 528 57 58 36831 37 190 59 37 611 1860 61 38003 38 362 62 38765 63 39 189 64

1865 ;; 54; 66 67 40 032 6+3 40 223 69 40494

1870 40805 40997 71 72 41 230 41 564 73 42004 74. 42 518 1875 76 43 059 43 610 77 4.4129 78 44641 79

------e------0------

-continued- 70

Table A-I.(continued)

Yeer (G30) (G31) (G32) (G33) (G34) (G35) ( G36)

18$0 950 2 111 830 192 161.0 19 874 45095 81 892 1 944 780 192 161.o 20 616 45428 $2 895 1 768 830 216 161.0 20 444 45 719 83 779 1 502 720 216 161.0 21 909 46016 84 707 1 321 660 204 161.0 22 712 46396

1885 611 1 330 500 194 138.0 23 452 46707 86 579 1 258 470 194 132.2 24142 47 134 87 561 1 259 4’.40 194 118.5 24 558 47 63o 88 594 1 265 490 194 142.6 25 840 48168 89 613 I 206 540 180 149.5 26478 48717

1890 632 I 061 610 18o 138.0 27 754 49 2Q 91 639 1 094 61o 180 147.2 26822 49762 92 568 1 093 500 180 146.0 2$ 390 50266 93 475 1 151 360 180 138.0 30 606 50757 94 467 1 156 360 180 101.2 30 196 51 339

1895 lpu 9$4 330 180 98.9 32079 52001 96 370 966 280 180 110.4 33 377 52753 97 346 923 260 18o 126.5 34739 53 569 98 370 979 290 180 127.7 36813 54406 99 435 1 130 360 180 130.0 36860 55 248

1900 458 1 144 36o 180 140 ● 3 36466 56046 01 432 1 099 330 180 131.1 36197 56874 02 454 1 208 330 180 138.0 36918 57767 03 4h3 1 262 310 180 131.1 40 132 58629 04 426 1 244 310 180 133.4 42 263 59475

1905 435 1 281 320 180 146.1 43346 60314 06 434 1 236 330 190 150.6 44 299 61153 07 436 1 214 340 190 151.8 461$1 62013 08 430 1 197 340 190 148.4 46410 62863 09 420 1 170 330 190 154.1 47 512 63717

1910 404 1 224 310 190 146.1 474.57 64 568 11 428 1 378 320 180 158.7 49 648 65 359 12 445 1 434 330 180 169.1 51914 66146 13 440 1 369 360 180 164.4 52440 66978

------.,------—

-centinued- 71

Table A-l,(continued)

Year (G30) (G31) (G32) (G33) (G34) (G35) (G36)

1925 4$1 1 058 313 189.7 4689’7 63166 26 459 999 340 15$.7 46 587 63 63o 27 429 938 289 202.4 53108 @ 023 28 448 914 250 75 213.9 53950 64393 29 L+f!+O 890 317 75 236.9 51 694 64739

1930 424 834 313 75 173.7 49 289 65084 392 788 255 [$ (;:;.:) 43913 65423 ?; 381 732 226 41760 65716 33 366 701 256 67 104:+ 47 375 6602’7 34 354 675 249 92.0 52102 66409

1935 354 653 213 67 91.0 58 658 66871 36 329 663 210 67 87.4 67 349 37 298 467 213 56 115.0 67 831 38 299 457 213 51 110.4 68 558

------

1950 449 831 305 89 344.0 44904 47060 51 528 911 400 91 407.0 48 312 47456 52 594 993 482 10$ 417.o 51 660 47728 599 1. 091 468 114 413.0 5473:1. 48 172 Z: 601 1. 094 445 115 437.0 59 734 48710

1955 489 1. 094 445 115 439.0 64756 49 203 56 504 1. 094 438 115 432.0 69 211 49 800 57 510 1. 094 431 116 389.0 71 79:1. 50465 58 521 1. 149 &o 117 398.0 73 083 51 128 59 566 3. 149 445 120 391.6 78 526 51747

1960 579 1. 124 445 121 420.0 85 279 55433 587 1. 099 435 121 439.0 89 598 56175 ; 606 1, 099 435 121 473.0 92818 56938 63 658 1. 099 435 121 480.o 95409 57 587 64 650 1 074 423 121 483.0 101 691 58 266

1965 662 1 051 418 121 499.0 107 031 59 012 66 688 1. 051 421 121 493.0 109 465 59 638 67 679 1, 017 419 120 479.0 108 287 59873 68 690 408 115 494.0 116 218 60 184

------

1969 4.76.0 122 501. 60 848 -continued- 72

Table A-I.(continued)

Energy Oilca.ke Cereals Cereals Land Year consumption (net (net (price) machinery (1954/55=100) imports) imports) price index (19:3;100) (G37) (G38) (G39) (4) roil.Marks 1000 mT, & 1850

;; 53 54

1855 56 57 58 59

1860 61 62 63 64

1865

% 68 69

1870 71 72 73 74.

1875 76 161 77 156 78 152 79 147

18$0 88 898 179 142 81 124 1 232 1$3 138 82 145 1 809 162 133 83 200 1 783 149 128 $.!+ 197 242’.4 149 124

-continued- 73

TableA-l* (continued)

Year (G37) (G38) (G39) (G40) (G41)

1885 192 1 943 146 119 86 212 1 187 138 117 222 1 830 130 116 z 265 1 590 1.4.4 114 89 405 2462 156 112

1890 387 2468 170 111 91 452 2 589 196 110 92 481 2 505 162 110 93 544 2013 144. 110 94 575 2 136 129 110

1895 540 3264 130 110 96 532 4042 137 110 97 615 3 330 148 110 98 705 3676 162 110 99 682 2892 150 110

1900 730 2928 145 110 01 788 3942 150 110 02 765 4273 152 110 03 810 4282 138 109 04 914 3 522 144 108

1905 909 4$45 155 106 06 894 4710 165 105 07 1 129 4822 186 104 08 1 068 3379 182 103 09 1 246 4643 185 102

1910 1 301 4602 164 100 11 1 278 5991 182 100 12 1 397 4802 198 100 13 1 607 4 501 169 100

------

1925 1 062 3 569 220 26 1 457 6782 216 27 1 480 6262 248 28 1 689 3833 243 29 1 768 3 163 235

-continued- 74

Table A-l. (continued)

Year (G37) (G38) (G39) (G40) (G41)

1930 1 497 1 966 194 1 861 2 402 200 ;; 2 290 687 186 33 2 046 - 131 165 34 1 533 1 547 174

1935 1 169 220 192 36 1 079 1 988 198 37 1 181 3950 202 38 1 394 2 777 202

------

1950 314 345 3733 317 51 318 349 4759 426 52 349 516 4113 413 53 378 536 3 666 405 54 435 613 4951 393

1955 499 734 3922 404 56 558 871 5708 396 598 1 165 4225 410 ;: 667 1 286 4 316 408 59 754 1 688 4666 411

1960 854 1 583 3 040 399 61 943 1 914 6925 408 62 1 016 2 110 4346 415 63 1 097 2 097 3 770 413 64 1 174 2 764 4336 418

1965 1 313 3 315 5 717 413 66 1 365 3 143 5 544 418 67 1 435 3 149 6050 375 68 1 520 3 284 6085 383 75

@r-lu3Nriywm Odo”o”o”

r-11-imo l-l .&s&

Cf3mlr-fmcu a)x)g$~ 4CU03F0 omF tom fx)mtou)o .0 .00 d“o“ o“ 0° o“ 00000

cho@+m . . . Uim”tomo rim

tonl co F’F o +r-- r-i ● * . 00 0 76

FigureA-l. Average size of farms with more than one hectare, 1895 Germany

FigureA-2. Territorialboundariesof 1936 Germanyand 1960 West Germany

W.EST GERMANY

*“)77 \ miles

‘-- !iiai~i%%i%%ns 77

SelectedReferences on German Agricultural Development

Abel, Wilhelm, Agrarkrisen und Agrarkonjunkturen. ~ Geschichte der Land- undn~rnahrungswirtschaft seit dem hohen Mittelalter. 2 revised and enlarged edition. Hamburg and berlin 1966. /

Abel, Wilhelm, Agrarkonjunktur. In: Handworterbuch ~Sozialwissenschaften, Band 1. Stuttgart? TUbingen, ~ottingen 1956, p. 49 - 59.

Abel, Wilhelm$ Geschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft ~friihen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert. Stutt- gart 1962.

Andr6, Doris, Die Indikatoren des technischen Fort- schritts. Eine Analyse der Wirtschaftsentwicklung in Deutschland von 1850 bis 1913. (Weltwirtschaftliche Studien, 16). G8ttingen 1971. ,

Areboe, Friedrich~ llDas Ern~hrungsproblern der V/51ker ~e Produktionssteigerung der Landwirtschaftftt Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv. 21. Band. Jena 1925, p. 157 - 160, 165 * 183.

‘Bandini, Mario, Hanau, Arthur$ I{uznets, Simon, Lindbek, Assar, Malassis$ Louis, Reddaway, Brian, Agriculture and Economic Growth. A Report by a Group of Experts. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris 7965.

Bellerby$ J. R., *\National and Agricultural IncomertS The Economic Journal, 69. March 1959, P* 95 - 104*

Bittermann, Eberhard, “Die landwirtschaftliche Produc- tion in Deutschlamd 1800 - 1950. Ein methodischer Bei- trag zur Ermittlung der Ver~nderung des Umfanges der landwirtschaftlichen Production urid der Ertragssteige- rung in den letzten 150 Jalmen\’~ Ktihn-Archiv. 10. Band, Heft 2, Halle 1956.

13jerke, Kjeld, Omsaetningen og salgsprisen for Lande- ejendomme 1902 - 1942. Nyt Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen 19500

Brandes, Wilhelm and Woermann, E., Landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre. Band 2, Spezieller Teil. Organisation und Fuhrung landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe. Hamburg und Berlin 1971. 78

klrinkmann, ‘1’heodor, Die Okonomik des landwirtschaftlichen Betriebes. Grundriss der Sozialokonomik. ‘llibin- gen 1922. Here quoted according to the English edition. Theodor Brinkmann*s Economics of the Farm Business. With Introduction and Notes by Elizabeth Tucker Bene- dict, Heirmich Hermann Stippler and Murray Reed Benedict. University of California Press. Berkeley,’ California 1935.

13rinkmann, Theodor, Die Stellung der Nutzviehhaltung in der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung. In: Festschrift ftir Andreas Hermes. Neuwied 19zf8, p. 69 - 80.

Bublot, Georges$ La Production Agricole Beige. Etude ~ique Selxlaire 1846 - 1955. Publisher~ E. Nau- welaerts, Louvain 1957.

Bundesministerium fiir Ernahrung,Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Statistisches Jahrbuch iiber Erntihrung$ Landwirtschaft und ForstenP Hamburg und Berlin 1970.

Decken, ii., von der, “Entwicklun&” der Selbstversorgung Deutschlands mit landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugnissenttt (Berichte iiber Landwirtschaft, 138. Sonderheft ). Neue Folge. Berlin 1938.

Deutsche Bundesbank (Archiv), Prices of Gold for Diffe- rent Foreign Currencies in the Period 1850 to 1913. (Communicated by letter, March 1972).

Deutscher Bundestag, 6. Wahlperiode. Drucksache VI\1800. Materialband zum Agrarbericht 19’71 der Bundesregierung. Bonn 1971.

Dovrin~, Folke, Land and Labor in Europe in the Twen- tieth Century. A Comparative Survey of Recent Agrarian History. Third revised edition of Land and Labor in Eu- rope 1900 - 1950. The ‘iiague 1965.

Dumant, Michel, Ce que vaut la terre en France. Valeur = et valeur locative. Publisher~ Hachette. Paris 1962.

Erode, K. and Philip M. RauP, The Mimesota I@ral Real Estate Market 1970. Department of Agricultural and App- lied Economics. Study Report p. 71-D. May 1971.

Esslen, J. B., Die Fleischversorgung des Deutschen Nei- ches. Eine U-ntersuchung der Ursachen und Wirkungen der Fleischteuerung und der Mittel zur Abhilfe. Stuttgart {912. 79

Feuerstein, Horst J l’Bestimmung sgriinde der Preise und des Transfers landwirtschaftlich genutzten Bodenslf, Agrarwirtschaft, Jahrgang 19 (1970)$ p. 22 - 33.

Finck von Finckensteinj Graf Hans Wolfram, Die Ent- wicklung der Landwirtschaft in Preuljen und Deutsch- land 1800 - 1930. Publisher: Holzner VerlFg, Wtirzburg 1960.

Fourasti&, Jean, and Fontaine, Claude, Documents pour l~histoike et la th~orie des prix. Centre dTEtudes des Economiques, Librairie Armand Colin. Paris 1958. Franz,Gtlnther,Die Geschichteder Landtechnikim XX. Jahrhundert. ~k-t/Main, DLG-Verlags-Gmbh.,1969.

Grupe, D,, ‘Die Nahrungsmittelversorgung Deutschlands seit 1925. Eine Auswertung der einschlagigen Statisti- ken zu vergleichbaren Versorgungsbilanzen’t, (Agrarwirt- schaft, Sonderheft 3/4.)Hannover 1957.

Hanau, Arthur, t~llieStellung der Landwirtschaft in der Sozialen Marktwirtschafttt, Agrar~yirtschaft, January 1958, p. 1 - 16. , Iianau, Arthur, ltThe Disparate StabiJity of Farm and Nonfarm Pricest$, Proceedings of the Tenth Internatio- nal Conference of Agricultural Economists, London? New York, Toronto, Oxford. University Press. 1960~ p. 124 - 147.

Hayami, Yujiro, ll~ice policy in Japanls Economic Deve- lopment”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 54, Number 1, February 1972, p. 19 - 31.

Hayami$ Y., and Vernon W. Ruttan, Agricultural Develop- ment: An International Perspective. Baltimore ‘l’heHop- kins Press, 1971.

Hayami, Y. in association with Barbara B, Miller, William W. Wade, Sachiko Yarnashita, ~!k International Comparison of ~cultural Production and Productivities!’,University of Mimesota$ Agricultural Experiment Station. Technical Bulletin 27’7, 1971.

Hayami, Y. and Saburo Yamada, Agriculture and Economic Growth: Japan’s Experience. Edited by Kazushi Okhawa, Bruce l?. Johnston, Hiromitsu Ka.neda. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 1970, p. 105 - 135. iiaselhoff$ E., “AUS der Entwicklung des Verbandes deutscher landwirtschaftlicher Versuchsstationen”. Reprinted from llDie lmdwirtschaftliche Versuchsstation” . Organ fur wissenschaftliche Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Land- wirtschaft. Band 117, Berlin 1933. 80

Haushofer, Heinz, Die deutsche Landwirtschaft im technischen Zeitalter. (Deutsche Agrargeschichte, tid. 5) Edited by G. Franz. Publisher: Eugen Ulmer. Stuttgart 196?.

Heidhues, ‘theodor~ Zur Theorie der landwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. In: Die Landwirtschaft in den heutigen In- dustrieliindern. (Schriften der Gesellschaft fur Wirt- schafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V. s Band 5). Edited by H:G. SchlotterS MUnch@n$ Basel~ Wi@n 1968, p. 9 - 40.

Henning, Friedrich-Wilhelm$ Stadien und Typen in der Entwicklung der Landwirtschaft in den heutigen Industrie- landern. In: Die Landwirtschaft in der volks- und welt- wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. (Schriften der Gesellschaft fiir Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V., Band 5). Edited by H. -G. Schlotter, Mtichen, Basel, Wien 1968, p. 41 - 82.

Herlemann, H. -H. and H. Stainer, Pxoduktionsgestaltung und Betriebsgr6fie in der Landwirtschaft unter dem Ein- fluf3 der wirtschaftlich-technischen Entwicklung. Kiel 1958. (Kieler Studien, 44).

Hoffmann, Walther, G. and J. H. MUller~ Das deutsche Volkseinkommen 1851 - 1957. Schriften zur angewandten Wirtschaftsforschung. Edited by W. G. lioffmann. TUbin- gen 1959.

Hoffmann, Walther$ G., Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirt- schaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. With assistance of Franz Grumbach and Helmut Hesse. Berlins Heidel~ berg, iiew York: Springer 1965.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 1970. World Bank Atlas. Population, Per Capita Product and Growth Hates. Washington~ D. C. ~ 1970.

Jacobs, A. and H. Richter, Die Grof3handelspreise . in Deutschland von 1792 bis 1934. (Vierteljahreshefte fiir Konjunkturforschungt Sonderheft iir. 37). Berlin 1935.

Jensen, Einar, Danish Agriculture. Its Economic Develop- -1870 - 1930. J. H. Schultz Forlag. Copenhagen 1937.

Johnston, Bruce .F.$ The Japanese llModel!l of Agricultural Development: Its Relevance to Developing Nationsg In: Agriculture and Economic Growth: Jap~s Experience. Edi- ted by Kazushi Okhawa; Bruce F. Johnston~ Hiromitsu Kane- da. Princeton, N. Y. Princeton University Press and Uni- versity of Tokyo Press 19709 p. 58- 102. 81

Kaneda, Hiromitsu, !lLo~g.term Changes in Food Consump- tion Patterns in Japan”, Agriculture and Economic Growth: Japanrs Experience. Edited by Kazushi Okhawa, Bruce k’. Johnston$ Hiromitsu Kaneda. Princeton University Press. University of I’okyo press 1970, p. 398 - 429.

Krohn, Hans-Broderg ‘tDie Futtergetreidew’irtschaft der Welt 1900 - 1954. Eine Untersuchung uber die Entwicklung von Angebot und Nachfrage in der getreideverwertenden Veredelungsproduktion im wirtschaftlichen Waohstumspro. zef3tt, Berichte uber LandwirtschaftJ 165. Sonderheft) Neue Folge. Hamburg and Berlin 1957.

Riohard, Geschichte der deutschen Landwirt- schaft. 2 edition. Stuttgart 1961.

Kuznets, Simon, ‘lQuantitative Aspects of the Economio Growth of Nations”, Economio Development and Cultural Changes, Vol. V, No. 1, 1956, p. 1 - 94. , Lamer, Mirko~ The World Fertilizer Economy. Stanford University Press. California 1957.

Lehmann, Hans Georg, Die Agrarfrage in der Theorie und Praxis der deutschen und internationalen Sozialdemokra- tie. Vom Marxistnus zum Revisionismus und Bolschewismus. Publisher: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeclc). (Ttibinger Stu- dien zur Geschichte und Politik. Founded by Hans Rothfels. Edited by Josef Engel$ Theodor Eschenburg, Dietrich Geyer, hr. 26.) !Mbingen 1970.

Lembke$ F., Genossenschaften auf dem Lande . Berlin, ‘g (About 1909).

Lenkeit, Walter, Einfuhrung in die Ernahrungsphysiologie der Haustiere. Publisher: Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart 1953.

Mandelbaurn, The Industrialization of Backward Areas. Assisted by J. R. L. Dekneder, 2 ‘d Edition, Oxford, Blackwell, 1955 (Institute of Statistics. Monograph No. 2).

Millendorfer, Hans und Gaspari, Christopf, ‘tImmaterielle und materielle Faktoren der Entwicklung. Ansatze zu ei- ner allgemeinen Produktionsfunktion’l , Zeitschrift fur Nationalokonomie, Bd. 31 (1971), p. 81 - 120.

Minist~re de lragriculture, de ltindustrie et des tra- vaux publics. Agriculture$ Recensement g&6ral de 1910, Pa~tie documentaire. Brussels 1910.

Nakarnura, James I., Agricultural Production and the Economic Development of Japan 18’73 - 1922. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press9 1966. 82

Organisationfor EconomiaCo-operationand Development,Agrlml. turalStatistics195S-1968,Paris1969.

Okhawa$ Kazushi, Phases of Agricultural Development. Inf Agriculture and Economic Growth: Japants Experi- ence. Edited by Kazushi OkhawaS Bruce F. Johnston$ Hiromitsu Kaneda, Princeton University,Press. Univer- sity of Tokyo Press 19709 p. 3 - 36. .

Peterson, Willis, Principles of Economics: Micro, home- wood, Illinois, 1971.

Raup, p., Constraints and Potentials in Agriculture. In; The Changing Structure of Europe. Policital, So- cial and Economic. Trends, by Robert H. Beck, Harold C. Deutsch, Philip M. Raup~ Arnold M. Ruse, John Turn- bull assisted by Jean B. TaberO University of Minnesota Press, MiMesota 1970t p. 126 - 170.

Roetner~ Theodor und I’r!htzScheffer, Ackerbaulehre. P edition. Publisher: Paul Pa=y, Berlin and Hamburg 1949. , Ruttan, Vernon W., ‘technology and the Environment. Presidential Address, ‘tAmerican Journal hf Agricultu- ral Economics , Vol. 53, Number 5, December 1971, Po 707 - 717.

.H~~m, &JaryE&nd James P. Houck, Regional Analysis of Export Demand for U.S. Soybean Products. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Mimesota. June 1970 (Manuscript).

Schmitt, G., “Agrarstudium und Agrarforschung im Wandel der Zeiten”~ Berichte iiber Landwirtschaft, Band 47 {1969), p. 547 - 559.

Scholz, H., *’Langfristige Entwicklung der Milchleistung je Kuhflt Berichte tiber Landwirtschaft$ Hamburg und Ber- lin, Band 44 (1966),p. 260 - 269.

Schwartz, Otto, ‘tDie Wanderung des land- und forst- wirtschaftlichen Bodens in Schleswig-Holsteinlt$ Be- richte tiber Landwirtschaft, Band 46 (1968)S P. 79 - 101.

Statistiske Department, Statistics of Denmark. Statistisk ~rbog 19s8. Copenhagen 1959.

Stolper; Gustav, continued by Karl llauser~ Knut Bor- chardt, Deutsche Wirtschaft seit 1870. Tubingen 1964. English Edition: The German Economy. 1870 to the Present. ‘1’ranslatedby ‘1’oniStolper. New York$ Chicago? San Fran- cisco, Atlanta 196?. 83

Tracy, Michael$ Agriculture in Western Europe. Crisis and Adoption sinoe 1880. London 1964.

2ZSSY* Michael, ‘tCapital-Output Ratios in Agriculture and Problems in their Use”g Zeitschrift fur National- okonomie, 30 (1970)$ P. 197 - 208.

Unger, Helmut, “Neuere Entwicklungstendenzen auf dem Welt-Stickstoffdiingermarkt’l, Berichte uber Landwirt- schaft, Band 47 (1969), p. 26 - s8.

United States Department of Agriculture, State Agricul- tural Experiment Sbations. History of Research Policy and Procedure. Miscellaneous Publication’No. 904. Washing- ton 1962.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, His- torical Statistics of the United States. Colonial Times of 1957. Washington 1960. , U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, The Statistical Abstract of the United States 1970w

Wade, William, B., Patterns of Economic Development: The European Age within the Concept of the Induced Inno- vation Hypothesis. Seminar Paper Mimeographed. ‘l’heUni~ versity of Minnesota 1971.

Ward, J. ‘I’.,~Farm Sale prices over a iiundre”d “ years. “ -Estates Gazette, 3 May 1958, quoted according to Cowling, Keith; Metcalf, David; Rayner, A. J.,Resource Structure of Agriculture: An Economic Analysis. Perga- mon Press. Oxford, New York$ Toronto? Sydney$ Braun- schweig 1967.

Weber,Adolf,‘ProductivityGrowthin GermanAgriculture:18S0-1970” =ndix on Data on ProductivityGrowthin GermanAgrimlture$ 18S0.1970).Universityofllinnesota,Departmentof Agricultu~l and AppliedEconomics.StaffPaper73-19August1973SMimeo.

Woermann, Emil, I)Die E~~~icklungslinien Und Wandlungen ‘schen Ern5hrungswirtschaft seit der Reichsgrtin- dung’1, Kuhn=-Archiv, Band 50, Festschrift. Halle 1938~ p. 55 - 102. -. Woermann, Emil, ff~ie Landwirtsc~af’t im Irlclustriestaat”, ln: Kali-Briefe. Fachgebiet 14, Betriebs- und Landar- b~itslehre. 8. l’olge (1955). 84

Woermann, Emil, Die Veredelungswirt schaft. ‘B”etriebsff.?rmen und Rentabilitatsfragen der Nutzviehhaltung. Berlin 1933.

Wohltmannt F., “Deutschlands Einfuhr und Bedarf landwirtschaftlicher Stoffe aus dem Auslande”, Kiihn-Archiv, i~and VI, 1915$ p. 239 - 295.

Wohlken, E., Die Nachfrage nach i~ahrungsmitteln tie- rischer Herkunft unter dem EinfluB des Wirtschafts- wachstums. In: Entwicklungstendenzen in der Production und im Absatz t~erischer Erzeugnisse. (Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft fur Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaf- ten des Landbaues e.V.$ Bd. 6), Edited by R. Zapf, Miin- chen, Basel, Wien, 1970, p. 2 - 30. / Woytinsky, W.S. and E. S. Woytinsky, World Population and Production; Trends end Outlook* New York 1953.

Zimmerman$ L. J., Poor Lands~ Rich Lands’. The Wide- ning Gap. Studies in Economics. Random Hause. New York 1965.

Zurek~ Ernst, Zur Lage der Landwirtschaft in der volks- wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Ein historisch-quantita- tiver Beitrag zum Disparitatsproblem. Bonn 1962. Agri- cultural Dissertation.