Staff Paper P73-1 Revised August 1973

PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN GERMAN AGRICULTURE: 1850 TO 1970

Appendix DATA ON PROD"CTIVITY 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 C-nter. The author is indebted to Barbara B. Miller for assistance in the organization and processing of statistical materials and to Vernor W. Ruttan for critical review and editorial suggestions. PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN GERMAN AGRICULTURE: 1850-1970*

ADOLF WEBER

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 resour:!e endowments, and changes in relative factor and product prices. 1

'he 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 Germany 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 institutional in­ novation. It was the model for similar developments in both Japan and the United States [8, 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 Germ,any compares favorably

ADOLF WEBER is Professor at the Institut f~r Agrarpolitik and

Marktlehre, Christian-Albreohts-Universittt, Kiel, Germany. 2

Table 1. Trends in factor productivity, Germany, 1850-1968 (five-year

averages centered on year shown)

Annual compound rate of change 1850 1880 192 5a 1950 a to to to to 1880 1910 1935 196g

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

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

Numbs, 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 <-0 .d 0.1 <0.1 Agricultural land area per male worker -0.5 -0.1 d 2.1 3.6 Output per ha. agricultural land 1.5 1 . 8 d 2.7 3.6

Arable land are (0.0) <-O. 1 d -0.1 -0.2 Arable land area per male worker (-0.5) <-O.id 1.7 3.4 Output per ha. arable land 1.5 1 .8d 3.1 3.5

aYear shown.

bWest Germany only.

cMale workers in agriculture, forestry and fishery

dLand data is for 1883 rather than 1880.

Source: FromF9] and C3, various issues-. 3

with the rates achieved by Japan and the United States in the 20th

century. This pattern of productivity growth in German agriculture was

more "balanced" 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 agricultural worker

than Japan. 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 agri­

cultural development has been preoccupied with crop agriculture and has ignored the potential contribution of livestock production, particularly small scale livestock production, in the agricultural development process.

Induced Technical Change in Agriculture3

It is generally agreed that technical change has represented an important source of growth in agricultural output. It is also increas­ ingly recognized that agricultural technology is relatively location specific and that there are multiple paths of technological development 4

(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 and productivity by relieving the technical constraints on

the area that could be cultivated per worker. In Japan it was primarily progress in biological technology, represented by seed improvements which

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 agricultural output 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 de­ mand 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 bio­ logical technology, in Figure 2. 5

0...... '..

I: /"1 ... qe...... - - - - ...... -- A..

4' ......

- -. i - - r - - ­ 5 °PI 7 I 30 JO40 SO0000UV, 5 Ark'vltwe Ouk4 fIWteet Uau Mgb ei b.

Figure 1. Historical growth paths of agricultural development in Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States, 1880-1965, five-year averages Soiuameu: For Germany: Weber ...

For Japan, Denmark, France, United Kingdom (UK), and the Unitjd States: Hayami and Ruttan 8, pp. 67-81; 6

LL

> .

N

...... uai, ......

* a *: a > 0 ...... o ....

ONV (kOO. ONHD31 lVD1001019) a

EOV1(ADOONtDBl 1 aIVI]) l:AO

...... Le..... t oes

N I 0 I " 7

The process of technical innovation can be described as a movement along a "metaproduction function" or "innovation possibility frontier." '4

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 uo and uI corresponding to different types of machinery or technology. A certain technology represented by uo, a reaper for example, is invented

when a price ratio, Po, prevails for some time. When this price ratio

changes from po to pI, 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 illus­

trated by line EA, 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-fertilizer isoquant of the metaproduction function. The metaproduction function is the envelope of

less elastic isoquants, such as vo and vl, 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 8

by plant breeders to develop more fertilizer-responsive crop varieties

and by farmers to adopt the new varieties as they become available.

The complementary relationship between biological technologies and

fertilizer use, represented by EF,B], also extends to the protective

chemicals (insecticides, herbicides) and the institutional innovations

associated with the marketing and delivery of chemicel 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 breederE to direct their efforts to the development

of feedstuffs which incorporate a higher percentage of the lower cost

proteins and to select and breed for lines which have a more rapid rate

of gain when fed the new rations. Complementarity between 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 Tabl 2. Before proceeding to the btatistical 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 substantially different from that in many less-developed countries today. Average per capita income was less than $300 in 1968 U.S. dollars 11]. Roughly seventy-five percent Table 2. Hypothesized relationships between relative factor prices and induced changes in factor use

Dependent variable Independent variables and hypothesized sign

Land Saving Technoloey Ratio sign Ratio sign Fertilizer use Fertilizer price (PF) (-) Farm wage rate (PLE (+) per hectareu E A Land price GA Land price Oilcake imports AO' Oilcake price ( O\ (-) Farm wage rate (+) per hectare (A) Land r-l,e \PA' Land price Cereal imports (C) Cereal price (PA (-) Farm wage rate (PLA (+) per hectare Land price P Land price Mechanical Technoloav Workstock Land price PA) ( Machinery price PM ) per worker Farm wage rate Farm wage rate PL

Power input (P) Land price (LPA) (-) Machinery per worker price (PMLM -) . Farm wage rate P Farm wage rate Machinery capital (M) Land price -- A1 (A) Machinery price (PM) per worker Farm wage rate RPL/ Farm wage rate Livestock capital (LV Land Price _ (-) Machinery per worker Drice (P) (-) Farm wage rate A) Farm wage rate Agricultural land A (A Land price P () Machinery price CPM-() per worker L Farm wage rate (PL Farm wage rate \PL 10

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

percentage was fifty-five percent [i, p. 1051. 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 shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. In 1880

land endoinents per worker in Germany were more favorable than in

Japan and less favorable than 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 re­ mained 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 agricul­ tur,'. oatput and productivity during the last half of the 19th and first half of the 2Oth 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 land 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.) 3 5.6b 34.8 29.2 28.8 14.0 13.9 (2) Arable land area (million La,) 25 .8b 25.5 20.5 19.4 7.9 7.6 (3) Number of male farm workers (thousands) 5664 5880 4808 3951 2258. 1214

(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 3r.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 3.30 7.56 34.56

(8) (6)/(7) (days/ha agric. land) 988 925 889 614 576 299

(9)Livestock capital value0 (Marks/ha. agric. land) 2250 3695 3606 4215 4239. 5234

(10) Machinery capital valuec (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 value c (Marks/worker) 798 1293 1371 2086 2586 10783

aWest Germany only. P1883. CConstant prices of 1913. Source: Weber [II-4 * 700 - C-ERMANY 1 600)I . 600 UNITED STATES 500 J.A...... PAN

400 1 f. - 300'[ Output per male worker (Y/L) * o.. /

x.. 200 .*/ 500 .UJ / 400

300 x

Land area per male worker (A/L) c / 200 /~.....,.,.

.. /

300 OututereecaregY/) **.*-. "/eo C9 200

e 100. 00 /... /

300/

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960

Figuft . Changes in "laborproductivity,, land-labor ratiop and land producti-yity (1880 = 100)v Germany* the United Statest Sources. Haya. and Rutta L 8_; 'ebar f andJapang3. 1880-1960 13

the entire period. Since the 1920's the German pattern of growth in la­ bor productivity (Y/L) has been more like that of the United States-­

with labor productivity growing more rapidly than land prodctivity.

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 betv -i two com­

ponents--growth in land area per worker and land productivity. 6 During

the period 1850-1880 and 1880-1913 land area per worker declined. Growth 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 1880. In 1925-38 and in 1950-68

growth in land area per worker and in land productivity were of approx­

imately 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. 118j, following Griliches [5, pp. 241­

245], argue that it is consistent with the technical conditions of ag­

ricultural 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 pri­

marily 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 g 'owth in labor

productivity was associated primarily with increases in land productiv­

ity. 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, any 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 L2, p. 127; 33. 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 398 kilograms per capita, and eggs from 46 to 106 per capita.9

The growth of the livestocl- sector contributed to the growth of

output per worker in two ways. In spite of Germany's 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 fan operations through the growth of a labor intensive crop and crop residue processing sector in an environment where the land area per farm, and per farm worker, was relatively constant. 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-produced hay 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 cake--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. Table 4. Plant nutrients in manure and chemical fertilizers, Germany, 1800-1968

Type of plant nutrient Unit Consumption per hectare of agricultural land in -yar ­ 1800 1878/80 1898/00 1911/13 1936/38 19 61/62a 1968/6 9a

Nitrogen (N):

Total kg 3.9 10.8 20.7 31.0 54.3 81.6 118.9 Manure kg 3.9 i0.1 18.5 24.6 29.3 43.9 50.5 Chemical kg 0.0 0.7 2.2 6.4 25.0 43.7 68.4 Manure as % of total % 100.0 93.5 89.4 79.4 54.0 50.1 42.5

Phosphorus (P20 5 ):

Total kg 2.2 7.2 20.6 32.6 42.5 66.6 84.0 Manure kg 2.2 5.6 10.3 13.7 16.3 Chemical 22.0 25.2 kg 0.0 1.6 10.3 18.9 26.2 44.6 58.8 Manure as % of total % 100.0 77.8 50.0 42.0 38.4 30.3 30.0

Potash (K2 0): Total kg 5.2 10.9 27.8 49.5 82.9 134.4 147.4 Manure kg 5.2 10.1 24.7 32.8 39.2 61.5 70.7 Chemical kg 0.0 0.8 3.1 16.7 43.7 72.9 76.7 Manure as % of total % 100.0 92.7 88.9 66.3 47.3 45.8 48.0 aWest Germany only.

Sources: See Bittermann Ll, pp. 112, 115J and Bundesministerium flr Ernfhrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten L3 , p. 611. Table 5. Yields and growth rates in livestock production, Germany, 1800-1970

Kilograms Annual compound rate of change

1800 1883 1925 1950a to to to to 1800 1873 1883 1913 1925 1938 1950a 1970 a 1873 1913 1938 1970a

Milk per cow 860 1300 1400 2200 2040 2492 2560 3797 0.6 1.5 1.6 2.0

Meat productionb:

Pork/head of hog population - - 69 80 98 98 76 104 - 0.5 0.0 1.6 Beef and veal/ head of cattle production - 40 46 51 61 51 90 - 0.3 1.4 2.8

aWest Germany only.

bCarcass weight (lard, fat, and offals excluded).

Sources: Scholz LO, p. 261]; Hoffmann r9, P. 297]; Grupe [6, pp. 58, 591; Weber rII]. 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

p~ice of oilseed relative to land.10

(c) Long-term substitution of imported cereals for domestically

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

price of cereals relative to land.

(d) A rapid rise in livestock capital 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) A gradual 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 same relationships, as hypothesized in Table 2, are described statistically in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 shows the relation­ ship between the use of the land substitutes--measured in terms of fer­ tilizer consumption per hectare, imported oilcake per hectare, and im­ ported 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) ....-Farm Mach. price/farm wage rate (PM/PL) . Oilcake/cereals (Po/Pc)

400 200 /(PL/PA)

200

F . (Po/Pc)

100 -' 0

Go

50 so "\\ \ Po/PA)

\ (PC/PA)

\ (PM/PL) 10 (PF/PA) p * t ,. . . a * . I * * * I * 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 Figure 4. Relative factor p'rice trends, Germany, 1880-1965, five-year averages

Source: Weber /11/. 20

-jus 400 --. O-'------.MN

- at/00. -Oe F.rn A.VA\,,o" NI to

SO: ...... \ - - so . - Orr " NotIsi kvkw go Mis __1_

3'-- p O--1180 .. .I __

4010 4 q9 qS I q02 400 qI q2 40 PriceNUO ,!oftlOcake.FortlOzer.and Coeirilf toAirlcultwal lend

Figure 5. Relation between consumption of oilcakel, fertilizer, and cereals per hectare of agricultural land and price ration of oilcake, fertilier, and cereals to agricultural land, Gerany, 1880919659 five-year averages Source: Weber 111T57. 21 . Agric. land/worker (AlL) --- Workstock/worker (H/L) --- Machinery capital/worker (M/L) Power/worker (P/L)

100.0 1965 10.0

(M/A)

50.0 5.0

1950 1935 k

0 1925

13 1910 0 0U° S10.0001965 95,, (A/L) 1935 I. 19101.0 0$4 0 ' 1950 ' 92 1880 "4 '.0 -40 80 0 01 1915 44 , 1910 1

6725 . 505.0 0.5 0

$4(H /L)/4.

1965/ ' (P/L) i%

'1950

1 . 0 1 • _L_•. . a 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 /1.17 22

-- -- Agric. land/worker (A/L) Workstock/worker (H/L) Machinery capital/worker (M/L) Power/worker (P/L)

100.0 1965 10.0

(M/L)

50.0 5.0

•1950.. ..

.1950 1935 0 0 0

-o 1 925 r 0 910 v o00 1965 1935 / or4 P4 1965 (A/L) 910 1 0 V. ( 1950192550 .0 r4 % %1880.935 44 . 4A.

$-. -.:..1880 \ ,/19 190 fqj~iz9lo91 0 5.0 0.5 01 S

0 (H/I/

1965 / (P/L) I I

1950

1.0 ...... I 0.1 10.0 50.0 100.0

Land price/wage rate

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

Source: Weber /11. Table 6. Regressions of fertilizer, oilcake, and cereals consumption per hectare on of agricultural land relative factor prices, Germany, yearly observations for periods 1880-1913, 1950-19 68a

Coefficients of price Regression number and Time of Fertilizer (PF); Farm von dependent variable period Oilcake 2 (Po); wage PL) S Neumann F Cereals (Pc); relative Ratio relative to to land (PA) land (PA) (1) Fertilizer consumptionb 1880-1913 -1.8063** 0.0830 0.943 0.289 0.569 255.24:+ per hectare (0.099) (0.515) (2) Fertilizer consumptionb 1950-1968 -0.3772** 0.7987** 0.954 0.100 1.888$ 167.09+ + per hectare (0.098) (0.093) (3) Net oilcake importsc 1880-1913 -3.3333** 3.9735** 0.712 0.337 0.692 38.30+ per hectare (0.569) (1.221) (4) Net oilcake importsc 1950-1968 -1.5669** 2.3812** 0.973 0.337 0.798 290.27' per hectare (0.254) (0.255)

(5) Net cereals importsd 1880-1913 -1.6418** 3.6191** 0.579 0.207 0.994 21.27++ (1000 metric tons of (0427) (0.835) wheat, oats, barley, rye) per hectare

aWest Germany only. blo metric 00 tons of N, P205, K20 . clO00 metric tons product equivalent. dlo00 metric tons of wheat, oats, barley, rye. Note: ** and * mean the t-value is significant at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively; mean the von Neumann test $ and and indicate there is no serial correlation at the 1% ++ and + mean and 5% levels, respectively; the F-value is significant at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively. in logarithms. Equations are linear Standard errors of the estimated coefficients are in parentheses. Source: Weber: I1. Table 7. Regressions of power/labor ratio; machinery/labor ratio; land/labor ratio; and livestonk/ labor ratioa on relative factor prices, Germany, yearly observations for periods 1950-1968 1880-1913,

Coefficients of price of Regression number and Time Land (PA) Machinery(PM) Von dependent variable 2 period relative to relative to R S Neumann F farm wage(PL) farm wage(PL) Ratio (1) Horses and oxen per 1880-1913 -0.2905** -0.1747** 0.874 0.026 0.463 107.31+ + male worker (H/L) (0.062) (0.017) (2) Workstocksb per male 1950-1968 -0.9035 -1.7649** 0.960 0.333 0.427 192.62+ * worker (H/L) (0.699) (0.441) (3) Energy c consumed 1950-1968 -0.4389 -1.9592** 0.968 0.318 0.511 244.49*+ per male worker (P/L) (0.596) (0.376) (4) Capital valued of farm 1880-1913 -0.2378** -0.6069** 0.978 0.069 0.426 683.62++ machinery per male (0.070) (0.020) worker (M/L)

(5) Capital valued of farm 1950-1968 -0.2335 -1.3575"* 0.979 0.213 0.767 364.32' machinery per male (0.329) (0.207) worker

(6) Agricultural land (ha.) 1880-1913 -0.2635** 0.0664** 0.393 0.012 0.414 10.02+ + per male worker (A/L) (0.066) (0.018) (7) Agricultural land (ha.) 1950-1968 -0.1771 -0.4760** 0.975 0.083 1.097a 310.41+ + per male worker (A/L) (0.139) (0.087) (8) Capital valued of live- 1880-1913 -0.5254* -0.5485* 0.946 0.069 0.439 271.91' stock per male worker(LV/L) (0.110) (0.031) (9) Capital valued of live- 1950-1968 -0.0977 -0.6865** 0.972 0.106 1.200a 279.88*+ stock per male worker(LV/L) (0.187) (0.118)

-continued­ Table 7. (continued) aWest Germany only. bEquivalent units of horses, oxen, and tractor horse power. CExpenditure for gas, oil, grease, electricity, and coal by farmers in 1954-59 marks. dIn 1000 Marks of 1913.

Note: ** and * mean the t-value is significant at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively; mean the von Neumann test and indicate /$and there is no serial correlation at the 1% and 5% respectively; -- and + mean the levels, F-value is significant at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively. tions are linear in logarithms. Standard Equa­ errors of the estimated coefficients are in parentheses. Source: Weber [1i]. 26

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 rela­

tive to land, are statistically significant at the one percent level.

Table 7 shows the relationship between growth of livestock, mach­

inery, 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 agricultural machinery 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 1950-68 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 relationships described in the previous section might be interpreted. The first is in terms of a

diffusion or "choice of technology" hypothesis. German , -icultural

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 en­

vironment characterized by rapid growth in demand 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 uo and vo? Or did the observed

changes also involve shifts from uo to u1 and vo to v, along a meta­

production 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 discriminate be­

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 1880's were 28

clearly less fertilizer responsive than the varieties available in the

1960's. The early emergence of a chemical fertilizer industry in

Germany can itself be regarded as "induced" by the emergence of the German chemical industry during the last half of the 19th century in response to relatively weak 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 world's 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 land. In the case of animal production, the evidence is less clear. However, It 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 ambignous. Germany was not a leader in the development of agricultural machinery. Mechanical technology in

German agriculture was largely based on adaptations of American and

British designs. 12 The evidence would seem to suggest that advances 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 Germa.n farm size and crop specification as the price of labor rose relative to the price of machinery. 30

Footnotes

*University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment 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 Minnesota 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 statistical materials and

to Vernon W. Ruttan for critical -eview and editorial suggestions.

iThe "induced innovation" hypothesis is elaborated and tested

against the Japanese and United States experience in Hayami and Ruttan

2he 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 [12j.

3For an elaboration of the induced innovation model. discussed in this section, see Hayami and Ruttan F8, pp. 43-1350.

4 "The metaproduction 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 long-run, 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 ade­ quately described by the neoclassical production function. In the secular period of production, in which the constraints given by the available fund of technical knowledge are further relaxed to admit all potentially discoverable possibilities, production relationships can be described by a metaproduction function which describes all conceivable technical alternatives that might be discovered," Hayami and Ruttan [8, pp. 82-83].

51n 1850 annual per capita consumption of pork was 8 kilograms; total meat was 22 kilograms; and milk and milk products was 268 kilograms

(fluid milk equivalent). Average egg consumption was 46 eggs [9, p. 630]. The daily consumption of animal protein was about 25 grams per capita.

=YA - L L A where

Y = output

L = labor

A = land area

Y/L = labor productivity

A/L = land area per worker

Y/A = land productivity 32

7 per capita income grew at approximately 1.4 percent per year be­

tween 1850-80 and 1.7 percent per year between 1880-1913 [11].

8 Hoffmann[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 approximately 46 perc6nt 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].

iOAfter the world-wide economic depression of 1929, consumption of

protein fell below the long-term trend in the consumption-price relation­

ship as a result of restrictions on the importation of protein feeds [113.

liThe 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.

12 Germany 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 Germany's technical 33

capacity and the scale effect of producing large amounts of machinery, the adjustment time was short compared to small countries. [4, pp. 1,

16, 28, 33, 156, 178, 271, 274, 306, 310, 311, 313, 31@. See alsoL7 and 151.

1 3 See Hayami and Ruttan C8, pp. 44-53, 128-132J. 34

References

I BITTERMANN, EBERHARD, "Die landwirtschaftiliche Produktion in Deutschland 1800 ­ 1950. Ein methodischer Beitrag zur Ermittlung

der Veranderung des Umfanges der landwirtschaftlichen Produktion und

der Ertragssteigerung in den letzten 150 Jahren," Khn-Archiv 10, Heft 2, 1956.

2 BRINKMANN, THEODOR, Die Okonomik des landwirtschaftlichen Betriebea.

Gruxdriss der Sozialkonomik, T'bingen, 1922. Here quoted according

to the English edition, Theodor Brinkmann's Economics 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 Bundesministerium fr Ern.hrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Statistisches Jahrbuch lber Ern~hrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten,

Hamburg and Berlin, 1970. 4 FRANZ, GUNTHER, Die Geschichte der Landtechnik im XX. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt/Main, DLG-Verlags-CGbh., 1969.

5 GRILICHES, ZVI, "Agricvlture: Productivity and Technology," Inter­

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

millan and Free Press, 1968, pp. 241-245.

6 GRUPE, D., "Die Nahrunasmittelversorgung Deutschlands seit 1925. Eine Auswertung der einschl~gigen Statistiken zu vergleichbaren

Versorgungsbilanzen," Agrarwirtschaft, Sonderheft 3/4, 1957.

7 HAUSHOFER, HEINZ, i.e deutsche Landwirtschaft im technischen Zeital­

ter, in Deutsche Aarargeschthte, Vol. 5, ed. G. Franz, Stuttgart, Eugen Ulmer, 1963. 35

8 HAYAMI, YUJIRO AND VERNON W. RUTTAN, Agricultural Development: An Johns International Perspective, Baltimore, The/Hopkins Press, 1971.

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

der Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts. With assistance of Franz Grumbach

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

10 SCHOLZ, H., "Langfristige Entwicklung der Milchleistung je Kuh,"

Berichte ber Landwirtschaft 44:260-269, 1966.

11 WEBER, ADOLF, "Produtivity Growth in German Agriculture: 1850

to 1970" (Appendix on Data on Productivity Growth in German Agri­

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

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

12 , "Faktorpreise, Faktorproduktivitat and Technologie in

der amerikanischen, europisftn und japanischen Landwirtschaft von

1880 bis 1965," Zeitschrift fo'r Wirtschafts-tnd Sozialwissenschaften,

93, 2:197-226, 1973.

13 WOERMANN, EMIL, Die Veredelungswirtschaft, Betriebsformen und Rent­

abilit'tsfragen der Nutzviehhaltung, Berlin, 1933. 61 14 1'OHLKEN, E., "Die Nachfrage nach Nahrungsmitteln tierischer Herkunft

unter dem Einflis des Wirtschaftswachstums." In: Entwicklungsten­

denzen in der Produktion und im Absatz tierisher Erzeunisse.

(Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft fAr Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissen­

schaften des Landbaues e.V., Bd. 6), Edited by R. Zapf, Mtnchen,

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

15 WOHLTTMANN, F., "Deutschlands Einfuhr und Bedarf landwirtschaftlicher

Stoffe aus dem Auslande," Kihn-Archiv 6:239-295, 1915. 36

DATA ON PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN GERMAN AGRICULTUREs 1850 to 1970

Appendix to

PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN GERMAN AGRICULTURE: 1850 to 1970

Adolf Weber Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota and Institut fur Agrarpolitik und Marktlehre Christian-Albrechts-Universitit Kiel, Germany

August 1973 37

INTRODUCTION

The Appendix to "Productivity Grovth in German Agriculture:

1850 to 19700 is comprised of the following sections:

1) Basic Structural Series Data a) General remarks

b) Explanations for individual columns in Tables A-i

and A-2

c) Table A-I. Basic data, Germany, 1850-1969 d) Table A-2. Fertilizer-land comparisons, Germany,

United States, and Japan; 180-1965

2) Figure A-i. Average size of farms with more than one

hectare, 1895 Germany 3) Figure A-2. Territorial boundaries of 1936 Germany and 1960 West Germany 4) Selected references on German agricultural development. 38

BASIC STATISTICAL SERIES DATA

General Remarks:

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

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

1871-1913 to the second German Reich. The territory of Germany between

WI and WWII is that of the borders stipulated by the Versailles Treaty.

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

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

The term Germany is only used after World War II 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 data after WWII. The drastic changes in

German territory always should be kept in mind when stock variables-­ population, labor force, land, capital, and livestock are considered through the whole period. An agricultural year (July 1 tr June 30) is always without indication set equal to the preceding calendar year (e.g. 1950/51 = 1950).

The unit of currency has been in Germany:

1871-1923 Mark = M

1923-1948 Reichsmark = RM

1949- Deutsche Mark = DM

If prices are expressed in prices of a certain year, the expression of the referred year is used. To avoid a shift in expressions all three periods

(before WWI, between WWI and WWII, after WWII) are called Marks. 39

The following abbreviations are used for frequently cited references:

StJbDR: Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt (1880 until 1918), Berlin;

Statistisches Reichsamt (1919-1944), Berlin;

Statistisches Jahrbuch fdr das Deutsche Reich.

StJbBRD: Statistisches Bundesamt, Statistisches Jahrbuch fur dig

Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Wiesbaden.

StJbELF: Bcndaministerium fAr Ernghrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten,

Statistisches Jahrbuch ber Ernghrung, Landwirtschaft und

Forsten, Hamburg and Berlin.

DWdDI: Walther G. Hoffmann, Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des vorigen Jahrhunderts. With assistance of Franz Grumbach and Helmut Hesse. Berlin, Heidelberg,

New York: Springer, 1965. 40

Explanations for individual columns: G 1 Gross Agricultural Production (without seed, feed, waste) in prices of 1913 (inmillion Marks)

Source:

Period 1850-1959: N~dNg, pp. 320-323. Period 1960-1968: StJbELF, 1970, P. 131. Calculated on the

basis of linking the monetary value of agricultural production

(Geldwert der Nahrungsmittelproduktion) deflated by the agri­

cultural price index with the agricultural output in prices of

1913 from N~dDd. G 2 Crop Production (inmillion Marks) and

G 3 Livestock Production (in million Marks) Source:

Period 1850-1959: D~dIJ, P. 310. G 4 Value-Added in Agricul .ure in prices of 1913 (inmillion Marks)

Gross Agricultural Production (G 1)

+ Rental value of farmer's house

± Changes in stock of livestock

- Consumption of fertilizer

- Expenditure for inputs

a Net Agricultural Production - Costs of repair and maintenance

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

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

G 5 Labor (in 1000's)

All workers in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishery Source:

Period 1871-1939: NdN, p. 204-206.

Period 1950-1969: StJhBRD, 1965, p. 154; 1969, p. 124.

G 6 ikle Workers a) in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishery (in 1000's)

a) Number of Male Workers in Agriculture,(A) Forestry, (Fo) and Fishery(Fi)= Total Workers in A, Fo, Fi minus Female Workers

in A, Fo, Fi.

Number of female workers in agriculture, forestry, and fishery

are given in DWUd p. 210 for years 1882, 1895, 1907, 1925, 1939, 1950, 1958. Years 1962, 1968 are taken from StJbBRD, 1965,

p. 154; 1969, p. 124. The number of female workers for the

intermediate years is interpolated. Source: See G 5.

G 7 Agricultural Land (in 1000 hectares)

Source:

Period 1862-1913: DdW, p. 269. Period 1925-1938: StJbDR, various issues.

Period 1950-1970: StJbBRD, various issues. G 8 Arable Land (in 1000 hectares)

Source: Same as G 7. 42

G 9 Livestock (Capital Stock) in prices of 1913 (in billion Marks)

Source:

Period 1850-1959: UDdD, pp. 229-230, 1850-1959 (without poultry).

Period 1960-1964: Capital stock of livestock from DWdNW linked

with those of Peter Hrubesch, "Konstruktion eines Input-Index zur

Messung der Produktivitatsentwicklung in der westdeutschen

Landwirtschaft 1950/51 bis 1964/65," Berichte tiber Landwirtschaftp

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, 1970, pp. 140, 238 linked with capital itock of livestock

of DWdDW.

G 10 Machinery (Capital Value) in prices of 1913 (in billion Marks)

Source:

Period 1850-1959: DWdDW, p. 229-130.

Period 1960-1964: Capital stock of machinery from DWdDW linked

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

Period 1964-1968: Nominal value of net investments in farm

machinery, divided by index of purchasing prices for larger

farm machinery both from StJbELF, 1970, pp. 140, 246 linked

with capital stock of machinery from IDdDW.

G 11 Power Workstocks a) (Horses and Oxen) (in 1000's)

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

important for small farmers before W4II.

Source:

Period 1880-1938: StroDR, various issues.

Period 1950-1970: StJbBRD, StJbELF, various issues. 43

G 12 Tractor Horsepower (in 1000's)

Source: Same as GlL. G 13 Total of Gll and G 12.

O 14 Fertilizer Consumption (N + P205 + K20 in 1000 metric tons) G 15 G 16 Source: G 17 Period 1880-1913: Data for 1878, 1879, 1880, 1890-1893, 1898,

and 1899 from Alfons Hahne, "Betriebswirtschaftliche Studien zur Entwicklung und Organisation der deutschen D~gerwirtschaft,"

Kuhn-Archiv 53 (1940): 141-222 (here 208). Years 1881 to 1889

were linearly interpolated. Consumption of fertilizer per

hectare of agricultural land from 1900-1913 was multiplied by

agricultural land from Edwin von Boventer, "Eine 8konometrische Untersuchung u"ber die langfristige Entwicklung der Dngemittel­

nachfrage in Deutschland," Zeitschrdft ftr die gesamte

Staatswissenschaft 116 (Part I, 1960): 626-671 (here 668).

Period 1925-1938: Hans-Heinrich Herlemann, "Die Einkommens elastizit~t des Mineraldtngerverbrauchs," Weltwirtschaftliches

Archiv 62 (Part I, 1951): 242-274 (here 266).

Period 1950-1968: StJbELF, 1958, p. 120; 1961, p. 136; 1970, p. 139. StJbBRD, 1952, p. 141; 1955, p. 137.

G 18 Oilcake Consumption (in1000 metric tons) Source: Period 1E80-1913: Oil.ake consumption calculated according

to following formula: Oilcake consumption = Domestic Production

in oilseeds minus seeds (multiplied by 0.65 as the conversion 44

factor for oileake) ± Balance Foreign Trade in diloake +

Balance Foreign Trade in oilseeds (multiplied by 0.6 as the

conversion factor for oilcake). Production of oilseeds from NWdD, pp. 292, 293. Trade in oilseeds and oilcake from StJbDR,

1892, pp. 44-46, 58, 59; 1894, p. 61; 1898, pp. 98, 107; 1901,

pp. 115, 130; 1905, pp. 132, 139, 141, 158; 1908, pp. 141, 142, 158, 188; 1910, pp. 196; 1914, pp. 184, 185, 199, 249, 250; 1912,

pp. 201, 217, 225-227, 234, 246; 1938, p. 268. Period 1925-1938: Years 1925, 1926, 1937, 1938, ± Trade Balance and Domestic Production of oilseeds converted to oilcake from D. Grupe, "Die Nahrungsmittelversorgung Deutschlands seit 1925.

Eine Auswertung der einschlagigen Statistiken zu vergleichbaren Versorgungsbilanzen," Agrarwirtschaft, Sonderheft 3/4,

(Teil B, 1957): 76, 79. Trade Balance for oilcakes from StJbDR,

1927, p. 182; 1938, p. 268; Statistisches H-ndbuch von Dauts-ehlnndi 1928-1944. Edited by Lnderrat des Amerikanischen Besatzungsgebietes,

MInchen, 1949, p. 416; H. von der Decken, wEntwicklung der Selbstversorgung Deutschlands mit landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugnissen,

Berichte Ner Landwirtschaft 138 Sonderheft (Berlin 1938), p. 131. Period 1950-1969: StJbELF, various issues.

G 19 Land Machinery Price Index from 1913 = 1 0 0 a linked with Farm Machinery Price Index from 1962/63 = 100 a A stronger decline in land machinery prices as reported by

Hoffmann is indicated by the figures in Ernst Gl-sel, "DMe

Entwicklung der Preise landwirtschaftlicher Produkte und 45

Produktionsmittel wahrend der letzten 50 Jahre und deren

Einfluss auf Bodennutzung und Viehhaltung im Deutschen Reich,"

LAndwirtschaft-iche Jahrbucher, 50. Band, Berlin, 1916, p. 538, 539.

Note: The Index of Land Machinery Prices in DWdDW before 1913 is

derived from prices of coal (30%), pig iron (60%), copper (10%). Source:

Period 1850-1959: DwddN, p. 569-70.

Period 1959-1968: StJbBR, 1969, p. 426. G 20 Index of Agricultural Prices, Total (1913 = 100)

Source:

Period 1850-1959: tXdDW, p. 561, 562.

Period 1960-1969: Deutscher Bundestag, 6. Wahlperiode, Drucksache VI/1800, Materialband zum Agrarbericht 1971 der Bundesregierung,

Bonn 1971, p. 135.

G 21 Index of Crop Prices, (1913 = 100) Source: Same as G 20.

G 22 Index of Producer Prices for Meata ) (1913 = 100)

a) Until 1939 wholesale prices for cattle, hogs, sheep~and lamb; after WW II, Producer Prices.

Source:

Period 1850-1959: Same as G20.

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

p. 238; previous years in StJbELF, various issues. 46

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

Source:

Period 1850-1959: UDdDW, p. 135. G 24 Agricultural Prices in Germany, (1870-1969/70) (Official Index)a)

a) Use this index if prices or quantities are not taken from

MddN (e.g. oilcake, fertilizer consumption).

of Source: StJbDR, 1938; Statistisches Bundesamt, Preise. Lohne,

Wirtwhaftsrechnungen, Reihe 4. Wiesbaden.

Periods 1870-1913, 1925-1938: Index of agricultural prices in

price index of raw material (1913 = 100).

G 25 Wholesale Prices (1913 = 100)

Source:

Period 1800-1938: StJbDR, 1941/42, p. 361; Statistisches

Handbuch 1928-44, op. cit., p. 459.

Period 1950-1970: Statistisches Bundesamt, Index der

Grundstoffpreise, Preise, Lohne, Wirtschaftsrechnungen, Reihe 2,

Wiesbaden, various issues.

G 26 Food Price Index (1913 = 100)

Source:

Period 1881-1913: StJ'BRD, 1958, p. 85, food prices at retail level.

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

Source:

Period 1924-1969: StJbBRD, 1958, p. 85 and 1970, p. 431.

G 28 Farm Wage a ) , daily wage rate (Marks / day)

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

(without capital income) divided by an assumed number of 300

working days per year. 1950-1969 wages for specialized farm

workers (Facharbeiter) under the assumption of 9 hours / day. 47

Source:

Period 1850-1938: DdD4, p. 492, 494

Period 1950-969,: 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 Ddl, p. 234. Period 1925 to 1938: Prices of 1913 from 114dIW prolongated with the

agricultural price index base 1913 = 100, ibid., pp. 561.

Period 1950 to 1968: Prices for 1962 and 1967 are those paid by

farmers in land consolidation programs (Flurbereinigung).

Bundesministerium fur Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Die Flurbereinigung in den LUndern der BRD. Jahresbericht 19621,

p. 27; ---- , Die Verbesserung der Agrarstrucktur in der Bundos. republik Deutschland, 1963/64, p. 30; 1964/65, p. 43; 1965/66,

p.19; 1966/67, p. 19; 1967/68, p. 32; 1968/69, p.25; 1970, P.25. P. Hrubesch estimated the price of agricultural land for

farmer transactions in land consolidation programs for the year

1954 with 5340 DM per hectare. See Hrubesch, op. cit., p. 620.

Prices from 1950 to 1953 and 1955 to 1961 have been linearly

interpolated/extrapolated.

G 30 Fertilizer price of plant nutrients (Mark/metric ton) 48

Calculation:

N +P 0 + K20 TE 2 5 TE TE = Fertilizer Price N + P2 05 +K 20 TC TC TC

TE = Total Expenditure; TC = Total Consumption

Source:

Period 1880-1913: Expenditure for fertilizer = Sum of

expenditure for N, P2 05 , K20. See, for prices: G 31,

32, 33. Consumption of fertilizer = Sum of consumotion

for N, P205' K20. See, for consumption: G 15, G 16, G 17.

Period 1925-1938: Fertilizer expenditure from EWdU4,

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. 137.

G 31 Price of Nitrogen (Mark/metric ton)

Period 1870-1913: Nitrogen = Prices of Chilesaltpeter

in Hamburg; under the assumption of one ton of Chilesaltpeter =

15.5% N. Prices from A. Jacobs and H. Richter, "Die

Grosshandelspreise in Deutschland von 1792 bis 1934,"

Vierteljahreshefte zur Konjunktvrforschung, Sonderheft

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

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

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

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

1968, p. 437; 1970, p. 420. 49

G 32 Price of P205 (Mark/metric ton)

Source:

Period 1880-1913: Value of superphosphate imports

divided by imported quantities of superphosphate = average

value (price) per ton of superphosphate, converted under

18 the assumption of A solubility of P205 in water from

StJbDR, 1883, p. 79; 1896, p. 94; 1900, p. 133, 134; 1902,

p. 138, 139; 1905, p. 147, 148; 1906, p. 159, 160; 1907,

p. 159, 127; 1909, p. 175, 213; 1911, p. 257; 1913, p. 196;

1915, p. 208.

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

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

Period 1950-192: StJbBRD, 1953, p. 492; 1960, p. 476;

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

G 33 Price of K20 (Mark/metric ton)

Source:

Period 1879 to 1896: Prices for Kainite in Stassfurt from

Glasel, op. cit, p. 535.

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; 1960, p. 476;

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

G 34 Price of Oilcake (Mark/metric ton)

Source: 50

Period 1880-1913: Value of imported oilcake divided by

imported quantities + 15% for freight rates = Price of

oilcake. StJbDR, 1892, p. 46; 1898, p. 98; 1901, p. 115;

1905, p. 139; 1908, 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; Statistisches Handbuch, 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.

G 35 Net National Income at Market (Prices of 1913a ) 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:

Period 1880-1959: IdUJdp. 827-828.

Period 1959-1969: StJbBRD 1964, p. 548; 1970, p. 490.

G 36 Population at mid-year (in 1000's)

Source:

Period 1817-1959: ldgd, 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 1950 to 1959 in StJbDR 1969, p. 25. 51

G 37 Energya

a Consumption of gas, oil, grease, electricity, and coal

for farm operations in constant prices of 1954/55. Source:

Period 1950-1968: Hrubesch, op. cit., p. 656; StJbELF, 1970, p. 139.

G 38 Consumptiona of Imported Oilcake (in 1000 metric tons) a Net imports of oilcake and oilseeds

Source: Same as G 18. G 39 Consumptiona of Imported Cereals (in 1000 metric tons) a Net imports in wheat, rye, oats, barley; corn and millet included

after 1925

Source: Period 1880-1889: StJbDR, 1892, p. 42, 55.

Period 1890-1913: Lujo Brentano, Die deutschen Getreidea8le,

Stuttgart and Berlin, 1925. Quoted here according to U. Teichmann,

Die Politik der Agraroreisstfltsuni, K8ln, 1955, p. 205.

Period 1925-1938: D. Grupe, op. cit., p. 24, 25. Period 1950-1968: StJbFLF, 1957, p. 142; 1959, p. 148; 1965, p. 156;

1970, p. 166. G 40 Producer Price for Cereals (Marks/metric ton)

Source:

Period 1880-1938: NdD.J, p. 552-555, arithmetrio averages of producer price for wheat, rye, barley, oats.

Period 1950-1968: StJbELF, 1956, p. 109,110; 1957, p. 110, 11;

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

G 41 Land Machinery Price Index (1913 = 100) Source: Constructed according to the prices for 1876, 1877, 1880, 1883, 1885, 1890, 1896, 1899, 1902, 1906, 1910, 1912 reported by E. Glisel, op. cit., p. 538, 539 for seed drifls, harrows, ploughs. The prices of 1910 have been used as weights: seed drills 74*, heavy harrows in three parts 14%, ploughs 11%. The prices for missing years have been linearly interpolated. It should be mentioned that the price decline for general moving machines has been more accentuated after 1900 compared to our constructed index. G42 Fatilizer Cc.nsmption per Hectare of Agricultural Land (Five­ year averages) Source: G 14 divided by G 7. G 43 Fertilizer ConLumption per Hectare of Arable Land (Five-year averages)

Source: G 14 divided by G 8. G 44 Price Ratio of Fertilizer to Agricultural Land (Five-year averages) Source: G 30 divided by G 29. U 100 United States Fertilizer Consumption per Hectare of Arable Land (Five-year averages) Source: U. S. Dept. of Comerce, Historical Statistics of the United

States. Colonial Times to 1957, 1967, Series 160, p. 285; U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency, Statistical Bulletin No. 233, 1966, pp. 21-22. 53

U 101 United States Price Ratio of Fertiliser to Arable Land

(Five-year averages)

Source:

Period 1880-1965: Same as U 100.

J 100 Japanese Fertiliser Consumption per Hectare of Agricu4tural

Land (Five-year averages)

Source: Period 1880-1965: lujiro Hayami and Vernon W. Ruttan,

Agricultural Development: An International Perspective, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971, p. 341.

. 101 Japanese Price Ratio of Fertiliser to Arable Land (Five­

year averages)

Sourco:

Period 1880-1965: Same as J 100. 54

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

Agricultural production Value Labor (191.3 = 100) added Total ag., Male Year Gross Crop Livestock (1913=100) for.,fish. ag.,for. fish. (Gi) (G2) (G3) (G4) (GS) (G6) million Marks 1000's

1850 4 461 1 709 2 752 4 182 51 4 298 1 574 2 724 4 012 .52 4 359 1 709 2 650 4 106 8 293 53 4 361 1 634 2 727 4 034 54 4 533 1 768 2 765 4 216 1855 4 188 1 428 2 760 3 925 8 195 56 4 700 1 825 2 875 4 464 57 4 962 1 995 2 967 4 704 58 4 836 1 772 3 064 4 594 8 235 59 4 890 1 805 3 085 4 649

1860 5 284 2 068 3 216 5 004 61 4 886 1 805 3 081 4 640 8 253 62 5 313 1 988 3 325 5 135 63 5 698 2 206 3 492 5 501 6a 5 922 2 140 3 782 5 719 1865 5 785 2 055 3 730 5 507 66 5 763 2 022 3 741 5 458 67 5 609 1 980 3 629 5 302 8 333 68 6 l97 2 487 3 710 5 775 69 5 949 2 157 3 792 5 499

1870 5 903 2 142 3 761 5 459 71 5 881 1 999 3 882 5 388 8 541 72 5 993 2 174 3 819 5 541 73 6 070 2 053 4 017 5 618 74 6 823 2 607 4 216 6 337 1875 6 842 2 586 4 238 6 308 9 230 413 76 6 549 2 286 4 263 6 052 (9 250) 5 416 77 6 569 2 410 4 159 6 050 9 382 5 531 78 7 157 2 855 4 302 6 610 9 518 5 651 79 6 704 2 344 4 360 6 154 9 568 5 684

-continued­ 55

Table A-I.(continued)

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

1880 6 669 2 296 4 373 6 142 9 565 5 664 81 6 829 2 454 4 375 6 237 9 609 5 691 82 6 977 2 481 4 496 6 403 9 665 5 730 83 7 296 2 682 4 614 6 748 9 711 5 760 84 7 401 2 607 4 794 6 865 9 698 5 730

1885 7 745 2 882 4 863 7 194 9 700 5 715 86 7 748 2 783 4 965 7 202 9 740 5 738 87 7 884 2 792 5 092 7 287 9 720 5 702 88 8 151 2 840 5 311 7 546 9 645 5 610 89 7 716 2 496 5 220 7 094 9 638 5 586

1890 8 009 2 793 5 216 7 369 9 565 5 496 91 7 561 2 349 5 212 6 896 9 551 5 466 92 8 165 2 881 5 284 7 494 9 543 5 441 93 8 839 3 327 5 512 8 150 9 656 5 537 94 8 692 3 148 5 544 7 989 9 765 5 929

1895 8 935 3 102 5 833 8 204 9 788 5 635 96 9 428 3 146 6 282 8 668 9 778 5 588 97 9 352 2 958 6 394 8 596 9 728 5 501 98 9 643 3 072 6 571 8 854 9 720 5 456 99 10 012 3 174 6 838 9 205 9 709 5 408

1900 10 381 3 446 6 935 Y 531 9 754 5 416 01 9 929 3 086 6 843 8 939 9 825 5 450 02 10 186 3 505 6 681 9 134 9 947 5 534 03 10 387 3 476 6 911 9 596 9 987 5 537 04 10 828 3 569 7 259 9 967 9 999 5 512

1905 10 707 3 356 7 351 9 801 9 926 5 402 06 10 624 3 21+5 7 379 9 664 9 888 5 327 07 10 770 3 336 7 434 9 655 9 897 5 298 08 11 692 3 749 7 943 10 183 10 096 5 460 09 11 444 3 411 8 033 9 902 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 3 458 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-i. (continued)

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

1925 9 198 2 677 6 521 6 671 9 778 4 808 26 8 619 1 925 6 694 6 426 9 680 4 751 27 9 559 2 297 7 262 7 750 9 590 4 701 28 10 975 3 034 7 941 8 342 9 500 9 651 29 10 872 2 931 7 941 7 976 9 410 4 601

1930 10 634 2 607 8 027 8 724 9 310 4 541 31 11 238 2 806 8 432 9 104 9 220 4 491 32 11 574 3 140 8 434 8 335 9 139 4 450 33 12 006 3 477 8 529 9 818 9 034 4 385 34 12 330 3 280 9 050 9 031 9 030 4 166

1935 11 878 3 062 8 816 8 666 9 030 3 951 36 11 882 3 107 8 775 9 962 9 020 3 726 37 12 334 3 145 9 189 8 810 9 010 3 500 38 12 712 3 452 9 260 9 452 9 010 3 285 ------

1950 5 971 1 666 4 305 4 159 4 97' 2 258 51 6 579 1 675 4 904 4 682 4 799 2 153 52 6 811 1 596 5 215 4 650 4 653 2 075 53 7 261 ! 784 5 477 4 648 4 503 1 993 54 7 415 1 754 5 661 4 793 4 368 1 926

1955 7 386 1 568 5 818 4 883 4 257 1 883 56 7 459 1 600 5 859 4 671 4 147 1 841 57 7 784 1 516 6 268 4 882 4 077 1 839 58 8 438 1 912 6 526 5 296 3 957 1 789 59 8 326 1 682 6 644 5 043 3 798 1 699

1960 9 100 3 623 1 593 61 8 959 3 445 1 483 62 9 442 3 383 1 499 63 9 850 3 230 1 424 64 9 900 3 084 1 356

1965 9 575 2 966 1 316 66 10 332 2 877 1 305 67 10 865 2 742 1 248 68 10 965 2 630 1 214

-continued­ 57

Table A-1.(continued)

Land Livestock Agricul- Horsepower Year Agricul- Arable capital tural Workstock Tractors Total tural stock machinery (horses (1913=100) value and oxen) (1913=1o0) (G-) (G)) (Gil) (G12) (G13) 1000 ha. billion Marks 1000's

1850 6.30 2.82 51 6.29 2.86 52 6.32 2.89 53 6.28 2.93 54 6.26 2.97

1855 6.29 3.02 56 6.37 3.06 57 6.44 3.11 58 6.53 3.17 59 6.63 3.24

1860 6.71 3.30 61 6.82 3.37 62 7.02 3.45 63 7.22 3.52 64 7.43 3.59

1865 7.57 3.66 66 7.69 3.72 67 7.80 3.77 68 7.83 3.81 69 7.83 3.86

1870 7.84 3.91 71 7.81 3.98 72 7.83 4.05 73 7.86 4.12 5 232 0 5 232 74 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 (36 260) (25 800) 8.01 4.52 5 177 0 5 177 81 (36 040) (25 800) 8.00 4.56 5 169 0 5 169 82 (35 820) (25 800) 8.02 4.58 161 0 5 161 83 35 600 (25 800) 8.09 4.63 5 131 0 5 153 84 (35 560) (25 800) 8.19 4.69 5 179 0 5 179 -continued­ 58

Table A-i.(continued)

(G7) (G8) (G9) (GIO) (Gil) (G12) (G13)

1885 (35 520) (25 800) 8.30 4.75 5 207 0 5 207 86 (35 480) (25 800) 8.43 4.82 5 234 0 5 234 87 (35 440) (25 800) 8.53 4.90 5 261 0 5 261 88 (35 400) (25 800) 8.65 4.97 5 289 0 5 289 89 (35 360) (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 (35 280) (25 800) 8.98 5.15 5 371 0 5 371 92 (35 240) (25 800) 9.11 5.21 5 400 0 5 400 93 35 200 25 800 9.26 5.26 5 423 0 5 423 94 (35 186) (25 800) 9.41 5.33 5 447 0 5 447

1895 (35 171) (25 800) 9.56 5.40 5 470 0 5 470 96 (35 157) (25 800) 9.72 5.47 5 494 0 5 494 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 (35 114) (25 800) 10.28 5.70 5 565 0 5 565

1900 35 100 25 800 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) (25 753) 10.60 5.97 5 632 0 5 632 03 (35 030) (25 730) 10.95 6.10 5 653 0 5 653 04 (35 007) (25 707) 11.27 6.24 5 674 0 5 674

1905 (34 984) (25 684) 11.59 6.40 5 724 0 5 724 06 (34 961) (25 661) 11.90 6.54 5 774 0 5 774 07 (34 938) (25 638) 12.10 6.66 5 823 0 5 823 08 (34 915) (25 615) 11.98 6.80 5 873 0 5 873 09 (34 892) (25 592) 11.86 6.95 5 923 0 5 923

1910 (34 869) (25 569) 12.03 7.11 5 973 0 5 973 11 (34 846) (25 546) 12.31 7.27 6 022 0 6 022 12 (34 823) (25 523) 12.13 7.44 6 072 0 6 072 13 34 800 25 500 12.86 7.60 6 122 0 6 122 ------

1925 29 249 20 483 10.53 6.59 4 803 153 4 956 26 29 257 20 478 10.74 6.75 4 678 205 4 883 27 29 409 20 688 11.45 6.94 4 612 257 4 869 28 29 391 20 618 11.52 7.13 4 518 309 4 827 29 29 373 20 580 11.33 7.30 4 372 360 4 732 -continued­ 59

Table A-i. (continued)

(G7) (G8) (09) (GlO) (Gil) (G12) (G13)

1930 29 377 20 535 12.06 7.44 4 294 379 4 673 31 29 368 20 485 12.53 7.55 4 229 402 4 631 32 29 370 20 475 12.09 7.66 4 272 424 4 696 33 29 365 20 472 12.70 7.80 4 286 447 4 733 34 29 348 20 412 12.30 7.99 4 099 430 4 529 1935 28 752 19 405 12.14 8.24 4 057 459 4 516 36 28 747 19 422 13.28 8.56 4 145 706 4 851 37 28 724 19 409 13.14 8.92 4 209 952 5 161 38 28 537 19 177 13.60 9.35 4 225 1 198 5 423 ------

1950 14 033 7 900 6.02 5.84 1 851 3 267 5 118 51 14 122 7 975 6.31 6.01 1 710 4 218 5 928 52 14 206 8 088 6.43 6.07 1 586 5 390 6 976 53 14 197 8 092 6.21 6.12 1 462 6 300 7 762 54 14 261 8 148 6.18 6.36 1 332 7 531 8 863

1955 14 251 8 803 6.32 6.64 1 231 8 990 10 221 56 14 286 8 091 6.31 6.89 1 134 10 500 11 634 57 14 257 8 064 6.35 7.19 1 052 11 900 12 952 58 14 227 8 032 6.26 7.54 967 13 214 14 181 59 14 331 8 074 6.29 7.97 867 14 900 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 62 14 179 7 883 6.68 10.46 580 20 884 21 464 63 14 169 7 860 6.66 11.05 507 22 486 22 993 64 14 133 7 832 6.75 11.41 427 24 195 24 622

1965 14 071 7 653 6.86 12.32 368 26 038 26 406 66 14 029 7 609 7.02 12.61 312 27 776 28 088 67 13 996 7 577 7.13 12.82 283 29 454 29 737 68 13 871 7 578 7.26 13.09 264 30 891 31 155 ------

1969 13 848 7 571 254 33 019 33 273

-continued­ 60

Table A-i. (continued)

Fertilizer consumption Oilcake Year N, P205, K20 N P205 Y20 consumption (G14) (G15) (G16) (G17)(G8 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 74

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 35 102 34 307 84 185 38 112 35 320 -continued­ 61

Table A-i.(continued)

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

1885 199 40 123 36 322 86 212 42 133 37 333 87 226 45 1,43 38 355 88 240 47 154 39 378 89 254 50 164 40 488

1890 268, 52 175 41 504 91 282 55 185 42 576 92 296 57 196 43 599 93 332 60 219 53 645 94 367 63 243 61 676

1895 403 66 266 71 641 96 438 69 289 80 628 97 474 72 313 89 711 98 509 75 336 98 803 99 545 78 360 107 780

1900 481 88 274 119 810 01 519 95 291 133 812 02 557 102 322 133 862 03 610 106 354 150 901 04 661 108 364 189 1 008

1905 714 116 395 203 983 06 794 126 441 227 966 07 786 129 405 252 1 182 08 860 140 437 283 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 1 180 188 557 435 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 1 508 28 1 727 432 531 764 1 708 29 1 743 415 547 781 1 785

-continued­ 62

Table ATi.(continued)

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

1930 1 497 355 474 668 1 511 31 1 281 326 395 560 1 871 32 1 368 351 399 618 2 296 33 1 559 382 461 714 2 051 34 1 787 425 545 817 1 581

1935 2 087 491 652 944 1 226 36 2 159 571 631 957 1 157 37 2 479 633 690 1 156 2 258 38 2 717 718 745 1 254 1 487 ------

1950 1 439 362 418 659 390 51 1 582 387 472 723 394 52 1 584 419 394 771 544 53 1 726 440 456 830 553 54 1 829 452 518 859 621

1955 1 798 472 479 847 735 56 1 977 527 572 878 898 57 2 147 567 594 986 1 201 58 2 213 575 634 1 004 1 317 59 2 401 625 729 1 047 1 719

1960 2 286 618 662 1 006 1 643 61 2 291 621 634 1 036 1 953 62 2 585 768 718 1 099 2 169 63 2 636 747 764 1 125 2 147 64 2 785 785 816 1 184 2 840

1965 2 897 874 833 1 190 3 363 66 2 767 889 801 1 077 3 191 67 2 875 950 806 1 119 3 208 68 2 781 933 802 1 046 3 374 ------

1969 3 723

-continued­ 63

Table A-i.(continued)

Price indexes (1913=100) Year Agric. Hoffmanp1850-1959: Agrarbericht 1971,1960-68 Official Statistics mach. Agric. Crop Producera, Other Agric. Wholesale for meat animal products (G19) (G20) (G21) (G22) (G23) (G24) (G25) Percent

1850 ill 44.7 51.5 36.4 44.2 71.0 51 84 51.2 65.7 36.4 48.6 75.0 52 86 61.1 85.7 39.8 55.0 82.0 53 109 64.9 89.7 40.9 58.2 92.0 54 126 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 4.9.3 69.2 92.0 64 91 62.6 69.2 47.7 70.0 91.0 1865 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 85.5 104.8 69.3 78.7 97.0 112.0

1875 99 74.3 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 94.6 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 65.0 70.0 79.0 81.0

------­

-continued­ 64

Table A-I. (continued)

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

1880 79.0 81.3 101.8 63.6 78.7 90.0 87.0 81 73.0 79.5 99.8 64.0 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 74.2 84.4 63.4 75.6 78.0 78.0

1885 62.0 68.4 72.7 63.2 69.3 76.0 75.0 86 58.0 67.3 73.5 63.0 65.2 71.0 72.0 87 61.0 69.1 74.3 59.9 74.4 70.0 73.0 88 69.0 67.2 73.5 59.4 69.8 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 69.0 72.2 73.8 64.8 78.2 77.0 77.0 94 68.0 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 63.0 68.0 70.0 72.0 97 77.0 75.4 81.6 68.9 78.2 77.0 76.0 98 77.0 80.3 89.5 72.4 81.4 82.0 79.0 99 96.0 74.0 84.0 67.3 72.9 77.0 83.0

1900 116.0 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 77.8 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 78.0 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 10'7.2 98.0 94.0 12 96.0 106.2 114.2 97.3 110.9 109.0 102.0 13 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

-continued­ 65

Table A-i. (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 139.4 115.8 114.5 114.3 119.6 110.0 114.0 31 130.7 95.9 111.3 83.7 101.7 101.0 98.0 32 116.1 83.8 106.1 66.5 88.3 87.0 86.0 33 111.6 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 38 111.3 104.2 123.8 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 250.0 222.2 240.0 210.8 234.2 212.2 253.0 56 259.8 232.1 252.5 213.8 245.3 220.5 260.0 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 59 273.5 247.9 288.7 225.3 255.1 229.8 262.0

1960 283.6 235.5 237.2 219.4 262.0 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 321.9 282.6 308.7 264.4 277.0 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 ------69 280.1 302.9 262.0 266.0 aWholesale price cattle, hogs, sheep, lamb to 1939; after WWII production price. -continued­ 66

Table A-i. (continued)

Price indexes (1913=100) Year Food Price of Farm Land price living wage price wo bldgs. (G26) (G27) (G28) (G29) percent M./day M./ha,

1850 753 51 761 52 775 53 798 54 821

1855 847 56 872 57 901 58 935 59 965

1860 1 003 61 1 040 62 1 074 63 1 096 64 1 116

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

1870 1 210 71 1.21 1 251 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)

1880 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 1.33 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 1 290 92 81 1.41 1 259 93 78 1.41 1 256 94 77 1.45 1 248

1895 76 1.48 1 240 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 1 426 03 80 1.76 1 476 04 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-i.(continued)

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

1925 142 3.07 2 730 26 142 3.35 2 738 27 148 3.56 2 850 28 152 3.85 2 778 29 154 4.17 2 745

1930 148 4.36 2 432 31 136 4.14 2 014 32 121 3.40 1 760 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 4 359 51 212 9.18 4 604 52 215 10.44 4 849 53 212 11.25 5 095 54 213 11.43 4 340 1955 217 12.60 5 585 56 222 13.59 5 831 57 231 14.40 6 076 58 235 15.57 6 321 59 238 16.02 6 567 1960 241 17.37 6 812 61 247 19.35 7 057 62 254 21.69 7 302 63 262 23.94 7 882 64 269 27.00 7 615

1965 277 30.69 8 820 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-1. (cotinued)

Fertilizer price Oilcake Net Nat'1. Population Year Total N P205 K20 price income of (mid-year), market (G30) (G31) (1913=100) (G32) (G33) (G34) (G35) (G36) Marks/metric ton rail. Marks U 00's)

1850 35 312 51 35 628 52 35 864 53 35 994 54 36 096 1855 36 138 56 36 260 57 36 528 58 36 831 59 37 190 1860 37 611 61 38 003 62 38 362 63 38 765 64 39 189

1865 39 548 66 39 787 67 40 032 68 40 223 69 40 494

1870 40 805 71 40 997 72 41 230 73 41 564 74 42 004

1875 42 518 76 43 059 77 43 610 78 44 129 79 44 641

------

- continued­ 70

Table A-i.(continued)

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

1880 950 2 111 830 192 161.0 19 874 45 095 81 892 1 944 780 192 161.0 20 616 45 428 82 895 1 768 830 216 161.0 20 444 45 719 83 779 1 5b 720 216 161.0 21 909 46 016 84 707 1 321 660 204 161.0 22 712 46 396

1885 611 1 330 500 194 138.0 23 452 46 707 86 579 1 258 470 194 132.2 24 142 47 134 87 561 1 259 440 194 118.5 24 558 47 630 88 594 1 265 490 194 142.6 25 840 48 168 89 613 1 206 540 180 149.5 26 478 48 717

1890 632 1 061 610 180 138.0 27 754 49 241 91 639 1 094 610 180 147.2 26 822 49 762 92 568 1 093 500 180 146.0 28 390 50 266 93 475 1 151 360 180 138.0 30 606 50 757 94 467 1 156 360 180 101.2 30 196 51 339

1895 411 984 330 180 98.9 32 079 52 001 96 370 966 280 180 110.4 33 377 52 753 ,97 346 923 260 180 126.5 34 739 53 569 98 370 979 290 180 127.7 36 813 54 406 99 435 1 130 360 180 130.0 36 860 55 248

1900 458 1 144 360 180 140.3 36 466 56 046 01 432 1 099 330 180 131.1 36 197 56 874 02 454 1 208 330 180 138.0 36 918 57 767 03 443 1 262 310 180 131.1 40 132 58 629 04 426 1 244 310 180 133.4 42 263 59 475

1905 435 1 281 320 180 146.1 43 346 60 314 06 434 1 236 330 190 150.6 44 299 61 153 07 436 1 214 340 190 151.8 46 181 62 013 08 430 1 197 340 190 148.4 46 410 62 863 09 420 1 170 330 190 154.1 47 512 63 717

1910 404 1 224 310 190 146.1 47 457 64 568 11 428 1 378 320 180 158.7 49 648 65 359 12 445 1 434 330 180 169.1 51 914 66 146 13 440 1 369 360 180 164.4 52 440 66 978

-continued­ 71

Table A-I. (continued)

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

1925 481 1 058 313 189.7 46 897 63 166 26 459 999 340 158.7 46 587 63 630 27 429 938 289 202.4 53 108 64 023 28 448 914 250 75 213.9 53 950 64 393 29 440 890 317 75 236.9 51 694 64 739

1930 424 834 313 75 173.7 49 289 65 084 31 392 788 255 74 (123.1) 43 913 65 423 32 381 732 226 67 113.9 41 760 65 716 33 366 701 256 67 104.7 47 375 66 027 34 354 675 249 92.0 52 102 66 409 1935 354 653 213 67 91.0 58 658 66 871 36 329 66- 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 44 904 47 060 51 528 911 400 91 407.0 48 312 47 456 52 594 993 482 108 417.0 51 660 47 728 53 599 1 091 468 114 413.0 54 731 48-172 54 601 1 094 445 115 437.0 59 734 48 710

1955 489 1 094 445 115 439.0 64 756 49 203 56 504 1 094 438 115 432.0 69 211 49 800 57 510 1 094 431 116 389.0 71 791 50 465 58 521 1 149 440 117 398.0 73 083 51 128 59 566 1 149 445 120 391.6 78 526 51 747

1960 579 1 124 445 121 420.0 85 279 55 433 61 587 1 099 435 121 439.0 89 598 56 175 62 606 1 099 435 121 473.0 92 818 56 938 63 653 1 099 435 121 480.0 95 409 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 59 873 68 690 408 115 494.0 116 218 60 184

------

1969 476.0 122 501 60 848 -continued­ 72

Table A-i. (continued)

Energy Oilcake Cereals Cereals Land Year consumption (net (net (price) machinery (1954/55=100) imports) imports) price index (1913=100) (G37) (G38) (G39) (G40) (G41) mil. Marks 1000 mT, M./MT. 1850 51 52 53 54 1855 56 57 58 59 1860 61 62 63 64

1865 66 67 68 69

1870 71 72 73 74

1875 76 161 77 156 78 152 79 147

1880 88 898 179 142 81 124 1 232 183 138 82 145 1 809 162 133 83 200 1 783 149 128 84 197 2 424 149 124

-continued­ 73

Table A7-. (continued)

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

1885 192 1 943 146 119 86 212 1 187 138 117 87 222 1 830 130 116 88 265 1 590 144 114 89 405 2 462 156 112 1890 387 2 468 170 ill 91 452 2 589 196 110 92 481 2 505 162 110 93 544 2 013 144 110 94 575 2 136 129 110

1895 540 3 264 130 110 90 532 4 042 137 110 97 615 3 330 148 110 98 705 3 676 162 110 99 682 2 892 150 110

1900 730 2 923 145 110 01 788 3 942 150 110 02 765 4 273 152 110 03 810 4 282 138 109 04 914 3 522 144 108 1905 909 4 845 155 106 06 894 4 710 165 105 07 1 129 4 822 186 104 08 1 068 3 379 182 103 09 1 246 4 643 185 102

1910 1 301 4 602 164 100 11 1 278 5 991 182 100 12 1 397 4 802 198 100 13 1 607 4 501 169 100

------

1925. 1 062 3 569 220 26 1 457 6 782 216 27 1 480 6 262 248 28 1 689 3 833 243 29 1 768 3 163 235 -continied­ 74

Table A-i. (continued)

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

1930 1 497 1 966 194 31 1 861 2 402 200 32 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 3 950 202 38 1 394 2 777 202

------

1950 314 345 3 733 317 .1 318 349 4 759 426 52 349 516 4 113 413 53 378 536 3 666 405 54 435 613 4 951 393

1955 499 734 3 922 404 56 558 871 5 708 396 57 598 1 165 4 225 410 58 667 1 286 4 316 408 59 754 1 688 4 666 411

1960 854 1 583 3 040 399 61 943 1 914 6 925 408 62 1 016 2 110 4 346 415 63 1 097 2 097 3 770 413 64 1 174 2 764 4 336 418

1965 1 313 3 315 5 717 413 66 1 365 3 143 5 544 418 67 1 435 3 149 6 050 375 68 1,520 3 284 6 085 383 Table A-2. Fertilizer-land comparisons, Germany, United States, and Japan, 1880-1965 Fertilizer consump- Price Price Price tion Der hectare ratio Fertilizer Year consump- ratio Fertilizer consump- Agric. Arable fert./ tion per hectare ratio fert./ tion per hectare fert./ land land agric. arable land arable arable land arable land land (G42) (G43) (G44) (Ul00) land (U1OI) (J200) (J201) ia1 kiloarams kilograms 1880 3.6 5.0 0.719 1.4 1885 5.6 1.301 13.2 1.117 8.0 0.491 1.7 1.218 12.6 1890 7.6 0.855 10.4 0.463 1.9 1.288 1895 10.9 14.8 0.324 12.3 0.716 1900 2.2 1.456 13.7 14.9 20.2 0.314 3.0 0.608 1.209 16.5 0.493 1905 20.3 27.6 0°274 3.7 1.018 1910 29.0 39.5 24.1 0.446 0.228 4.6 0.822 4.1 0.271 19201915 4607740.1 O. 271 4.6 0.787 4.6 0.878 49.5 0.266 1925 63.0 0.212 45.3 63.3 0.175 5.5 0.892 79.1 0.181 1930 52.7 76.5 0.178 1935 5.9 0.818 96.6 69.9 102.9 0.172 6.0 0.157 1940 0.835 104.8 0.137 8.6 0.850 115.1 0.117 1945 13.4 0.617 (57.7) 1950 103.0 169.9 0.103 20.3 0.519 130.4 1955 133.0 231.4 0.097 29.0 0.378 1960 151.0 270.1 224.7 0.110 0.084 37.8 0.236 260.0 0.059 1965 198.0 362.3 0.074 52.3 0.172 325.0 0.052 76

Figure A-i. Average size of farms with more than one hectare, 1895 Germany

I8 -10 ha. 1051 30--5 hi hao

I .m1. / "Source: Stathshk des Deuischen Reiches. ~NF 112,1,898

Figure A-2. Territorial boundaries of 1936 Germany and 1960 West Germany milesa 32

19 80-qG E R A N 19 38 G ER MA NY /

L ...... F miles. )-'

Heavy boundary lines show postwar divisions 77

Selected References on German Agricultural Development

Abel, Wilhelm, Agrarkrisen und Agrarkonjunkturen. Eine Geschichte der Land- und Erndhrungswirtschaft seit dem hohen Mittelalter. 2 nd revised and enlarged edition, Hamburg and Berlin 1966.

Abel, Wilhelm, Agrarkonjunktur. In: Handwrterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften, Band 1. Stuttgart, TUbingeng G~ttingen 1956, p. 49 - 59.

Abel, Wilhelm, Geschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft vom frUhen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert. Stutt­ gart 1962.

Andr&, Doris, Die Indikatoren des technischen Fort­ schritts. Eine Analyse der Wirtschaftsentwicklung in Deutschland von 1850 bis 1913. (Weltwirtschaftliche Studien, 16). G~ttingen 1971.

Areboe, Friedrich, "Das Ern~hrungsproblem der V8lker und die Produktionssteigerung der Landwirtschaft", Weltwirtschaftliches Archivo 21. Band. Jena 1925, p. 157 - 16o, 165 183.

Bandini, Mario, Hanau, Arthur s Kuznets, 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 1965.

Bellerby, J. R., "National and Agricultural Income", The Economic Journal, 69. March 1959, p. 95 - 104.

Bittermann, Eberhard, "Die landwirtschaftliche Produk­ tion in Deutschland 1800 - 1950. Ein methodischer Bei­ trag zur Ermittlung der Verdnderung des Umfanges der landwirtschaftlichen Produktion und der Ertragssteige­ rung in den letzten 150 Jahren", KUhn-Archiv. 10. Band. Heft 2, Halle 1956.

Bjerke, Kjeld, Omsaetningen og salgsprisen for Lande­ ejendomme 1902 - 1942. Nyt Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen 1950.

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

Brinkmann, Theodor, Die 0konomik des landwirtschaft­ lichen betriebes. Grundriss der Sozialokonomik. Ti bin­ gen 1922. Here quoted according to the English edition. Theodor Brinkmann t s Economics of the Farm business. With Introduction and Notes by Elizabeth Tucker Bene­ dict, Heinrich Hermann Stippler and Murray Heed Benediot. University of California Press. Berkeley# California 1935.

Brinkmann, Theodor, Die Stellung der Nutzviehhaltung in der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung. In: Festschrift fUr Andreas Hermes. Neuwied 1048, p. 69 - 80.

Bublot, Georges, La Production Agricole Belge. Etude Economique Seculaire 1846 - 1955. Publisher: E. Nau­ welaerts, Louvain 1957.

Bundesministerium fUr ErndhrungLandwirtschaft und Forstent Statistisches Jahrbuch Uber Ern~hrungg Landwirtschaft und Forstenp Hamburg und Berlin 1970.

Decken# H., von derv "Entwicklung der Selbstversorgung Deutschlands mit landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugnissen"t (Berichte Uber 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 1971 de7 T3undesregierung. Bonn 1971.

DovringI 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 hague 1965.

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

Emde, K. and Philip M. Raup, The Minnesota Rural Real Estate Market 1970. Department of Agricultural and App­ lied Economics. Study Report p 71-J. May 1971.

Esslen, J. B., Die Fleischversorgung des Deutschen Hei­ ches. Eine Untersuchung der Ursachen und Wirkungen der Fleischteuerung und der Mittel zur Abhilfe. Stuttgart 1912. 79

Feuerstein, Horst, "BestimmungsgrUnde der Preise und des Transfers landwirtschaftlich genutzten Bodens", Agrarwirtschaft, Jahrgang 19 (1970), p. 22 - 33.

Finck von Finckenstein, Graf Hans Wolfram, Die Ent­ wicklung der Landwirtschaft in Preuben und Deutsch­ land 1800 - 1930. Publisher: Holzner Verlag, WUrzburg 1960.

Fourastig, Jean, and Fontaine, Claude, Documents pour l'histoire et la thgorie des prix. Centre d'Etudes des Economiques, Librairie Armand Colin. Paris 1958. Frans, Gfnther, Die Geschichte der Landtechnik im XX, Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/Main, DLG-Ver1aga-Gmbh., 1969.

Grupe. D.,'Die Nahrungsmittelversorgung Deutschlands seit 1925. Eine Auswertung der einschldgigen Statisti. ken zu vergleichbaren Versorgungsbilanzen",(Agrarwirt­ schaft, Sonderheft 3/4.)Hannover 1957.

Hanau, Arthur, "Die Stellung der Landwirtschaft in der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft", Agrarwirtschaft, January 1958, p. 1 - 16.

Hanau, Arthur, "The Disparate Stability of Farm and Nonfarm Prices", Proceedings of the Tenth Internatio­ nal Conference of Agricultural Economists. London, New York, Toronto, Oxford. University Press. 1960, p. 124 - 147.

Hayami, Yujiro, "Rice Policy in Japan's 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, The Hop­ kins Press, 1971.

IHayami, Y. in association with Barbara B. Miller, William W. Wade, Sachiko Yamashita, "An International Comparison of Agricultural Production and Productivties!', University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station. Technical Bulletin 277, 1971.

Hayami, Y. and Saburo Yamada, Agriculture and Economic Growth: Japan's Experience. Edited by Kazushi Okhawa, Bruce F. Johnston, Hiromitsu Kaneda. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 1970, p. 105 - 135.

Haselhoff, E., "Aus der Entwicklung des Verbandes deut­ scher landwirtschaftlicher Versuchsstationen". Reprinted from "Die landwirtschaftliche Versuchsstation". Organ far wissenschaftliche Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Land­ wirtschaft. Band 117, Berlin 1933. 80

Haushofer, Heinz, Die deutsche Landwirtschaft im tech­ nischen Zeitalter. (Deutsche Agrargeschichte, Bd. 5) Edited by G. Franz. Publisher: Eugen Ulmer. Stuttgart 1963.

heidhues "Theodor, Zur Theorie der landwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. In: Die Landwirtschaft in den heutigen In­ dustrielandern. (Schriften der Gesellschaft fUr Wirt­ schafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V., Band 5). Edited by H.G. Schlotter, Munchen, Basel, Wien 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 yolks- und welt­ wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. (Schriften der Gesellschaft fUr Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V., Band 5). Edited by H.-G. Schlotter Minchen, Basel, Wien 1968, p. 41 - 82.

Herlemann, H.-H. and H. Stamer, P2oduktionsgestaltung und BetriebsgrbBe in der Landwirtschaft unter dem Ein­ fluB 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. Hoffmann. TUbin­ gen 1959.

Hoffmann, Walther, G., Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirt­ schaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. With assis­ tance of Franz Grumbach and Helmut Hesse. Berlin, heidelv berg, New York: Springer 1965.

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

Jacobs, A. and H. Richter, Die Grofhandelspreise in Deutschland von 1792 bis 1934. (Vierteljahreshefte fUr Konjunkturforschung, Sonderheft Nr. 37). Berlin 1935.

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

Johnston, Bruce F., The Japanese "Model" of Agricultural Development: Its Relevance to Developing Nations. In: Agriculture and Economic Growth: Japans Experience. Edi­ ted by Kazushi 0khawai Bruce F. Johnston, Hiromitsu Kane­ da. Princeton, N. Y. Princeton University Press and Uni­ versity of Tokyo Press 1970, p. 58- 102. 81

Kaneda, Hiromitsu, "Long-term Changes in Food Consump­ tion Patterns in Japan", Agriculture and Economic Growth: Japan's Experience. Edited by Kazushi Okhawag Bruce F. Johnston, Hiromitsu Kaneda. Princeton University Press. University of Tokyo Press 1970, p. 398 - 429. Krohn, Hans-Broderq "Die Futtergetreidewirtschaft der Welt 1900 - 1954. Eine Untersuchung Uber die Entwicklung von Angebot und Nachfrage in der getreideverwertenden Veredelungsproduktion im wirtschaftlichen Wachstumspro­ zeS", Berichte Uber Landwirtschaftj 165. Sonderheft) Neue Folge. Hamburg and Berlin 1957.

Krzymowskid Richard$ Geschichte der deutschen Landwirt­ schaft. 2 edition. Stuttgart 1961.

Kuznets, Simon# "Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations", Economic Development and Cultural Changes, Vol. V9 No. 1, 1956, p. 1 - 94.

Lamer, Mirko, The World Fertilizer Economy. Stanford University Press. California 1957.

Lehmann, Hans Georgp Die Agrarfrage in der Theorie und Praxis der deutschen und internationalen Sozialdemokra­ tie. Vom Marxismus zum Revisionismus und Bolschewismus. Publisher: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). (THbinger Stu­ dien zur Geschichte und Politik. Founded oy Hans Rothfels. Edited by Josef Engels Theodor Eschenburg Dietrich Geyer, Xr. 26.) "Ubingen 1970.

Lembke, F.,# Gcnossenschaften auf dem Lande * Berlin, Leipzig kAbout 1909).

Lenkeit, Walter, Einfihrung in die Erndhrungsphysiologie der Haustiere, Publisher: Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart 1953.

Mandelbaum, The Industrialization of Backward Areas. Assisted by J. H. L. Deknederp 2 nd Edition, Oxford, Blackwell, 1955 (Institute of Statistics. Monograph No. 2).

Millendorfer, Hans und Gaspari, Christopft "Immaterielle und materielle Faktoren der Entwicklung. Ansdtze zu ei­ ner allgemeinen Produktionsfunktion", Zeitschrift fUr Nationalbkonomie, Bd. 31 (1971), p. 81 - 120.

MinistAre de ltagriculture, de itindustrie et des tra­ vaux publics. Agriculture, Recensement g'n6ral de 1910, Partie documentaire. Brussels 1910.

Nakamura, James I., Agricultural Production and the Economic Development of Japan 1873 - 1922. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1966. 82

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Agrioul­ tunl. Statistics 1955-1968, Paris 1969.

Okhawa. Kazushi, Phases of Agricultural Development, In: Agriculture and Economic Growth: Japan's Experi­ ence. Edited by Kazushi Okhawa, Bruce F. Johnston, Hiromitsu Kaneda, Princeton UniversitypPress. Univer­ sity of Tokyo Press 1970, p. 3 - 36.

Peterson, Willis, Principles c¢ 3conomics: Micro, home­ wood, Illinois, 1971.

Raupt 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. Rose, John Turn­ bull assisted by Jean B. Taber, University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota 1970, p. 126 - 170.

Roemer, Theodor und Fritz Scheffer, Ackerbaulehre.'edition. Publisher: Paul Parey, Berlin and Hamburg 1949. 1 Ruttan, Vernon W.g Technology and the Environment. Presidential Ad&ess," American Journal 6f Agricultu­ ral Economics , Vol. 53, Number 5, December 1971, p. 707 - 717. E, Ryanj Mary and James P. Houck, Regional Analysis of Export Demand for U.S. Soybean Products. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Minnesota. June 1970 (Manuscript).

Schmitt, G., "Agrarstudium und Agrarforschung im Wandel der Zeiten" 9 Berichte Uber Landwirtschaft, Band 47 (1969), p. 547 - 559.

Scholz, H., "Langfristige Entwicklung der Milchleistung je Kuh", Berichte Uber Landwirtbchafto Hamburg und Ber­ lin, Band 44 (196 6),p. 260 - 269.

Schwartz, Otto, "Die Wanderung des land- und forst­ wirtschaftlichen Bodens in Schleswig-Holstein", Be­ richte Uber Landwirtschaft, Band 46 (1968), p. 79 ­ 101.

Statistiske Department, Statistics of Denmark. Statistisk X-rbog 1958. Copenhagen 1959.

Stolper, Gustav, continued by Karl H~user, Knut Bor­ chardt, Deutsche Wirtschaft seit 1870. Tibingen 1964. English Edition: The German Economy. 1870 to the Present. Translated by Toni Stolper. New York, Chicago, San Fran­ cisco, Atlanta 1967. 83

Tracy, Michaels Agriculture in Western Europe. Crisis and Adoption since 1880. London 1964.

Tracv, Michael, "Capital-Output Ratios in Agriculture a;i Problems in their Use", Zeitschrift fUr National­ dkcnjmie, 30 (1970), p. 197 - 208.

Unge , Helmut, "Heuere Entwicklungstendenzen auf dem Welt-Stickstoffddngermarkt", Berichte Uber Landwirt­ schaft, Band 47 (1969), p. 26 - 58.

United States Department of Agriculture, State Agricul­ tural Experiment Stations. History of Research Policy and Procedure. Miscellanous Publication No. 904. Washing­ ton 1962.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Censusp 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 1970v Wade. William, B., Patterns of Economic Development: The European Age within the Concept of the Induced Inno­ vation Hypothesis. Seminar Paper Mimeographed. The Univ versity of Minnesota 1971.

Ward, J. T., "Farm Sale Prices over a Hundred -Years." The 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.

Weber9 Adolf, "Productivity Growth in German Agriculture: 1850-1970" (Appedix on Data on Productivity Growth in German Agriculture: 1850-1970). University of Minnesota, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economies, Staff Paper 73 1, August 1973, Mimeo.

Woermann, Emil, "Die Entwicklungslinien und Wandlungen der deutschen Erndhrungswirtschaft seit der ReichsgrUn­ dung", Kihn-Archiv, Band 50, Festschrift. Halle 1938, p. 55 - 102. Woermann, Emil, "Die Landwirtschaft im Industriestaat", In: Kali-Briefe. Fachgebiet 14, Betriebs- und LL-ndar­ beitslehre. 8. Folge 01955). 84

Woermann, Emil, Die Veredelungswirtschat. Betriebsformen und Rentabilit~tsfragen der Nutzviehhaltung. Berlin 1933.

Wohltmann, F., "Deutschlands Einfuhr und Bedarf land­ wirtschaftlicher Stoffe aus dew Auslande", Kithn-Archiv, Band VI, 1915, p. 239 - 295.

Wdhlken, E., Die Nachfrage nach Nahrungsmitteln tie­ rischer Herkunft unter dem EinfluO des Wirtschafts­ wachstums. In: Entwicklungstendenzen in der Produktion und im Absatz t'erischer Erzeugnisse. (Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft fur Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaf­ ten des Landbaues e.V., Bd. 6), Edited by A. Zapf, MUn­ chen, Basel, Wien; 1970, p. 2 - 30. Woytinsky, W.S. and E. S. Woytinsky, World Population and Production; Trends and Outlooki New York 1953.

Zimmerman, L. J., Poor Lands, Rich Lands. The Wide­ ning Gap. Studies in Economics. Random -ause. 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.