DOCSLIB.ORG

The New Road to Serfdom: the Curse of Bigness and the Failure of Antitrust

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU Law Faculty Scholarship Law Faculty Scholarship Fall 2015 The ewN Road to Serfdom: the Curse of Bigness and the Failure of Antitrust Carl Bogus Roger Williams University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/law_fac_fs Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Carl T. Bogus, The eN w Road to Serfdom: The urC se of Bigness and the Failure of Antitrust, 49 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 1, 120 (2015) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Scholarship at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 49 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 1 2015-2016 Provided by: Roger Williams University School of Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Mon Mar 6 10:17:06 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information THE NEW ROAD TO SERFDOM: THE CURSE OF BIGNESS AND THE FAILURE OF ANTITRUST Carl T. Bogus* This Article argues for a paradigm shift in modern antitrust policy. Rather than being concerned exclusively with consumer welfare, antitrust law should also be concerned with consolidated corporate power. Regulators and courts should con- sider the social and political, as well as the economic, consequences of corporate mergers. The vision that antitrust must be a key tool for limiting consolidated cor- porate power has a venerable legacy, extending back to the origins of antitrust law in early seventeenth century England, running throughout American history, and influencing the enactment of U.S. antitrust laws. However, the Chicago School's view that antitrust law should be exclusively concerned with consnmer welfare- that is, total industry output and consumer prices-has now become the consensus view. The result has impoverished communities, decreased innovation, increased corporate cronyism, and diminished the freedom of American citizens. This is too important a topic to be left up to antitrust specialists alone. As it was during the presidential election of 1912, antitrust must again be a subject of wide public debate. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 2 I. THE CHICAGO SCHOOL'S DEADWEIGHT VISION ......... 15 A. Robert H. Bork and the Chicago School's Central P rem ise ........................................... 15 B. Are All Mergers Rational CorporateDecisions? ....... 21 C. The Influence of Chicago School Theory on the Law... 26 II. THE SOCIO-POLITICAL TRADITION OF ANTITRUST ....... 37 A. Antitrust Origins .................................. 38 B. Sherman Act ................................... 42 C. The Antitrust Movement and the Clayton Act ........ 51 D. The New Deal..................................... 61 E. Mid-Twentieth Century............................. 74 F Merger Policy Today ............................... 81 III. BIG PROBLEMS ........................................... 85 * Professor of Law, Roger Williams University. Many thanks to Michael 1. Bloom, Cynthia Giles, Jared A. Goldstein, Jonathan M. Gutoff, Dennis A. Hennigan, DavidJ. Kolksy, Peter Margulies, TanyaJ. Monestier, Colleen P. Murphy, Jonathan Rauch, Louise Ellen Teitz, and Spencer Weber Waller for thoughtfil comments on earlier drafts. Errors and conclusions in this Article are mine alone. Thanks also to my Roger Williams research assistants, Thomas Pagliarini and Brian Almeida, and to Carla M. Voight, who did research for me during a semester visit at the George Washington University Law School, for their hard work on this project. University of MichiganJournal of Law Reform [VOL. 49:1 A. What We Learnedfrom the Banking Crisis of 2008... 86 B. The New Serfdom .................................. 96 C. Too Big to Regulate ............................... 106 CONCLUSION ................................................... 114 INTRODUCTION We are living in an era of behemoth corporations, consolidated industries, and enormous wealth flowing into the hands of a few people. This Article argues that our times demand a radical change in antitrust policy: Rather than focusing exclusively on consumer welfare, antitrust law should be concerned with the consequences of consolidated power. Moreover, antitrust needs to become a cen- tral topic of public debate. Just as Georges Clemenceau once declared that war is much too serious to be left to the generals,' I shall argue that antitrust is too important to be left exclusively to the economists. Antitrust issues are fundamental to American de- mocracy and society, and they need to be a matter of general public concern. There was a time when antitrust was, in fact, a subject of wide- spread public discussion. A century ago, Louis D. Brandeis warned the nation about the dangers of giant corporations and heavily con- centrated industries. Brandeis was concerned not merely with the economic effects of behemoth entities-that is, not only with whether they had the ability to gouge consumers through monop- oly prices-but also with the political and sociological effects of having fewer, larger companies rather than more, smaller ones. Among other things, Brandeis believed that big business weakened the spirit, verve, and elan of the nation. 2 As he saw it, every time an independent firm was swallowed by a conglomerate, someone who was previously a chief executive officer and captain of his or her ship became a mere member of the crew in a corporate bureau- cracy. He was not persuaded by corporate chieftains who claimed 1. See GEOFFREY O'BRIEN & JOHN BARTLrEIr, BARTLEFr'S FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS 348 n.5 (18th ed. 2012) (attributing the statement to Georges Clemenceau, among others). There are various versions and attributions for the quotation; the version in the main body, attrib- uted to Clemenceau, is the best known due to its use by the character General Jack Ripper in Stanley Kubrick's great film, Dr. Strangelove (1964). 2. See, e.g., MICIAELJ. SANDEL, DEMOcRAcY's DiscocrENrr: AMERICA IN SFARCH OF A PuP, Lie PimLOSOi'iiY 235-36 (1996) (placing Brandeis in the tradition of those who believed that independent entrepreneurs were vital to the moral and civic life of the nation). FALL 2015] The New Road to Serfdom that mergers made their businesses more efficient; he was con- vinced that many businesses were, in fact, too big to manage. And he was concerned that big businesses were too politically powerful. Brandeis sounded his tocsin in a series of magazines articles, a book, and congressional testimony. His views received widespread attention, and made him a trusted adviser of Woodrow Wilson. Brandeis' theories about "the curse of bigness" inspired one of the main debates in the 1912 election, which historians consider "one 3 of the greatest presidential campaigns in history." All four candidates in that contest-William Howard Taft, the incumbent president and Republican candidate; 4 Theodore 5 .Roosevelt, the former president and Progressive Party candidate; Woodrow Wilson, then governor of NewJersey and the Democratic candidate;6 and labor leader Eugene Debs, the candidate of the So- cialist Party7-spoke about big business and what to do about it. As improbable as it may seem looking back from our vantage point, antitrust became a major campaign issue. The clash was particularly pronounced between the two leading candidates and their programs, that is, between Wilson and what he called "The New Freedom," and Roosevelt and his "New National- ism." Each made his approach to antitrust and the control of big business a fundamental part of his platform. Echoing Brandeis' thinking, Wilson complained that big business was turning rugged individualists into serfs.8 "You know what happens when you are the servant of a corporation," Wilson declared; "Your individuality is 3. JOIN MILTON COOPER, JR., WooDRow WluSON: A BIOGRAPHIY 159 (2009). 4. Taft argued that he was doing more to break up the trusts than Roosevelt had when had been president. He observed that his administration had brought more antitrust actions in one term than Roosevelt's administration filed in two terms. H.W. BtANnS, TR: THE LAS'F ROMANrIc 707 (1997). Taft boasted that his administration was suing to break up United States Steel Corporation, which was then the largest company in the country and controlled by the most powerful of all corporate magnates, J.P. Morgan. Taft's attorney attacked Roosevelt by arguing that U.S. Steel had become an illegal monopoly when it purchased Tennessee Coal and Iron Company, which had been done with the express approval of then- President Teddy Roosevelt. JAME:S CHACE, 1912: WILSON, ROOsVI.VT, TAW" & DERs-Tj.: ErsCTrION THAT CHANGED THE CouNrIry 95-98 (2004). Taft believed the antitrust laws out- lawed corporate conduct, not size, and promised to continue to vigorously enforce those laws "no matter whether we be damned or not." 1d. at 95. 5. See infra at notes 8, 15-18, 20-22, 303-32 and accompanying text. 6. See infra at notes 8-14, 18-19, 23-25, 334-41 and accompanying text. 7. Debs was a democratic socialist who wanted to overthrow capitalism lock-stock-and- barrel at the ballot box. C IACE, supranote 4, at 67-68, 81, 85. Debs denounced Roosevelt as a "servile functionary of the trusts." Id. at 223. In 1894, Debs had been convicted and jailed for organizing the American Railway Union as a combination in restraint of trade, in violation of the Sherman Act, and he wanted to exempt labor unions from the antitrust laws. COOPER, sufrranote 3, at 230. 8. James Chace writes that in a three-hotur meeting at Wilson's home, Sea Girt, on August 28, 1912, Brandeis persuaded Wilson to make monopolies the principal issue of his University of MichiganJournal of Law Reform [VOL.
Recommended publications
  • Washington, Bowdoin, and Franklin

    Washington, Bowdoin, and Franklin

    WASH ING T 0 N, BOWDQIN, AND FRANKLIN, AS PORTRAYED IS 0CCASI0NAL AD L) RESSES. WashnQ ton JVitz.o nal Jtioimm ent Proposed heLght in clotted lines, 48.5 fi Completed, shown by dnrk lznes, 174 fi Stone Terrace, 25f* hzgh dLarneter 2OOfS WAS HIN G T 0 N, BOWDOIN, AND FRANKLIN, AS PORTRAYED IN OCCASIONAL ADDRESSES: BY vxi ROBERT C. WINTHROP. I WITH A FEW BRIE-F PIECES ON KINDRED TOPICS, ASD WITH NOTES AKD ILLUSTRATIONS. LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 1876. 7 /' Entered according to Act of Congress, in the pear 1876, by LITTLE, BROW6, AND CONIPANY, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Vashington. Cambridge : Press oj 70hWilson and Soti. PREFATORY NOTE. I ‘&VE so often, of late, been called on for copies of some of these productions, -no longer to be found in a separate or convenient form,-that I have ventured to think that they might prove an acceptable contribution to our Centennial Literature. They deal with two, certainly, of the greatest figures of the period we are engaged in commemorating; and BOWDOIN,I am persuaded, will be’ considered no un­ worthy associate of WASHINGTONand FRANKLINin such a publication. The Monument to Washington, to which the first pro­ duction relates, is still unfinished. It may be interesting to recall the fact that the Oration, on the laying of its corner-stone, was to have been delivered by JOHNQUINCY ADAMS. He died a few months before the occasion, and it was as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, of which he had long been the most illus­ trious member, that I was called on to supply his place.
  • Domar Source: the Journal of Economic History, Vol

    Domar Source: the Journal of Economic History, Vol

    Economic History Association The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom: A Hypothesis Author(s): Evsey D. Domar Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 30, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History (Mar., 1970), pp. 18-32 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2116721 Accessed: 18-09-2015 10:24 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press and Economic History Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Economic History. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 129.199.207.113 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:24:51 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Causes of Slaveryor Serfdom: A Hypothesis I THE purposeof thispaper is to present,or morecorrectly, to revive,a hypothesisregarding the causes of agriculturalserf- dom or slavery (used here interchangeably).The hypothesiswas suggestedby Kliuchevsky'sdescription of the Russian experience in the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies, but it aims at a wider applicability.' Accordingto Kliuchevsky,from about the second half of the fif- teenthcentury Russia was engaged in long hard wars against her westernand southernneighbors.
  • Second Serfdom and Wage Earners in European and Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to the Mid-Nineteenth Century

    Second Serfdom and Wage Earners in European and Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to the Mid-Nineteenth Century

    CHAPTER 1 SECOND SERFDOM AND WAGE EARNERS IN EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN THOUGHT FROM THE ENLIGHTENMENT TO THE MID-NINETEENTH CENTURY The Eighteenth Century: Forced Labor between Reform and Revolution The invention of backwardness in Western economic and philosophical thought owes much to the attention given to Russia and Poland in the beginning of the eighteenth century.1 The definitions of backwardness and of labor—which is the main element of backwardness—lies at the nexus of three interrelated debates: over serfdom in Eastern European, slavery in the colonies, and guild reform in France. The connection between these three debates is what makes the definition of labor—and the distinction between free and forced labor—take on certain character- istics and not others. In the course of the eighteenth century, the work of slaves, serfs, and apprentices came to be viewed not just by ethical stan- dards, but increasingly by its efficiency. On that basis, hierarchies were justified, such as the “backwardness” of the colonies relative to the West, of Eastern relative to Western Europe, and of France relative to England. The chronology is striking. Criticisms of guilds, serfdom, and slavery all hardened during the 1750s; Montesquieu published The Spirit of the Laws in 1748, which was soon followed by the first volumes of the Ency- clopédie.2 In these works the serfdom of absolutist and medieval Europe was contrasted with the free labor of Enlightenment Europe. Abbé de Morelli took up these themes in 1755, condemning both ancient serf- dom and modern forms of slavery, in both the colonies and Russia.
  • Northerners' Perspectives on American Emancipation and the End of Russian Serfdom

    Northerners' Perspectives on American Emancipation and the End of Russian Serfdom

    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2021 Northerners' Perspectives on American Emancipation and the End of Russian Serfdom Mariana S. Kellis University of Central Florida Part of the United States History Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Kellis, Mariana S., "Northerners' Perspectives on American Emancipation and the End of Russian Serfdom" (2021). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 947. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/947 NORTHERNERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICAN EMANCIPATION AND THE END OF RUSSIAN SERFDOM By: MARIANA KELLIS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in History in the College of Arts and Humanities and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term, 2021 Thesis Chair: Barbara Gannon, Ph.D. Abstract This thesis explores the various perspectives that Northern Americans had on Russian serfdom and its emancipation. This era was significant to both Russia and the United States because each country experienced tremendous reforms including the abolitions of their unfree labor institutions. Generally, Northern Americans viewed serfdom as a milder form of forced labor and suspected that it would be eradicated soon. Abolitionists used rumors of Russian emancipation to advocate for the end of American slavery.
  • Jimmy Gentry

    Jimmy Gentry

    THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE AN INTERVIEW WITH JIMMY GENTRY FOR THE VETERANS ORAL HISTORY PROJECT CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF WAR AND SOCIETY DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY INTERVIEW BY G. KURT PIEHLER AND KELLY HAMMOND FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE JULY 22, 2000 TRANSCRIPT BY KELLY HAMMOND REVIEWED BY PATRICK LEVERTON GREGORY KUPSKY KURT PIEHLER: This begins an interview with Jimmy Gentry in Franklin, Tennessee on July 22, 2000 with Kurt Piehler and … KELLY HAMMOND: Kelly Hammond. PIEHLER: I guess I’d like to ask you a very basic question. When were you born, and where were you born? JIMMY GENTRY: I was born right here. Not in town; just out of Franklin, in what is now called Wyatt Hall. My family rented that house. I was there, but I don’t remember. (Laughs) So I was born right here. PIEHLER: What date were your born? GENTRY: Uh, November 28, 1924 or 5. Don’t ask me those questions like that. (Laughter) ’25, I believe, ‘cause I’ll soon be seventy-five. That must be right. PIEHLER: And you are native of Franklin. GENTRY: I really am. I have lived in Franklin, outside of Franklin, which is now in Franklin, and now I am back outside of Franklin. But Franklin is my home base, yes. PIEHLER: And could you maybe talk a little bit about your parents first? I guess, beginning with your father? GENTRY: Alright. My father originally came from North Carolina. Marshall, North Carolina, as I recall, near Asheville, and then he worked first for the railroad company for a short time.
  • The Gulag As a Reinvention of Serfdom in Soviet Russia

    The Gulag As a Reinvention of Serfdom in Soviet Russia

    READING COPY ONLY NOT FOR CITATION The Gulag as a Reinvention of Serfdom in Soviet Russia By David J. Nordlander Intractable for centuries, forced labor has proven to be an enduring legacy of Russian history. What began as a gradual restriction of peasant movement in earlier times became institutionalized within a state that ultimately relied upon coercion as a chief lever of economic policy in both the tsarist and Soviet periods. The most notable measure of unfree labor, the institution of serfdom, constituted the base of a pyramid that upheld the tsarist polity. But the endemic problems of a cash-poor economy and imbalanced labor supply did not end with the Bolshevik Revolution, and thus helped shape the outlines of the Soviet era. The idealism of October quickly gave way to a harshening of labor policy, culminating in the extreme response of Stalinism that essentially led to a reenserfment of the peasantry and a pernicious expansion of the most repressive aspects of tsarism. The Gulag in particular encapsulated these trends and became the embodiment of Soviet coercion in the twentieth century. The continuities between the tsarist and Soviet epochs were both obvious and subtle. Imprisonment, exile, and restriction of movement were to be found in both eras, albeit in an even more harsh form under Stalin. While trumpeting an idealistic and 2 liberationist rhetoric, the Soviet experiment in reality soon revived and expanded upon the economic and political coercion of its tsarist predecessor. Just as significantly, social and cultural parallels also were noteworthy. In spite of their progressive cant, Soviet bosses essentially formed a new ruling elite that contentedly reshaped the privileges of power and formed a revived aristocracy.
  • The Franklin's Tale

    The Franklin's Tale

    The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer 1/44 Contents Part One: The Prologue................................................................................3 Part Two: The Knight's Tale........................................................................ 8 Part Three: The Nun's Priest's Tale............................................................14 Part Four: The Pardoner's Tale...................................................................20 Part Five: The Wife of Bath's Tale.............................................................26 Part Six: The Franklin's Tale......................................................................32 Track 1: Part One Listening Exercise 4.................................................. 38 Track 2: Part Two Listening Exercise 5..................................................39 Track 3: Part Three Listening Exercise 4................................................40 Track 4: Part Four Listening Exercise 4................................................. 41 Track 5: Part Five Listening Exercise 5&6.............................................43 Track 6: Part Six Listening Exercise 4....................................................44 2/44 Part One: The Prologue In April, when the sweet showers① fallandfeedtherootsintheearth,the flowers begin to bloom②. The soft wind blows from the west and the young sun rises in the sky. The small birds sing in the green forests. Then people want to go on pilgrimages. from every part of England, they go to Canterbury to visit the tomb of Thomas Becket, the martyr③, who helped the sick. My name is Geoffrey Chaucer .People say that I am a poet but I am not really very important. I am just a story-teller. One day in spring, I was stayinginLondonattheTabardInn④. At night, a great crowd of people arrived at the inn, ready to go on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. I soon made friends with them and promised to join them. 'You must get up early,' they told me. 'We are leaving when the sun rises.' Before I begin my story, I will describe the pilgrims to you.
  • State Capacity and the Rise and Fall of Serfdom in Europe

    State Capacity and the Rise and Fall of Serfdom in Europe

    STATE CAPACITY AND THE RISE AND FALL OF SERFDOM IN EUROPE Tracy Dennison California Institute of Technology March 2021 Motivations for This Project Two questions emerged from Voshchazhikovo study: 1) How do the estate- Summary: ➢Role of the state is key to understanding institutional context of serfdom ➢Serfdom is part of a weak state equilibrium; ruler must make concessions to other powerful actors to obtain services/revenues/cooperation. Serfdom is a constraint on fiscal aims of the crown. ➢In order to loosen this constraint, state has to be able to perform administrative functions that its noble agents perform in exchange for their privileges. ➢This happens gradually over 17th- 19th cc in Prussia (and earlier in much of western Europe). Decline of serfdom reflects underlying institutional reconfigurations. ➢In Russia serfdom is formally abolished, but the state still remains weak vis-à-vis other groups with limited options for surplus extraction. ➢Key difference: law - legal practices and processes - esp enforcement of property rights emerges as an important tool for states in western/central Europe but not in Russia ➢This suggestive finding has implications for our understanding of origins of ”inclusive”/”open access” institutions and emergence of strong central states Larger Political Economy of Serfdom Towns Merchants State Craft Guilds MerchantsNobles Peasants Even Larger Political Economy of Serfdom Towns Merchants State Craft Guilds MerchantsNobles CHURCH Peasants Institutional Framework of Serfdom Key Points (and Caveats): ➢State concedes privileges to different groups – all of which (including the state) are competing for surpluses - in exchange for: administration (tax collection, conscription), military service, revenue, loans, loyalty ➢These groups are not monolithic – nor is the state; there is internal conflict and there can be shifting alliances.
  • Serfs and the Market: Second Serfdom and the East-West Goods Exchange, 1579-1857

    Serfs and the Market: Second Serfdom and the East-West Goods Exchange, 1579-1857

    Serfs and the Market: Second Serfdom and the East-West goods exchange, 1579-1857 Tom Raster1 Paris School of Economics [email protected] This version: June 2, 2019 Abstract Using novel shipment-level data on maritime trade between 1579 and 1856, this paper documents the evolution in grain exports from from Western to Eastern Europe and the rise of unfree labor in the former. Hypotheses first formulated more than 60 years ago, that export opportunities spurred labor coercion, motivate the exploration of this relationship. A new dataset of key labor legislation dates in the Baltic area captures de-jure unfree labor (e.g. serfdom or mobility bans). We also capture de-facto variation in coercion using existing data on coercion proxies (land holdings, serf manumission and/or wages) in Denmark, Prussia and Scania and novel household-level corvée data in Estonia. Our findings suggest that increases in grain prices and exports to the West happen, in many instances, concurrently with increases in de-jure and de-facto coercion in the East; thus, providing support for the hypothesis. Specifically, we observe that locations with better export potential see higher de-facto la- bor coercion; a finding that cannot be reconciled with existing models which predict less coercion in the proximity of cities due to outside options. We rationalize these findings in a new, open-economy labor coercion model that explains why foreign demand for grain is particularly likely to foster coercion. Our empirics may also be interpreted as evidence that Scania’s opening of the land market to peasants allowed them to benefit from trade and reduced labor coercion even in the absence of any coercion-constraining labor policies.
  • Russian Serfdom, Emancipation, and Land Inequality: New Evidence

    Russian Serfdom, Emancipation, and Land Inequality: New Evidence

    Russian Serfdom, Emancipation, and Land Inequality: New Evidence Steven Nafziger1 Department of Economics, Williams College May 2013 Note to Readers: This long descriptive paper is part of an even larger project - "Serfdom, Emancipation, and Economic Development in Tsarist Russia" - that is very much a work in progress. As such, some obvious extensions are left out. I apologize for any inconsistencies that remain. Abstract Serfdom is often viewed as a major institutional constraint on the economic development of Tsarist Russia, one that persisted well after emancipation occurred in 1861 through the ways that property rights were transferred to the peasantry. However, scholars have generally asserted this causal relationship with few facts in hand. This paper introduces a variety of newly collected data, covering European Russia at the district (uezd) level, to describe serfdom, emancipation, and the subsequent evolution of land holdings among the rural population into the 20th century. A series of simple empirical exercises describes several important ways that the institution of serfdom varied across European Russia; outlines how the emancipation reforms differentially affected the minority of privately owned serfs relative to the majority of other types of peasants; and connects these differences to long-run variation in land ownership, obligations, and inequality. The evidence explored in this paper constitutes the groundwork for considering the possible channels linking the demise of serfdom to Russia’s slow pace of economic growth prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. JEL Codes: N33, Keywords: Russia, economic history, serfdom, inequality, land reform, institutions 1 Tracy Dennison offered thoughtful questions at the onset of this project. Ivan Badinski, Cara Foley, Veranika Li, Aaron Seong, and Stefan Ward-Wheten provided wonderful research assistance.
  • THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO Freeman and Slave, Patrician And

    THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO Freeman and Slave, Patrician And

    THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself. To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages. I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild- master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. 240 THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO 241 in the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a compli- cated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank.
  • Government Finance and Imposition of Serfdom After the Black Death

    Government Finance and Imposition of Serfdom After the Black Death

    Government Finance and Imposition of Serfdom after the Black Death Margaret E. Peters∗ University of California, Los Angeles Abstract After the Black Death, serfdom disappeared in Western Europe while making a resurgence in Eastern Europe. What explains this difference? I argue that serfdom was against the interests of the sovereign and was only imposed when the nobility, most of whom needed serfdom to maintain their economic and social standing, had leverage to impose their will. One way the nobility gained this power was through financing the military. Using data from the fourteenth to through the eighteenth centuries, I show that serfdom was imposed in areas where sovereigns had few other resources to pay for war or defense. This paper addresses the causes of a historical institution that scholars from Moore (1966) to Acemoglu and Robinson (2006) have argued played an important role in the development, or lack thereof, of democracy and long-term economic growth. ∗Department of Political Science, UCLA, 4289 Bunche Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095, [email protected]. I would like to thank Jessica Clayton, Stephen Moncrief, and Mark Toukan for their research assistance. I would also like to thank Maarten Bosker, Davide Cantoni, David Stasavage, and Nico Voigtländer for sharing their data. and Allison Carnegie, Jeff Colgan, Mark Dincecco, Steve Haber, Seva Guinitsky, Andrew Kerner, Frances Rosenbluth, David Steinberg, Felicity Vabulas, and the participants of the Stanford Comparative Politics Workshop, the 2013 IPES Conference, the 2014 International Studies Association Annual Conference, and the Yale International Relations Workshop for their comments. All errors remain my own. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3320807 Introduction In Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, the laws governing the lives of peasants in Europe diverged.