Better Opportunities or Worse? The Demise of Cotton Harvest Labor, 1949–1964

Abstract

Following World War II millions of cotton workers, especially African-Americans, left the fields forever, and farmers mechanized the cotton harvest. Prevailing empirical studies argue that high factory wages lured farmhands away. Based on newly reconstructed data, we estimate the causes of the demise of harvest employment in 12 major cotton-producing states from 1949-1964 and find important roles for mechanization, government farm programs, higher nonagricultural wages, and falling cotton prices. On net, our estimates indicate that factors affecting farm labor demand, not labor-supply influences, caused the disappearance of hand-picked cotton-results that reverse the best econometric work to date. "I didn't stay out on that farm too long after they started usin' the cotton pickers and whatnot. That was the time we was told to leave the farm."Mae Bertha Carter 1 I n the decades following World War II, cotton ceased to be harvested by hand, millions of workers left the cotton fields forever, and growers who stayed with cotton replaced field labor, hoes, and picking sacks with machines and chemicals. This socioeconomic transformation, which swept away a southern way of life in place for generations, has been intricately linked to fundamental changes in the nation's political economy, race relations, and urban life. Lee Alston and Joe Ferrie connect these changes to the rise of the federal welfare state against which southern rural landed elites withheld their veto only when mechanization eliminated their desire for a pool of cheap field labor.2 The mass out-migration of African-Americans from the South, which had begun earlier in the century and accelerated after 1940, converted race relations and racial economic equality from a southern Better Opportunities 7373 Donahue and Heckman, "Continuous Versus Episodic"; Fairlie and Sundstrom, "Emergence, Persistence"; and Smith and Welch, "Black Economic Progress." Heckman, "Central Role," focusing on the post-1965 period, notes that little progress occurred within regions before 1965 (see also Smith and Welch, "Black Economic Progress," p. 547). This is consistent with our findings. On "wage compression," its effect on the wage gap, and its reversal, see Maloney, "Wage Compression"; and show that Cogan overestimated the role of mechanization with respect to the decline in black teenage labor-force participation. Focusing on migration rather than the harvest labor market, Heinicke in "African-American Migration" attributes, at most, a quarter of the migration during the 1950s to the picker alone.6 Peterson and Kislev, "Cotton Harvester," p. 214, analyzed the hand-harvest labor market for all states that predominantly used mechanical cotton pickers, excluding Texas and Oklahoma where growers used stripping machines. Recently Donald Holley, replicating Peterson and Kislev's empirical approach with some modifications, attributed 60 percent of the decline in cotton harvest employment matter into one of national public interest. Whereas John Donahue and James Heckman emphasize...

When the Levee Breaks: Black Migration and Economic Development in the American South

“…Over the late 19th and early 20th centuries, levees were constructed to contain the river and its natural spillways were closed. In 1926, the new chief of the Army Corps of Engineers "for the first time officially stated in his annual report that the levees were finally in condition 'to prevent the destructive effect 3 Some economic historians have emphasized the role of the mechanical cotton picker in displacing workers (Day, 1967;Grove and Heinicke, 2003), while others have emphasized the impact of labor scarcity on mechanization of the cotton harvest (Peterson and Kislev, 1986;Holley, 2000). 4 While land ownership was often concentrated, "farm size" refers to the parcel size of farm operators.…”

When the Levee Breaks: Black Migration and Economic Development in the American South

“…Over the late 19th and early 20th centuries, levees were constructed to contain the river and its natural spillways were closed. In 1926, the new chief of the Army Corps of Engineers "for the first time officially stated in his annual report that the levees were finally in condition 'to prevent the destructive effect 3 Some economic historians have emphasized the role of the mechanical cotton picker in displacing workers (Day, 1967;Grove and Heinicke, 2003), while others have emphasized the impact of labor scarcity on mechanization of the cotton harvest (Peterson and Kislev, 1986;Holley, 2000). 4 While land ownership was often concentrated, "farm size" refers to the parcel size of farm operators.…”

Legislators' Response to Changes in the Electorate: The Great Migration and Civil Rights

“…A higher share of land in cotton and of farms operated by tenants in 1940 are associated with subsequent emigration. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the coefficient is not statistically significant for the 1940-1950 decade, possibly because cotton mechanization was more prevalent in the 1950s (Grove and Heinicke, 2003). As in Boustan (2016), a higher share of the labor force in mining and agriculture is associated with a larger emigration rate.…”

“…On the other hand, widespread violence and disenfranchisement, together with a separate and unequal school system, provided strong incentives for blacks to leave the South (Margo, 1991). Moreover, the mechanization of agricultural harvest in the 1940s and 1950s reduced demand for labor in the already depressed southern agricultural sector, further increasing the pool of prospective migrants (Grove and Heinicke, 2003;Whatley, 1985).…”